Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 24, 2019, 09:19:45 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: What happened to:H.R.1333 : To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 5 [All] Send this topic Print
Author Topic: What happened to:H.R.1333 : To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002  (Read 14275 times)
wingnut
Guest
« on: April 23, 2008, 01:29:11 PM »

Stuck in committee for a YEAR?? ??? ??? ??? :-\

anything else cooking out there?
Report to moderator   Logged
JC004
[Insert Cool Title Here]
Global Moderator

Posts: 4,516

« Reply #1 on: April 23, 2008, 01:48:18 PM »

It was sent to committee to die, and it worked.  Committee is where bills go to die.
Report to moderator   Logged
O-Rex
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 903

« Reply #2 on: April 24, 2008, 05:57:47 PM »

It was sent to committee to die, and it worked.  Committee is where bills go to die.

reminds me of 'I'm just a bill' from Schoolhouse Rock:

"It's a long, long, long wait, while I'm sitting in committee. . . ."

remember that one??  ;D
Report to moderator   Logged
davedove
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 964
Unit: MER-MD-003

« Reply #3 on: April 24, 2008, 05:59:22 PM »

It was sent to committee to die, and it worked.  Committee is where bills go to die.

reminds me of 'I'm just a bill' from Schoolhouse Rock:

"It's a long, long, long wait, while I'm sitting in committee. . . ."

remember that one??  ;D

I'm just a bill, yes I'm only a bill,
and I'm sittin' here on Capitol Hill.......
Report to moderator   Logged
David W. Dove, Maj, CAP
Deputy Commander for Seniors
Personnel/PD/Asst. Testing Officer
Ground Team Leader
Frederick Composite Squadron
MER-MD-003
O-Rex
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 903

« Reply #4 on: April 24, 2008, 07:02:56 PM »

It was sent to committee to die, and it worked.  Committee is where bills go to die.

reminds me of 'I'm just a bill' from Schoolhouse Rock:

"It's a long, long, long wait, while I'm sitting in committee. . . ."

remember that one??  ;D

I'm just a bill, yes I'm only a bill,
and I'm sittin' here on Capitol Hill.......


I just bought the DVD w/all the videos & songs for myself my 8 year-old

Back to the subject, linky will explain what it is:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1333
Report to moderator   Logged
JC004
[Insert Cool Title Here]
Global Moderator

Posts: 4,516

« Reply #5 on: April 24, 2008, 07:51:00 PM »

Report to moderator   Logged
wingnut
Guest
« Reply #6 on: April 25, 2008, 06:22:16 AM »

Gee Guys thanks for the Government Lesson,

but with all of the National HQ people and the Capital squadron, what is the real news, in some cases i feel like the real news is being passed on this blog, the rest we are spoon fed PAO stuff.
Report to moderator   Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #7 on: April 25, 2008, 12:06:36 PM »

The vast majority of bills filed in Congress (or any Legislature) do not become law.  Unless you happen to have a congressman who takes a real special interest in it, no bill is likely to go anywhere besides committee.
Report to moderator   Logged
JC004
[Insert Cool Title Here]
Global Moderator

Posts: 4,516

« Reply #8 on: April 25, 2008, 03:12:30 PM »

Like with the public safety officers benefit act amendment, I imagine that is the real story.  I has been over a year and it looks like it even has less co-sponsors than the PSOBA amendment.
Report to moderator   Logged
JohnKachenmeister
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,352

« Reply #9 on: April 25, 2008, 07:23:44 PM »

It was sent to committee to die, and it worked.  Committee is where bills go to die.

So... Committee is to bills what Florida is to old people?
Report to moderator   Logged
Another former CAP officer
JC004
[Insert Cool Title Here]
Global Moderator

Posts: 4,516

« Reply #10 on: April 25, 2008, 10:16:32 PM »

It was sent to committee to die, and it worked.  Committee is where bills go to die.

So... Committee is to bills what Florida is to old people?

Exactly. 

Leave it to Kach to explain things.   >:D
Report to moderator   Logged
SAR-EMT1
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,502
Unit: GLR-IL-328

« Reply #11 on: April 26, 2008, 12:29:08 AM »

But he LIVES in Florida...

Then again, so does he who wont be named
Report to moderator   Logged
C. A. Edgar
AUX USCG Flotilla 8-8
Former CC / GLR-IL-328
Firefighter, Paramedic, Grad Student
mikeylikey
Banned

Posts: 3,755

« Reply #12 on: April 26, 2008, 01:47:02 AM »

^ Alligators live in Florida too! 
Report to moderator   Logged
What's up monkeys?
Cecil DP
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,208

« Reply #13 on: April 26, 2008, 03:28:41 AM »

The vast majority of bills filed in Congress (or any Legislature) do not become law.  Unless you happen to have a congressman who takes a real special interest in it, no bill is likely to go anywhere besides committee.

All bills go through the committee process. After everyone has had their say and a hearing has been held it may be voted on by the committee, and then sent to the full house or senate. Then it goes before a joint committee that irons out the differences between the house and senate versions. Then its reintroduced and voted on again to finally become law.
BTW if the Air Force doesn't support the CAP part of the bill, it won't happen They have lobbyists too aka AF Legislative Liason Officer and the AFA.
Report to moderator   Logged
Michael P. McEleney
LtCol CAP
MSG  USA Retired
GRW#436 Feb 85
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #14 on: April 26, 2008, 01:05:34 PM »

Never said that they didn't.  Just stated the fact that most go no farther than the committee.
Report to moderator   Logged
wingnut
Guest
« Reply #15 on: April 27, 2008, 06:22:24 AM »

We do to now ;D

But whats up with the Capital Squadron??
Report to moderator   Logged
Gunner C
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,748

« Reply #16 on: May 04, 2008, 01:34:35 PM »

It was sent to committee to die, and it worked.  Committee is where bills go to die.

So... Committee is to bills what Florida is to old people?

OUCH!

Gunner C
Former Old Guy
Report to moderator   Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #17 on: May 17, 2008, 01:40:26 PM »

It now looks like the bill has been passed out of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (the other committee the bill had been sent to) on May 15th. 

Still no confirmation anywhere that I can find that it has been changed from a "you will make an agreement" to a "lets do a report about it" bill. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Ranger75
Forum Regular

Posts: 102

« Reply #18 on: May 17, 2008, 09:41:58 PM »

The below traffic was received yesterday afternoon:

Subject:  Special Congressional Hearing Request    '

Everyone -- On May 20 an amended version of HR 1333--The Civil Air Patrol Homeland Security Support Act of 2007--will be marked up in the House Homeland Security Committee. This new version is expected to be an important bill relative to the future of the Civil Air Patrol. Congressman Dent's office has asked for Civil Air Patrol members to attend the markup in order to clearly show the Committee members that CAP supports the new bill. The markup, which is open to the public, is scheduled to be held in Cannon Room 311 but the time has not yet been determined.

General Courter would like as many uniformed CAP members (in proper Class A uniform or appropriate corporate uniform) as possible to attend. Please let me know as soon as you can how many members you think may be able to attend from your wing or unit. Also be aware that we will not have a final confirmation of the markup time until two or three work days before the hearing. I will get that information out as soon as we have it.

I've included the details from Congressman Dent's request below. If you have any questions please give me a call at (334) 354-0825 or you can email me at dcoffice@cap.gov.

Many of you (and your fellow wing members) were present for the original hearing for HR 1333. It made a big difference then. Your help can also make a big difference now if it is possible for you or any members under your command to attend. Thank you for both your help on this matter and everything you do for Civil Air Patrol.

Regards,

John Swain, Colonel, CAP
Government Relations Advisor
Civil Air Patrol



_______________________________



From: "Richards, Pete"
Date: 2008/05/12 Mon AM 09:24:27 CDT

I just wanted to give you an update on our Civil Air Patrol, HR 1333. As you may know, our bill was amended during the Emergency Communications Subcommittee (of the Homeland Security Committee) markup on April 30. The bill now calls for the implementation of a GAO report that will study the ways the CAP can be useful to the homeland security mission. This is, I think, an important step forward. If the GAO can help to define how the CAP can best augment the efforts of the Department of Homeland Security, this will be a further justification for increasing the Cap's role in the homeland security mission.

On May 15, the bill will be marked up in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, where we have been dealing with staffers who have indicated to us that the bill looks as if it will pass. Subsequent to the deliberations in the Transportation and Infrastructure  Committee, our bill will next move to the full Homeland Security Committee on May 20. This is a very important day for this legislation. The Chairman of the Committee, Bennie Thompson, is not a co-sponsor of the bill. It is my understanding, however, that he may be receptive to the bill on May 20, but I believe it would be a good idea to show the Chairman just how much the CAP would like this legislation to pass.

In that regard, I think it would be helpful if the CAP could have as many individuals present at the markup on May 20 as possible, and thus I am asking if it would be possible for you to pass the word among the membership to come to DC to attend the hearing (in uniform). We do not have a time for the hearing yet, but it will be held in Room 311 of the Cannon Building (the Homeland Security Committee meeting room). I will forward more details regarding the time of that hearing when those details become available.
Report to moderator   Logged
Gunner C
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,748

« Reply #19 on: May 17, 2008, 10:20:49 PM »

^ Quote snipped - MIKE

"Class A" Uniform - we'll never get away from that - no wonder.   ::)

I'm assuming that they're asking for service dress.  Alright you guys, no polo shirts or mess dress.  ;D
« Last Edit: May 18, 2008, 01:00:37 AM by MIKE » Report to moderator   Logged
mikeylikey
Banned

Posts: 3,755

« Reply #20 on: May 18, 2008, 12:15:23 AM »

Wow......we will get a report from the GAO.  Expect that to be in 2010, and expect it to state that CAP should not be used.  Everyone needs to look up what the GAO does.  I wouldn't be surprised if they come back with a  recommendation that CAP should not receive any more Government funding.  These are the guys that try to cut Govt spending and find ways to make organizations work with less money. 

The Bill is dead.   
Report to moderator   Logged
What's up monkeys?
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #21 on: May 18, 2008, 12:24:27 AM »

Basically, yeah.  And, I'm pretty sure they could have gotten the GAO to do a study without making it a law that they do so. 
Report to moderator   Logged
MIKE
Super Moderator

Posts: 5,461
Unit: LANTAREA

« Reply #22 on: May 18, 2008, 01:06:50 AM »

"Class A" Uniform - we'll never get away from that - no wonder.   ::)

OT:  If I were a soldier, I'd show up in Class A's... and if they said anything I would say that they said "Class A's"... Where's yours? That'll teach 'em. >:D
Report to moderator   Logged
Mike Johnston
FW
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,186

« Reply #23 on: May 18, 2008, 01:32:06 AM »

Everyone needs to look up what the GAO does.  I wouldn't be surprised if they come back with a  recommendation that CAP should not receive any more Government funding.  These are the guys that try to cut Govt spending and find ways to make organizations work with less money. 

The Bill is dead.   

I don't know about that.  It is a gamble though.  Let's see, $11M plus O&M for 1 UAV to fly border patrol vs. $29H for 1 CAP aircraft to fly each day.   Hmmmmm...
Cut spending..... make organizations work with less money.....  Hmmmm.... :-\

"Class A" Uniform - we'll never get away from that - no wonder.   ::)

OT:  If I were a soldier, I'd show up in Class A's... and if they said anything I would say that they said "Class A's"... Where's yours? That'll teach 'em. >:D

Let's be careful dressing. People may think we have no class. >:D

Report to moderator   Logged
Gunner C
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,748

« Reply #24 on: May 18, 2008, 12:51:43 PM »

Everyone needs to look up what the GAO does.  I wouldn't be surprised if they come back with a  recommendation that CAP should not receive any more Government funding.  These are the guys that try to cut Govt spending and find ways to make organizations work with less money. 

The Bill is dead.   

I don't know about that.  It is a gamble though.  Let's see, $11M plus O&M for 1 UAV to fly border patrol vs. $29H for 1 CAP aircraft to fly each day.   Hmmmmm...
Cut spending..... make organizations work with less money.....  Hmmmm.... :-\

"Class A" Uniform - we'll never get away from that - no wonder.   ::)

OT:  If I were a soldier, I'd show up in Class A's... and if they said anything I would say that they said "Class A's"... Where's yours? That'll teach 'em. >:D

Let's be careful dressing. People may think we have no class. >:D



I think the problem shakes out something like this:

  • We don't lobby well. While we have good contacts in congress, we don't have the full help of the AF.  As Randy Quaid said in Independence Day "They have bigger fish to fry."
  • We don't look like we can do the job. We don't look all that good in uniform, our uniforms aren't uniform, our paperwork isn't uniform.  We just don't live up to the military addage "It's not how you play, it's how you look."
  • We don't play well with others.  We haven't standardized our own training much less being NIMS compliant. We don't follow the lead of Mother Blue in most of what we do.  We cry and moan when we don't get our way and complain when other organizations don't pat us on the head and say "Let me kiss it and make it better."
  • We complain that we're asked to do hard things and protest that we shouldn't because we're just volunteers:  get haircuts and loose the beards, wear uniforms correctly, complete paperwork, etc.

Seriously, if you were an outside agency and came to the typical CAP unit would you say "We need to get these guys to the front lines!"  Heck no!  CAP officers tend to be sloppy managers, high ranking officers (too many times) are relieved for (basically) corruption, and your typical commander or operations officer couldn't write an operations plan or an operations order if their life depended on it (much less explain the difference). 

It pains me to say it, but CAP is a mess and we'll never get the organization changed until we get away from the NEC/NB format we have now.  We can't create change if the people who need changing are in charge.  We need a MAJOR overhaul.

GC
Report to moderator   Logged
FW
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,186

« Reply #25 on: May 18, 2008, 03:58:17 PM »

Gunner, that is an interesting opinion.  However, I disagree with it.  We lobby well; perhaps too well.  I see things from a slightly different perspective.  Our "lobbyist" is very busy and gets great responses.  I met with him last week while delivering an aircraft for the CAP exhibit at the JSOH Andrews AFB.  He was very excited about funding for new and existing projects and missions.  He was also optimistic about H.R.1333.

We do well with the Air Force.  It is their job to see we spend our grant "appropriately".  Let's say we have an obligation to "question" their judgement from time to time. 

Outside agencies are calling for our assistance all the time.  Sorry you don't see it.  Our problem, as you did state,  is having enough qualified members to assist.  Organizationally, we do play well with others. We will be NIMS compliant by the federal deadline.  IS300 & IS400 courses are being set up all over the country for our members.  But, we can only lead them to the promised land; we can't force them to cross over :angel:

We may have had some "corrupt" commanders in the past.  There may be some who are less than perfect today.  But, we deal with it best we can.  Give me one example of the "perfect" organization and I'll show you one without members.  And, I'm not really interested in the"self licking icecream cone" comparison anymore.  It is flawed and does not accurately describe our "management" situation. 

Complaints are good.  I complain all the time.  But I still do the job, and I enjoy what I do. 

Uniforms, well this situation predates my involvement with CAP (1967).  Anyone want an old Guyaberra(sic) shirt? ;D  I wouldn't mind us being a bit more "uniform".

CAP is no "mess".  Yes, it needs changing and, it will.  The people "in charge" direct the change and they will. Every member of the NEC is committed to positive change.  Don't take my word for it;  just follow the events of the next few months. 

Report to moderator   Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #26 on: May 18, 2008, 04:51:21 PM »

How is our training not standard?  We have national standards for all mission ratings and at this point we're no more non-NIMS compliant than most police or fire departments .  Yes, we've got a ways to go, but then again so does everybody. 

The fact that CAP has funding from well over half the states shows that we do play pretty well with others as a general rule and that most states like us.  Sure, we've got room for improvement in terms of local coordination, but that will always be a challenge given turnover in CAP and in local agencies. 

We don't lobby well?  Heck, just last year or the year before we went around the AF and got a ton of money restored to CAP's budget.  Not sure how we pulled it off, but we did. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Gunner C
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,748

« Reply #27 on: May 19, 2008, 01:07:23 PM »

Gunner, that is an interesting opinion.  However, I disagree with it.  We lobby well; perhaps too well.  I see things from a slightly different perspective.  Our "lobbyist" is very busy and gets great responses.  I met with him last week while delivering an aircraft for the CAP exhibit at the JSOH Andrews AFB.  He was very excited about funding for new and existing projects and missions.  He was also optimistic about H.R.1333.
No question, he is a fine officer and does a great service.  He's only one person - we need many more like him to be really effective.  Capitol Hill is up to the gunwales in lobbyists and we need more folks talking to congress AND the executive departments on a continuing basis.

Quote
We do well with the Air Force.  It is their job to see we spend our grant "appropriately".  Let's say we have an obligation to "question" their judgement from time to time. 
But, in the context of above, the AF doesn't spend much time helping us get our name out there.  1st AF is sold on us but the reason we're not heavily engaged with other organizations is that we (1) don't give them the impression that we're a serious organization and (2) we don't sell ourselves.  If we showed up every time with blue and green flight suits for air missions, BDUs and BBDUs for ground missions, and appropriate "serious" uniforms at mission bases we'd sell ourselves much better.

Quote
Outside agencies are calling for our assistance all the time.  Sorry you don't see it.  Our problem, as you did state,  is having enough qualified members to assist. 


(I'll keep this non-descript since the specific info is FOUO) We have 19 lines on the ATO for last week for the whole country. 8 of the lines are to fly other agencies' people so they can do their own recon.  So 11 lines are for CAP doing what CAP does - reconnaissance. BTW, only 1 line is for a GA8.  That's not impressive for a 500 aircraft force.

People aren't getting qualified in the numbers we need because there's not national training plan and we don't retain nearly enough of our people (if folks were getting training, we'd retain many more).  Each region, wing, group, and squadron trains what they see fit.  We spend a lot of money in the wrong places because of that.  Since there's no training management, we don't get the most bang for the buck.  I did this for my last four years in SF and coordinated all SOF high risk training plus all classified courses. 

Quote
Organizationally, we do play well with others. We will be NIMS compliant by the federal deadline.  IS300 & IS400 courses are being set up all over the country for our members.  But, we can only lead them to the promised land; we can't force them to cross over :angel:

 :D As a former commander (2x looser) and former chief of staff I know what you're saying.  But when I talk to ICs, they don't understand the NIMS relationship between CAP and the mission lead agency.  I can tell you that it pisses off other agencies when a CAP officer calls up and introduces himself as the "Incident Commander."  We, as a force, have a long way to go - there's still a lot of the old mission coordinator mentality left over.

Quote
We may have had some "corrupt" commanders in the past.  There may be some who are less than perfect today.  But, we deal with it best we can.  Give me one example of the "perfect" organization and I'll show you one without members.  And, I'm not really interested in the"self licking icecream cone" comparison anymore.  It is flawed and does not accurately describe our "management" situation. 

The current leadership (collectively, not individually) is a product of decades of no comprehensive program to train leaders at the squadron/group, wing/region, or national levels.  There's a large amount of discussion on this forum about how the CAP PD system doesn't really address the skill sets needed to train the next generation of leaders - a weekend here and there won't get it.  We have thousands of Lt Cols who are great guys and gals, great members, great technicians, but as far as leadership goes, they can't find their wallets with both hands and a flashlight.

Quote
Complaints are good.  I complain all the time.  But I still do the job, and I enjoy what I do. 

Uniforms, well this situation predates my involvement with CAP (1967).  Anyone want an old Guyaberra(sic) shirt? ;D  I wouldn't mind us being a bit more "uniform".

See above.  Uniformity should be part of marketing.

Quote
CAP is no "mess".  Yes, it needs changing and, it will.  The people "in charge" direct the change and they will. Every member of the NEC is committed to positive change.  Don't take my word for it;  just follow the events of the next few months. 

They're good people but they're a bit like the blind men trying to describe an elephant.  Ever since the AF got out of the business of being the national commander, we've been slipping in a bad direction - we need to change.

GC
Report to moderator   Logged
mikeylikey
Banned

Posts: 3,755

« Reply #28 on: May 19, 2008, 03:31:52 PM »

CAP is no "mess".  Yes, it needs changing and, it will.  The people "in charge" direct the change and they will. Every member of the NEC is committed to positive change.  Don't take my word for it;  just follow the events of the next few months. 

Sir, I agree with your entire post except what I quoted.  Too often we hear "just wait and see what we do in the months ahead".  That is an excuse used when an organization knows it sucks, but does not want to admit it publicly.  Why do we need to sit and wait when we can look at the events leading up to today?  That is what a reasonable person would do.  I am now anxious to see what is coming in the next few months, because I bet it will only be more of the same.......NOTHING.  We talk about change all the time, we are still waiting on CAP reg's that could have been produced by a Monkey in a week. 

Perhaps some of us are tired of playing the "wait and see" game.  Maybe we wanted to see some results and action a year ago when it was promised to us. 

This whole thing is BOGUS.  There still is no real vision, mission or direction from the Woman who is supposed to be leading our organization.  Oh but wait, those issues are not as important as discussing what bling Hawk MTN and NBB grads should be wearing, so it gets put on the side burner.  At least with Pineda, we were headed somewhere (although we were headed to self destruction, it was still somewhere). 

Maybe it is time for the AF to emplace an AF General Officer back in the Commander seat. 
Report to moderator   Logged
What's up monkeys?
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #29 on: May 19, 2008, 05:00:49 PM »

Quote
There still is no real vision, mission or direction from the Woman who is supposed to be leading our organization.

I suppose you haven't read her column in the May-June Volunteer, which lays out all of that.  It would be nice for them to post the actual strategic plan, but I imagine they're waiting to officially announce it.
Report to moderator   Logged
Gunner C
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,748

« Reply #30 on: May 19, 2008, 06:02:59 PM »

Quote
There still is no real vision, mission or direction from the Woman who is supposed to be leading our organization.

I suppose you haven't read her column in the May-June Volunteer, which lays out all of that.  It would be nice for them to post the actual strategic plan, but I imagine they're waiting to officially announce it.

But will each of the 8 regions be required to publish a plan to support the strategic plan?  Will the 52 wings be required to publish plans to support their regions' plans? Will the subordinate units be required to do the same?  Will these plans drive training, dollars, and equipment?  If not, then all I stated above is true.

GC
Report to moderator   Logged
mikeylikey
Banned

Posts: 3,755

« Reply #31 on: May 19, 2008, 06:52:57 PM »

Quote
There still is no real vision, mission or direction from the Woman who is supposed to be leading our organization.

I suppose you haven't read her column in the May-June Volunteer, which lays out all of that.  It would be nice for them to post the actual strategic plan, but I imagine they're waiting to officially announce it.

It lays NOTHING out.  It was a "feel good" letter, nothing more.  When they publish a document that is longer than half a page and clearly defines the what, how, when, and where.....then that is something. 
Report to moderator   Logged
What's up monkeys?
FW
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,186

« Reply #32 on: May 19, 2008, 07:59:57 PM »

Well, since my last name starts with "W", I haven't yet got my Volunteer.  So, I'll assume she put forth CAP's 9 strategic goals in her letter.

If that is the case, she left out some things you all should know.  The NEC has been broken down into working groups to figure tactics to obtain the goals.  We have developed a new "business plan" and are bringing interested and experienced members into the groups to help flesh things out.  It takes time however, more should be known at the summer NB meeting.  BTW, the plan includes everything from training to aircraft fleet size.

We will have a "road map".  This is already member driven.  NHQ staff is assisting with every step.  Every region commander and wing commander will adapt the plan for their respective area.  Gen Courter insists we will all be on the same page.
The BoG insists we will all be accountable.  And , we are.

What's the story with the regs, Mikey?  I don't know of any regs we're waiting for?
The CAP/CC can issue a reg immediately if a need arises.  If you know of any Monkeys that can help with this, send me a line. ;D

If we look at where we were 1 year ago and compare it to now, I would say we are moving toward some great things.  I'm more excited now than at any time in the last 3 years.  YMMV but I'm not worried at all about where we are headed.  I am quite determined however, to keep focused on the prize and will "gently" remind all concerned not to lose sight of the finish line.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2008, 02:42:36 AM by FW » Report to moderator   Logged
Earhart1971
Seasoned Member

Posts: 397

« Reply #33 on: May 20, 2008, 06:13:25 AM »

Well, since my last name starts with "W", I haven't yet got my Volunteer.  So, I'll assume she put forth CAP's 9 strategic goals in her letter.

If that is the case, she left out some things you all should know.  The NEC has been broken down into working groups to figure tactics to obtain the goals.  We have developed a new "business plan" and are bringing interested and experienced members into the groups to help flesh things out.  It takes time however, more should be known at the summer NB meeting.  BTW, the plan includes everything from training to aircraft fleet size.

We will have a "road map".  This is already member driven.  NHQ staff is assisting with every step.  Every region commander and wing commander will adapt the plan for their respective area.  Gen Courter insists we will all be on the same page.
The BoG insists we will all be accountable.  And , we are.

What's the story with the regs, Mikey?  I don't know of any regs we're waiting for?
The CAP/CC can issue a reg immediately if a need arises.  If you know of any Monkeys that can help with this, send me a line. ;D

If we look at where we were 1 year ago and compare it to now, I would say we are moving toward some great things.  I'm more excited now than at any time in the last 3 years.  YMMV but I'm not worried at all about where we are headed.  I am quite determined however, to keep focused on the prize and will "gently" remind all concerned not to lose sight of the finish line.


I have not read a copy of the Bill.

The questions I would have, is there proper funding to support CAP performing this mission included in the frame work of this Bill, or will it take another piece of legislation?

CAP is great at getting missions and poor at projecting the cost of performing extra missions.

And we have a declining population of pilots and membership to support these missions.
Report to moderator   Logged
FW
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,186

« Reply #34 on: May 20, 2008, 06:10:59 PM »

I haven't read a copy of the latest bill either.  However, CAP "funding" is not the issue per say.  The issue is DHS using us as a force multiplier and cost efficient asset. 

Funding for assigned missions from other agencies come from the requesting agency.  Fees charged are for  expenses and "appropriate" per diem if authorized. Current policies are already in place.

Getting more young and experienced mission pilots is a difficult task.  It may become easier when the Flight Release Program becomes more streamlined and Post Flight reporting is made simple with a smooth reimbursement processes in place.  (all being worked on at this time)
Report to moderator   Logged
FW
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,186

« Reply #35 on: May 20, 2008, 09:34:44 PM »

Here's the latest.  Good support from the field.  More work needs to be done.
 :clap:

To the National Board,

I want to pass on the good news about HR 1333, the amended version of the Civil Air Patrol Homeland Security Support Act of 2007.  It was successfully marked up this morning in the House Homeland Security Committee and has been sent to the House for a possible vote later this year.

This is only the start of the billís legislative journey--we still have a ways to go before this bill becomes law and before it has an impact on CAP.  For starters, the House leadership has not yet scheduled the bill for a vote and we will need to do some work in the Senate to ensure that it is supported on that side of the legislative house.  Still this is a most important first step.

Everyone should also be aware that the bill has been amended so that it now asks for a Legislative Branch study of the functions and capabilities of the Civil Air Patrol to support Homeland Security missions.  This study will also address whether or not the current mechanisms for Federal agencies and states to request support from us are sufficient or whether new agreements between relevant Federal agencies are necessary.  This last item gets to the heart of the matter.

Once the bill becomes law it will take the Government Accountability Office (GAO) six to nine months to complete its investigative study and to report back to the Congress.  At that time GAO will likely also make recommendations to the Secretary of Defense relative to CAP and its use for Homeland Security missions.

Iíd like to thank the Pennsylvania Wing, Maryland Wing, and Middle East Region staff for supporting this last minute event and for having uniformed personnel at the hearing.  Everyone looked great in their blue service uniforms and they all were exceptional representatives for CAP.  The large Maryland contingent also included some great cadets from the Bethesda Chevy Chase and Bowie Squadrons.  The large CAP presence was noted during the hearing, with appreciation, by Congressman Dent who brought it to the attention of the Committee Chairman.


Regards,

 
John Swain, Colonel, CAP

Government Relations Advisor

Civil Air Patrol

Report to moderator   Logged
Earhart1971
Seasoned Member

Posts: 397

« Reply #36 on: May 21, 2008, 02:57:26 AM »

I haven't read a copy of the latest bill either.  However, CAP "funding" is not the issue per say.  The issue is DHS using us as a force multiplier and cost efficient asset. 

Funding for assigned missions from other agencies come from the requesting agency.  Fees charged are for  expenses and "appropriate" per diem if authorized. Current policies are already in place.

Getting more young and experienced mission pilots is a difficult task.  It may become easier when the Flight Release Program becomes more streamlined and Post Flight reporting is made simple with a smooth reimbursement processes in place.  (all being worked on at this time)

Thats what I was afraid of "current policies" on funding.

We are gaining another underfunded mandate for missions.



Report to moderator   Logged
SJFedor
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,689

« Reply #37 on: May 21, 2008, 04:25:28 AM »

I haven't read a copy of the latest bill either.  However, CAP "funding" is not the issue per say.  The issue is DHS using us as a force multiplier and cost efficient asset. 

Funding for assigned missions from other agencies come from the requesting agency.  Fees charged are for  expenses and "appropriate" per diem if authorized. Current policies are already in place.

Getting more young and experienced mission pilots is a difficult task.  It may become easier when the Flight Release Program becomes more streamlined and Post Flight reporting is made simple with a smooth reimbursement processes in place.  (all being worked on at this time)

Wings just need to have corporate avgas cards in the planes to be used on reimbursed missions. Take the burden and responsibility off of the individual pilot, and let the corporation handle themselves getting reimbursed like the rest of the world does it. Both wings I've flown with (PA and TN) have cards in the planes for these uses, I can't imagine why every wing wouldn't.

And the Flight release program is relatively simple. I've been an FRO for over a year now, it's nothing complicated unless you're doing stuff through WMU. Our mission tasking process (going through the NOC and all, "A/B" missions vs "C" missions, etc) needs some streamlining though.
Report to moderator   Logged
Steven Fedor, NREMT-P
Master Ambulance Driver
Former Capt, MP, MCPE, MO, MS, GTL, and various other 3-and-4 letter combinations
NESA MAS Instructor, 2008-2010 (#479)
Earhart1971
Seasoned Member

Posts: 397

« Reply #38 on: May 21, 2008, 05:11:16 AM »

I haven't read a copy of the latest bill either.  However, CAP "funding" is not the issue per say.  The issue is DHS using us as a force multiplier and cost efficient asset. 

Funding for assigned missions from other agencies come from the requesting agency.  Fees charged are for  expenses and "appropriate" per diem if authorized. Current policies are already in place.

Getting more young and experienced mission pilots is a difficult task.  It may become easier when the Flight Release Program becomes more streamlined and Post Flight reporting is made simple with a smooth reimbursement processes in place.  (all being worked on at this time)

Wings just need to have corporate avgas cards in the planes to be used on reimbursed missions. Take the burden and responsibility off of the individual pilot, and let the corporation handle themselves getting reimbursed like the rest of the world does it. Both wings I've flown with (PA and TN) have cards in the planes for these uses, I can't imagine why every wing wouldn't.

And the Flight release program is relatively simple. I've been an FRO for over a year now, it's nothing complicated unless you're doing stuff through WMU. Our mission tasking process (going through the NOC and all, "A/B" missions vs "C" missions, etc) needs some streamlining though.

Agree, and the other missing ingrediants, are a per diem ($300 per day for a Pilot makes sense), and approved employee time off from work, like the National Guard gets.

I think the problem is, we are eager for the missions, and we still have not learned to negotiate the funding.

Everybody assumes there is a an endless pool of pilots.

Numbers of people with pilots licenses are falling. Look at the FAA stats.


« Last Edit: May 21, 2008, 06:53:04 AM by Earhart1971 » Report to moderator   Logged
FW
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,186

« Reply #39 on: May 21, 2008, 11:06:39 AM »

Wings just need to have corporate avgas cards in the planes to be used on reimbursed missions. Take the burden and responsibility off of the individual pilot, and let the corporation handle themselves getting reimbursed like the rest of the world does it. Both wings I've flown with (PA and TN) have cards in the planes for these uses, I can't imagine why every wing wouldn't.

And the Flight release program is relatively simple. I've been an FRO for over a year now, it's nothing complicated unless you're doing stuff through WMU. Our mission tasking process (going through the NOC and all, "A/B" missions vs "C" missions, etc) needs some streamlining though.

Steve, having fuel cards in the aircraft is probably the single best way to help.  But wings still have a somewhat complicated paperwork process, even with WIMRS.  We're trying to simplify the process employing electronic signatures and an eventual fully on-line "108" to speed reimbursements to the wings. thereby enabling all wings to put fuel cards in their respective aircraft.  Also, the consolodated aircraft maint. program will  take a large paperwork burden off of wing staffs and freeing up money for more training.  This will let more pilots "in on the fun".  

And, yes, the actual flight release is simple enough.  However, I was also including flight authorization, flight classification, review of  60-1, AIF fill, and preflight paperwork.  Also, I've been told by more than a few pilots, " I can't find a FRO."   An electronic FR with a printed verified release would be, IMHO, safer and fit accountability standards; in addition to being easier, as simple or, simpler than a phone or personal release.  

To bring us back on topic; I'll say that by making the process more accessable, easier and affordable, we will incite more pilots to join us and train for our expanded missions.  We can then rise to the occasion when H.R. 1333 is passed and the GAO gives its report to congress and DHS decides we're the ones to go to....

And Earhart, maybe we will get those $300 per diem checks for members. :D

Report to moderator   Logged
DNall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,721

« Reply #40 on: May 21, 2008, 03:38:18 PM »

Gunner, that is an interesting opinion.  However, I disagree with it.  We lobby well; perhaps too well.  I see things from a slightly different perspective.  Our "lobbyist" is very busy and gets great responses.  I met with him last week while delivering an aircraft for the CAP exhibit at the JSOH Andrews AFB.  He was very excited about funding for new and existing projects and missions.  He was also optimistic about H.R.1333.
No question, he is a fine officer and does a great service.  He's only one person - we need many more like him to be really effective.  Capitol Hill is up to the gunwales in lobbyists and we need more folks talking to congress AND the executive departments on a continuing basis.

Quote
We do well with the Air Force.  It is their job to see we spend our grant "appropriately".  Let's say we have an obligation to "question" their judgement from time to time. 
But, in the context of above, the AF doesn't spend much time helping us get our name out there.  1st AF is sold on us but the reason we're not heavily engaged with other organizations is that we (1) don't give them the impression that we're a serious organization and (2) we don't sell ourselves.  If we showed up every time with blue and green flight suits for air missions, BDUs and BBDUs for ground missions, and appropriate "serious" uniforms at mission bases we'd sell ourselves much better.

Quote
Outside agencies are calling for our assistance all the time.  Sorry you don't see it.  Our problem, as you did state,  is having enough qualified members to assist.


(I'll keep this non-descript since the specific info is FOUO) We have 19 lines on the ATO for last week for the whole country. 8 of the lines are to fly other agencies' people so they can do their own recon.  So 11 lines are for CAP doing what CAP does - reconnaissance. BTW, only 1 line is for a GA8.  That's not impressive for a 500 aircraft force.

People aren't getting qualified in the numbers we need because there's not national training plan and we don't retain nearly enough of our people (if folks were getting training, we'd retain many more).  Each region, wing, group, and squadron trains what they see fit.  We spend a lot of money in the wrong places because of that.  Since there's no training management, we don't get the most bang for the buck.  I did this for my last four years in SF and coordinated all SOF high risk training plus all classified courses. 

Quote
Organizationally, we do play well with others. We will be NIMS compliant by the federal deadline.  IS300 & IS400 courses are being set up all over the country for our members.  But, we can only lead them to the promised land; we can't force them to cross over :angel:

 :D As a former commander (2x looser) and former chief of staff I know what you're saying.  But when I talk to ICs, they don't understand the NIMS relationship between CAP and the mission lead agency.  I can tell you that it pisses off other agencies when a CAP officer calls up and introduces himself as the "Incident Commander."  We, as a force, have a long way to go - there's still a lot of the old mission coordinator mentality left over.

Quote
We may have had some "corrupt" commanders in the past.  There may be some who are less than perfect today.  But, we deal with it best we can.  Give me one example of the "perfect" organization and I'll show you one without members.  And, I'm not really interested in the"self licking icecream cone" comparison anymore.  It is flawed and does not accurately describe our "management" situation. 

The current leadership (collectively, not individually) is a product of decades of no comprehensive program to train leaders at the squadron/group, wing/region, or national levels.  There's a large amount of discussion on this forum about how the CAP PD system doesn't really address the skill sets needed to train the next generation of leaders - a weekend here and there won't get it.  We have thousands of Lt Cols who are great guys and gals, great members, great technicians, but as far as leadership goes, they can't find their wallets with both hands and a flashlight.

Quote
Complaints are good.  I complain all the time.  But I still do the job, and I enjoy what I do. 

Uniforms, well this situation predates my involvement with CAP (1967).  Anyone want an old Guyaberra(sic) shirt? ;D  I wouldn't mind us being a bit more "uniform".

See above.  Uniformity should be part of marketing.

Quote
CAP is no "mess".  Yes, it needs changing and, it will.  The people "in charge" direct the change and they will. Every member of the NEC is committed to positive change.  Don't take my word for it;  just follow the events of the next few months. 

They're good people but they're a bit like the blind men trying to describe an elephant.  Ever since the AF got out of the business of being the national commander, we've been slipping in a bad direction - we need to change.

GC

That's an excellent post! I agree. I'll give you a glaring example. I was training GTLs a couple weeks ago. The task plan & brief sortie that lays out WARNO, OPORD, FRAGO formats & info is all there in the task guide. No one bothers to put in 8 troop leading procedures though. How is this guy supposed to understand how to use those things & what they mean w/o that. I wrote it in & explained the process thru a normal CAP mission scenario. This guy had cadets running all over the place w/ limited comms & no accountability, some untrained cadet out interviewing a witness while the trained ones walked a road. The light blinked on when he figured out TLPs, & he got control of his op real fast.

CAP officers aren't stupid. We train college kids to be real military officers in combat. A lot of the people we're taking in CAP have some education & more life experience. They're capable of learning 7 operating to standard, if we just give them the chance.
Report to moderator   Logged
DNall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,721

« Reply #41 on: May 21, 2008, 03:53:18 PM »

Agree, and the other missing ingrediants, are a per diem ($300 per day for a Pilot makes sense), and approved employee time off from work, like the National Guard gets.
300/day? are you nuts? That's outlandish!!! A NG/Res E-4 doesn't make that in a full weekend. E-8 with over 24 years makes that kind of money. And Capts, which means a real commissioning program & over five years service.

If you pay CAP members 300/day then they aren't volunteers, they're being compensated on par or at a higher rate than Guard/Reserve personnel. The advantage to CAP is the simple fact that our people work for free where others have to be paid. That's the only thing that keeps us alive and competitive against odds that should have killed us long ago.

I am in favor of per diem, but I'm talking 25-50/day for food, plus fuel to drive to station. 100-150/day would be nice, particularly for longer deployments like katrina, but 300 is just nuts. Employment protection is a must though. The key problem there is individual CAP members are free to volunteer for a mission or not or go home when the feel like. Hence, they as an individual can stay at their job & someone else can go on the mission. The only way you get iron clad employment protection is if individual member scan be placed on orders. It may be their choice if they go on orders or not, but once on they can't just leave. At that point you're taking away the volunteers aspect, which I'm perfectly fine w/ doing, but it has to be done the right way.
Report to moderator   Logged
Frenchie
Forum Regular

Posts: 183

« Reply #42 on: May 21, 2008, 04:52:56 PM »

The values for gov per diem are already established by GSA and can be found here:

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentId=17943&contentType=GSA_BASIC

No gov agency is going to pay more than the established per diem rate unless there is some type of special circumstance like no accommodations available at the established rate.  If they did pay more than the established per diem rate, it wouldn't be per diem, it would be taxable compensation.

If anything CAP is going to pay less and/or require members to double up in hotel rooms.
Report to moderator   Logged
DNall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,721

« Reply #43 on: May 21, 2008, 08:21:25 PM »

If you follow that link, click your state, and look at the last column on the left. That's the most you should expect to see on a per diem. MAYBE the 100% M/IE on the rare multi-day missions.

A lot of people are misunderstanding what per diem is. It's not for fuel or lost wages. Which is what we really need help with. It's for meals & lodging for people who at home station have govt provided or subsidized food/quarters. CAP doesn't fit that on the food for sure. You'd be paying for your meals if not on that mission, why should the govt pay that expense? As far as lodging, that should be provided or reimbursable with receipt up to the per diem amount.

As I said, CAP isn't going to get paid, regardless of what you want to call it. That's contrary to everything we're about. It's also just a minor issue with non-commercial pilots, especially in govt purchased planes, functioning under an FAA restriction, particularly on non-AFAM, especially when those are for state or even worse C missions.
Report to moderator   Logged
davedove
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 964
Unit: MER-MD-003

« Reply #44 on: May 21, 2008, 08:26:42 PM »

It's for meals & lodging for people who at home station have govt provided or subsidized food/quarters. CAP doesn't fit that on the food for sure. You'd be paying for your meals if not on that mission, why should the govt pay that expense? As far as lodging, that should be provided or reimbursable with receipt up to the per diem amount.

Not exactly precise.  You get the per diem for the meals, regardless of your home situation.  I am an Army civilian, and when I get per diem, I get the full daily amount, UNLESS meals are provided at the travel location.
Report to moderator   Logged
David W. Dove, Maj, CAP
Deputy Commander for Seniors
Personnel/PD/Asst. Testing Officer
Ground Team Leader
Frederick Composite Squadron
MER-MD-003
DNall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,721

« Reply #45 on: May 21, 2008, 08:38:04 PM »

Just to be perfectly technical, I would argue that the purpose of per diem is to compensate for being away from govt supplied food/lodging at home station, even though it is extended to some people that don't have that situation at home. But that's not the point.

I understand what I said is a generalization, but people are talking about per diem like its a paycheck they deserve for doing the mission. Specifically, to offset fuel & lost civilian wages, both of which are not what per diem is about.

I do think either the M/IE rate should be paid or meals reimbursed for missions over 24hrs, and fuel/lodging should be reimbursable w/ IC approval if not provided (fuel obviously gets covered on AFAM w/ inbound/outbound sorties, but not as often in other kinds of missions). None of that is an option during training unless you don't want there to be any money left to train with after you get to the ICP.
Report to moderator   Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #46 on: May 21, 2008, 11:44:59 PM »

Since per diem has nothing to do with the bill in front of us, why are we talking about it?
Report to moderator   Logged
Earhart1971
Seasoned Member

Posts: 397

« Reply #47 on: May 22, 2008, 12:35:23 AM »

Agree, and the other missing ingrediants, are a per diem ($300 per day for a Pilot makes sense), and approved employee time off from work, like the National Guard gets.
300/day? are you nuts? That's outlandish!!! A NG/Res E-4 doesn't make that in a full weekend. E-8 with over 24 years makes that kind of money. And Capts, which means a real commissioning program & over five years service.

If you pay CAP members 300/day then they aren't volunteers, they're being compensated on par or at a higher rate than Guard/Reserve personnel. The advantage to CAP is the simple fact that our people work for free where others have to be paid. That's the only thing that keeps us alive and competitive against odds that should have killed us long ago.

I am in favor of per diem, but I'm talking 25-50/day for food, plus fuel to drive to station. 100-150/day would be nice, particularly for longer deployments like katrina, but 300 is just nuts. Employment protection is a must though. The key problem there is individual CAP members are free to volunteer for a mission or not or go home when the feel like. Hence, they as an individual can stay at their job & someone else can go on the mission. The only way you get iron clad employment protection is if individual member scan be placed on orders. It may be their choice if they go on orders or not, but once on they can't just leave. At that point you're taking away the volunteers aspect, which I'm perfectly fine w/ doing, but it has to be done the right way.

$300 per day is not outlandish.

Here is why.

You are asking people, highly qualified pilots, with 1000 hours or more, to fly and take time from their families and jobs.

Even with this payment, CAP is still flying missions at a cost well below National Guard Helicopters and C-130s and any other Government funded flying.

And on the other side of the coin, CAP and National HQ needs to realize, we have churned through the baby boom members.

All the Pilots and Crews we have, are either already burned out, or on their second tour of burn out with CAP.

And on top of that, the pilot pool is shrinking down too. Flying is expensive, Cessna 172s that rented for $75 per hour are now $110 per hour and going NORTH from there.

The days of cheap flying and CAP getting plenty of pilots to fly, under the "pay you back scenario" are over.

And someone with a strong selling spirit at National HQ needs to get with the reality, of the current situation, and have the powers that be get real with CAP.

We missed the opportunity at 911 where check books were being flipped out, now, this is the 2nd phase, we need Home Land Security from now till the next 20 years, and maybe 50 years.

It's a tide and CAP can take this tide, we have the structure and the program, and we need incentives to get pilots on board, who can regularly fly and also, willing to take time from work to fly, and not suffer financial disaster.

We could, with this program, start interviewing prospective members instead of begging for people.

It just takes visualization of reality, what makes sense, and we need to stop volunteering to do the financially impossible.
Report to moderator   Logged
SJFedor
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,689

« Reply #48 on: May 22, 2008, 12:45:08 AM »

Agree, and the other missing ingrediants, are a per diem ($300 per day for a Pilot makes sense), and approved employee time off from work, like the National Guard gets.
300/day? are you nuts? That's outlandish!!! A NG/Res E-4 doesn't make that in a full weekend. E-8 with over 24 years makes that kind of money. And Capts, which means a real commissioning program & over five years service.

If you pay CAP members 300/day then they aren't volunteers, they're being compensated on par or at a higher rate than Guard/Reserve personnel. The advantage to CAP is the simple fact that our people work for free where others have to be paid. That's the only thing that keeps us alive and competitive against odds that should have killed us long ago.

I am in favor of per diem, but I'm talking 25-50/day for food, plus fuel to drive to station. 100-150/day would be nice, particularly for longer deployments like katrina, but 300 is just nuts. Employment protection is a must though. The key problem there is individual CAP members are free to volunteer for a mission or not or go home when the feel like. Hence, they as an individual can stay at their job & someone else can go on the mission. The only way you get iron clad employment protection is if individual member scan be placed on orders. It may be their choice if they go on orders or not, but once on they can't just leave. At that point you're taking away the volunteers aspect, which I'm perfectly fine w/ doing, but it has to be done the right way.

$300 per day is not outlandish.

Here is why.

You are asking people, highly qualified pilots, with 1000 hours or more, to fly and take time from their families and jobs.

Even with this payment, CAP is still flying missions at a cost well below National Guard Helicopters and C-130s and any other Government funded flying.

And on the other side of the coin, CAP and National HQ needs to realize, we have churned through the baby boom members.

All the Pilots and Crews we have, are either already burned out, or on their second tour of burn out with CAP.

And on top of that, the pilot pool is shrinking down too. Flying is expensive, Cessna 172s that rented for $75 per hour are now $110 per hour and going NORTH from there.

The days of cheap flying and CAP getting plenty of pilots to fly, under the "pay you back scenario" are over.

And someone with a strong selling spirit at National HQ needs to get with the reality, of the current situation, and have the powers that be get real with CAP.

We missed the opportunity at 911 where check books were being flipped out, now, this is the 2nd phase, we need Home Land Security from now till the next 20 years, and maybe 50 years.

It's a tide and CAP can take this tide, we have the structure and the program, and we need incentives to get pilots on board, who can regularly fly and also, willing to take time from work to fly, and not suffer financial disaster.

We could, with this program, start interviewing prospective members instead of begging for people.

It just takes visualization of reality, what makes sense, and we need to stop volunteering to do the financially impossible.


True. But if we start handing out more then a per diem rate, the pilots are acting as "For hire" and require a commercial pilot's license and 2nd class medical. Which cuts our already small pilot force, at least, in half, if not more.

I'd love to see some stats to see how many pilots we have that hold Commercial or higher certs and valid 2nd class medicals. There's not gonna be a whole lot of them. Most of those that do are either retired, or already flying somewhere else for money.
Report to moderator   Logged
Steven Fedor, NREMT-P
Master Ambulance Driver
Former Capt, MP, MCPE, MO, MS, GTL, and various other 3-and-4 letter combinations
NESA MAS Instructor, 2008-2010 (#479)
Earhart1971
Seasoned Member

Posts: 397

« Reply #49 on: May 22, 2008, 12:55:35 AM »

Agree, and the other missing ingrediants, are a per diem ($300 per day for a Pilot makes sense), and approved employee time off from work, like the National Guard gets.
300/day? are you nuts? That's outlandish!!! A NG/Res E-4 doesn't make that in a full weekend. E-8 with over 24 years makes that kind of money. And Capts, which means a real commissioning program & over five years service.

If you pay CAP members 300/day then they aren't volunteers, they're being compensated on par or at a higher rate than Guard/Reserve personnel. The advantage to CAP is the simple fact that our people work for free where others have to be paid. That's the only thing that keeps us alive and competitive against odds that should have killed us long ago.

I am in favor of per diem, but I'm talking 25-50/day for food, plus fuel to drive to station. 100-150/day would be nice, particularly for longer deployments like katrina, but 300 is just nuts. Employment protection is a must though. The key problem there is individual CAP members are free to volunteer for a mission or not or go home when the feel like. Hence, they as an individual can stay at their job & someone else can go on the mission. The only way you get iron clad employment protection is if individual member scan be placed on orders. It may be their choice if they go on orders or not, but once on they can't just leave. At that point you're taking away the volunteers aspect, which I'm perfectly fine w/ doing, but it has to be done the right way.

$300 per day is not outlandish.

Here is why.

You are asking people, highly qualified pilots, with 1000 hours or more, to fly and take time from their families and jobs.

Even with this payment, CAP is still flying missions at a cost well below National Guard Helicopters and C-130s and any other Government funded flying.

And on the other side of the coin, CAP and National HQ needs to realize, we have churned through the baby boom members.

All the Pilots and Crews we have, are either already burned out, or on their second tour of burn out with CAP.

And on top of that, the pilot pool is shrinking down too. Flying is expensive, Cessna 172s that rented for $75 per hour are now $110 per hour and going NORTH from there.

The days of cheap flying and CAP getting plenty of pilots to fly, under the "pay you back scenario" are over.

And someone with a strong selling spirit at National HQ needs to get with the reality, of the current situation, and have the powers that be get real with CAP.

We missed the opportunity at 911 where check books were being flipped out, now, this is the 2nd phase, we need Home Land Security from now till the next 20 years, and maybe 50 years.

It's a tide and CAP can take this tide, we have the structure and the program, and we need incentives to get pilots on board, who can regularly fly and also, willing to take time from work to fly, and not suffer financial disaster.

We could, with this program, start interviewing prospective members instead of begging for people.

It just takes visualization of reality, what makes sense, and we need to stop volunteering to do the financially impossible.


True. But if we start handing out more then a per diem rate, the pilots are acting as "For hire" and require a commercial pilot's license and 2nd class medical. Which cuts our already small pilot force, at least, in half, if not more.

I'd love to see some stats to see how many pilots we have that hold Commercial or higher certs and valid 2nd class medicals. There's not gonna be a whole lot of them. Most of those that do are either retired, or already flying somewhere else for money.

So how does the National Guard and the Air Force get away with paying pilots?

And we can get 1000 hour Commercial Pilots, plenty of them.

If the incentive is there.

We are doing National Guard and Air Force Missions, tell the lawyers to back off, it has no relationship to Commercial Flying.

It's government taskings, for government missions.
Report to moderator   Logged
FW
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,186

« Reply #50 on: May 22, 2008, 02:18:30 AM »


So how does the National Guard and the Air Force get away with paying pilots?

And we can get 1000 hour Commercial Pilots, plenty of them.

If the incentive is there.

We are doing National Guard and Air Force Missions, tell the lawyers to back off, it has no relationship to Commercial Flying.

It's government taskings, for government missions.

The guard and AF can pay pilots because they are part of the government.
The guardsmen and AF pilots work for the government.
The aircraft they fly are "public use" military aircraft

CAP is a nonprofit corporation
Our aircraft are corporate owned.
We don't work for CAP nor do we work for the government.
Our Aircraft are not "public use".  They are private general aviation aircraft which operates under FAA part 91 regulations and special FAA exemptions.

We do Air Force "authorized" missions; not Air Force missions.
We get reimbursed for our flying.  We don't get paid for our flying.
There are several laws on the books which prohibit us from getting paid.
Changing this fact would take more resources than we could ever hope for.

Our best hope, IMHO, would be successful passage of H.R. 1333, a favorable GAO report, and DHS acceptance and usage.  

If we can offer "almost free" training in the most modern GA aircraft in the country, I think it would help motivate more pilots into CAP and keep the ones we have.  Getting paid to play is not my idea of our volunteer spirit.  It's not why I'm in CAP.  
Report to moderator   Logged
Earhart1971
Seasoned Member

Posts: 397

« Reply #51 on: May 22, 2008, 02:48:27 AM »


So how does the National Guard and the Air Force get away with paying pilots?

And we can get 1000 hour Commercial Pilots, plenty of them.

If the incentive is there.

We are doing National Guard and Air Force Missions, tell the lawyers to back off, it has no relationship to Commercial Flying.

It's government taskings, for government missions.

The guard and AF can pay pilots because they are part of the government.
The guardsmen and AF pilots work for the government.
The aircraft they fly are "public use" military aircraft

CAP is a nonprofit corporation
Our aircraft are corporate owned.
We don't work for CAP nor do we work for the government.
Our Aircraft are not "public use".  They are private general aviation aircraft which operates under FAA part 91 regulations and special FAA exemptions.

We do Air Force "authorized" missions; not Air Force missions.
We get reimbursed for our flying.  We don't get paid for our flying.
There are several laws on the books which prohibit us from getting paid.
Changing this fact would take more resources than we could ever hope for.

Our best hope, IMHO, would be successful passage of H.R. 1333, a favorable GAO report, and DHS acceptance and usage.  

If we can offer "almost free" training in the most modern GA aircraft in the country, I think it would help motivate more pilots into CAP and keep the ones we have.  Getting paid to play is not my idea of our volunteer spirit.  It's not why I'm in CAP.  

We have to realize, in these economic times.

We will have few takers for almost free training, and the training is never ending, and it could take the better part of 2 years worth of vacation time to complete.

Almost free training, will not work.

Volunteering (for Free and Paying for it) is impossible, nobody can afford it.

Let me count the ways its impossible.

Both Husband and Wife work, and if they have kids, they have hardly anytime left to volunteer and have no money to pay for CAP volunteering.

Only reason I can, is the kids are out of the house, I am a Baby Boomer, but I cannot take off work to fly "missions".

There is no advantage to CAP "Owning Aircraft" let the government own them, and we fly under government mandate, and not part 91. It's wartime activity, tell the FAA to take a hike! Let the Home Land Security Lawyers work it out.

And the non profit status, needs to be delt with.

Non profit is great if you are able to raise funds.

CAP is quasi government or gives that impression, so we have never been able to raise "Millions" or 100s of thousands on a National Level.

Yes local Units can raise some cash, by showcasing Cadets as the recipients of the donations.

On a National level fund raising does not work as far as I can tell.  By the way donations, for a National Security Mission is ridiculous, it should be paid for by the taxpayers.

We have no funds to operate on the level of expectation of the Missions we are gaining.

My feeling is that we have to be raised in status to a National Volunteer Force, that receives better funding for the missions we carry out.

My thinking is that there is the need for several hundred thousand hours of flying per year, the Government needs that mission filled. We can fill it, but not at the previous rates, it simply does not work for CAP, the Volunteers, or the Missions.

We have to develop a plan that makes sense, right now, we are grabbing and volunteering for Missions we simply cannot afford to write the checks for.


Report to moderator   Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #52 on: May 22, 2008, 03:03:45 AM »

Quote
Volunteering (for Free and Paying for it) is impossible, nobody can afford it.
Impossible?  Gee, seems to have been working pretty well for nearly 70 years....
Report to moderator   Logged
Earhart1971
Seasoned Member

Posts: 397

« Reply #53 on: May 22, 2008, 03:48:01 AM »

Quote
Volunteering (for Free and Paying for it) is impossible, nobody can afford it.
Impossible?  Gee, seems to have been working pretty well for nearly 70 years....

Yeah, it works well, if we can find new members to replace 100% of membership every 5 years.

Demographics are working against us now.

Baby Boomers are the largest generation, and most of them have been churned twice.

Report to moderator   Logged
DNall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,721

« Reply #54 on: May 22, 2008, 05:54:46 AM »

$300 per day is not outlandish.

Here is why.

You are asking people, highly qualified pilots, with 1000 hours or more, to fly and take time from their families and jobs.

First, a whole lot of those pilots don't have anywhere close to a 1000hrs or a commercial ticket.

Second, you're talking about compensating for skill, not covering expenses. That's pay versus per diem. CAP is not a paid service. That's ANG/AFRes, who for the most part are being paid less than the rate you're stating, and who also take time away from family & job, but don't have a choice of when or how often so that they can balance those competing concerns.

Quote
Even with this payment, CAP is still flying missions at a cost well below National Guard Helicopters and C-130s and any other Government funded flying.
Okay granted, but that's a very unfair comparison.

To the extent DoD flies these types of missions w/ such airframes, there's two factors you aren't looking at. First, it may be specialized sensors we don't have & can't lift - right tool for the job. Second, it's dual use hours. By that I mean these are combat pilots getting proficiency hours w/o tapping the budget. That basically makes the sortie free cause they'd be flying those hours on training anyway.

Also, C130s & helos have never been a fair comparison to CAP. If CAP weren't around, the govt wouldn't actually be flying all those missions for 1500-5000/hr. They'd be using more efficient platforms, just like us, in fact they already do.

DHS flies C182s & 206s with FLIR. They also fly twins with a lot more sensors that we don't have the payload to carry. They also have a predator replacing the one they crashed & funding for a couple more in the future, and some smaller tactical-type UAVs.

All of those are airframes are efficient like CAP. The difference is bang for the buck - we hear that all the time in CAP right? How many sorties does it take over an area doing visual search to get the same coverage as one sortie with all those other sensors? What about all-weather or night capabilities? You want a solid fence only when it's nice out? How long does it take bad guys to figure that out? Try the price comparison again using that math.

Quote
And on the other side of the coin, CAP and National HQ needs to realize, we have churned through the baby boom members.

All the Pilots and Crews we have, are either already burned out, or on their second tour of burn out with CAP.

And on top of that, the pilot pool is shrinking down too. Flying is expensive, Cessna 172s that rented for $75 per hour are now $110 per hour and going NORTH from there.

The days of cheap flying and CAP getting plenty of pilots to fly, under the "pay you back scenario" are over.

Clearly we cannot finance missions over the backs of our members. We've mostly overcome that with corporate credit cards, which is a good solution. It's the same deal on the customer end, just being fronted by NHQ instead of members. Yes that process needs to be fixed up nationally & streamlined.

I agree with your other points about the GA pilot pool & cost of flying. That's reality & we do need to deal with it as time goes on, but we also don't need to be overly rash in how we proceed.

Quote
And someone with a strong selling spirit at National HQ needs to get with the reality, of the current situation, and have the powers that be get real with CAP.

We missed the opportunity at 911 where check books were being flipped out, now, this is the 2nd phase, we need Home Land Security from now till the next 20 years, and maybe 50 years.

It's a tide and CAP can take this tide, we have the structure and the program, and we need incentives to get pilots on board, who can regularly fly and also, willing to take time from work to fly, and not suffer financial disaster.

We could, with this program, start interviewing prospective members instead of begging for people.

It just takes visualization of reality, what makes sense, and we need to stop volunteering to do the financially impossible.

I absolutely agree that NHQ has to have serious vision and share that inspiration with current as well as potential customers to reach epiphany. That's a tall order, but it's what has to be done.

That said, don't overestimate any one or anything. DHS is not the golden goose. I'm not even sure it's a goose at all.

I said before that if CAP is a more efficient resource available to them, then that makes it harder for them to fund the airframes/sensors they want internally. To the extent that's true, they don't want CAP in the game & will find any way they can to show we can't do the job they actually need done, which may be true to some degree.

Also, you're making some very sweeping assumptions.

For one, is an airborne picket line really the best solution for current or future national security needs? If not & Congress forces them to fund it, then we're making things less secure if we do it. If they thought it was the best solution then they'd already be doing it.

Second, you're assuming they got a fat wallet capable of lifting this picket line into the sky on a regular basis. That's really not the case. A lot of grant money is being funneled thru them to state/local, but lets be honest here, most of that is going to traditional LE/fire/EMS. It's more about pork than security. Can CAP get a couple hundred grand out of that? Well, we're already getting a little thru states. Sure we could get a couple hundred grand nationally. We're working thru wing banker to clean up our financial accountability & moving to NIMS compliance which will make us eligible to get a little more, it's never going to be millions though.

Summing up....

I understand a lot of people are frustrated with how CAP is organized & functions. I know we'd all like triple the funding & each of us could do so much more with just a few thousand or even hundreds.

But I gotta say, don't look a gift horse in the mouth, especially when they give you a 200+ million dollar fleet of aircraft, plus vans, plus comms, plus 45+mil/yr O&M, plus lots of other support, not to mention the millions they fund in missions each year. DHS isn't prepared to do that for us. No one is prepared to do that. In fact our current ES & anything you could hope to morph it into could never justify such an expenditure. It's only possible because the AF has an emotional attachment to cadets & AE that both sides can BS to congress about in addition to the ES. That & dedicated volunteers make everyone feel all warm & fuzzy.

I absolutely agree we need better more realistic funding to help offset the massive costs of doing what we do. I can tell you flat out we won't be paying members. We may at some point figure out a way to reimburse more expenses or to provide for them thru something like a MUCH lower per diem. I think there's a limit how far you can go with govt travel cards before fraud makes it untenable. In fact I wouldn't even go down that road. Whatever happens, you can be sure additional benefits will come with additional obligations. Nothing in the world is free.

Report to moderator   Logged
Frenchie
Forum Regular

Posts: 183

« Reply #55 on: May 22, 2008, 06:44:36 AM »

Quote
Volunteering (for Free and Paying for it) is impossible, nobody can afford it.
Impossible?  Gee, seems to have been working pretty well for nearly 70 years....

Yeah, it works well, if we can find new members to replace 100% of membership every 5 years.

Demographics are working against us now.

Baby Boomers are the largest generation, and most of them have been churned twice.

My squadron (which is a senior squadron) has a very low turnover rate and we have members that have been in CAP over 30 years.  We manage to put in about 300 hours of flying per year.  We fly on weekends and during the week if necessary.  Some members are retired, some have days off during the week, some get weekends off.  We fly CAP cadets, AFROTC cadets, SAREX, AF missions, firewatch, ELTs, REDCAPs, you name it.  We make it work and can almost always find someone to fly when we are needed.   The squadron has plenty of complaints, but none about not getting paid.  Zero, zip, nada.

CAP started out as a volunteer organization and people were flying their own planes and not getting paid.  Angel flight pilots provide their own aircraft, pay their own expenses, AND fly for free.  If the cause is worthy, people will always volunteer.  For REDCAP missions we get people to go to remote locations and sleep on the floor of a hanger for days at a time with no complaints.  If you want to get paid, you should look somewhere else.
Report to moderator   Logged
DNall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,721

« Reply #56 on: May 22, 2008, 07:21:03 AM »

^ The expenses do get unmanageable at times. That certainly cuts down the percentage of the population that can participate. That's one thing if you're talking pilots, quite another when it's across the board. That's going to be more & more of an issue as there are the pool of pilots from which we can draw gets smaller, and as aviation continues to get more & more expensive. The issue does need to be addressed, but not in terms of getting paid. More in terms of not putting excessive expense on the member. Their time & incidentals should be enough. It's a real tough issue though.
Report to moderator   Logged
Earhart1971
Seasoned Member

Posts: 397

« Reply #57 on: May 22, 2008, 02:03:37 PM »

Dnall I think you are coming to realize my point.

200 Million in Equipment does not make an operating budget.

In other words adding Equipment stresses the Organization. At a recent Airshow, the Sun and Fun in Lakeland, a Brand New CAP Cessna 182 and the GA Air Van sat out alone with out Pilots to show them on the busiest day of the show (Saturday).

I am guessing that not enough Pilots were available to do that.

We have no money or very little money, to operate or maintain that equipment.

The 35 ro 40 Million per year in budget we get operates National HQ with about 90 Admin People.

We are losing membership.

And dramatic steps need to taken, and the situation completely understood, to change that.  We are not going to "market CAP" or recruit more membership, and get out of this.

In the Cadet Program we will drop below 20,000 Cadets next year. There are Wings with less than 150 Cadets.  I am using Cadets as a yardstick.

Membership is decreasing not increasing.
Report to moderator   Logged
Earhart1971
Seasoned Member

Posts: 397

« Reply #58 on: May 22, 2008, 02:34:05 PM »

Quote
Volunteering (for Free and Paying for it) is impossible, nobody can afford it.
Impossible?  Gee, seems to have been working pretty well for nearly 70 years....

Yeah, it works well, if we can find new members to replace 100% of membership every 5 years.

Demographics are working against us now.

Baby Boomers are the largest generation, and most of them have been churned twice.

My squadron (which is a senior squadron) has a very low turnover rate and we have members that have been in CAP over 30 years.  We manage to put in about 300 hours of flying per year.  We fly on weekends and during the week if necessary.  Some members are retired, some have days off during the week, some get weekends off.  We fly CAP cadets, AFROTC cadets, SAREX, AF missions, firewatch, ELTs, REDCAPs, you name it.  We make it work and can almost always find someone to fly when we are needed.   The squadron has plenty of complaints, but none about not getting paid.  Zero, zip, nada.

CAP started out as a volunteer organization and people were flying their own planes and not getting paid.  Angel flight pilots provide their own aircraft, pay their own expenses, AND fly for free.  If the cause is worthy, people will always volunteer.  For REDCAP missions we get people to go to remote locations and sleep on the floor of a hanger for days at a time with no complaints.  If you want to get paid, you should look somewhere else.

You are missing the point Frenchie.

It's not about getting paid.

Ok, you want me to join CAP. I am a pilot, I have a full time job, so does my wife, and I have kids to raise.

Where am I going to get the time to train to become a CAP Mission Pilot, and take time off work, to fly Missions.

The training alone will take a lot of time, and I lower my income, to take off work to fly and and I pay out of my pocket.

If only that would work, then we would not be losing membership, but the reality is, membership is decreasing.

Why, because CAP has taken on so many missions and so many burdens for membership that it will not work for the long term.


Report to moderator   Logged
Frenchie
Forum Regular

Posts: 183

« Reply #59 on: May 22, 2008, 08:49:39 PM »


You are missing the point Frenchie.

It's not about getting paid.

Ok, you want me to join CAP. I am a pilot, I have a full time job, so does my wife, and I have kids to raise.

Where am I going to get the time to train to become a CAP Mission Pilot, and take time off work, to fly Missions.

The training alone will take a lot of time, and I lower my income, to take off work to fly and and I pay out of my pocket.

If only that would work, then we would not be losing membership, but the reality is, membership is decreasing.

Why, because CAP has taken on so many missions and so many burdens for membership that it will not work for the long term.


I guess I'm having a hard time seeing your point in the first place.  I've never felt membership was a burden.  If I'm not available, I don't fly for CAP.  It's simply a matter of setting priorities.  Family and work come first.  If I can't fly a mission, chances are someone else can.  If nobody else in the squadron can, there are other squadrons.  If nobody is available, the mission doesn't get flown.  If you feel CAP is a burden, you should reevaluate your participation level.

Even if CAP were to throw aircrews a few bucks, how is that going to compare to taking time off work or time away from family?  Personally I'd rather be involved with the types of people who are willing to do these things for free rather than the types of people who would be willing to do these things for small change.  You should also remember that when you start accepting money for anything, that's when the people who give you that money start to place burdens on your life by way of expecting something in return.

I can't speak for other squadrons or CAP as a whole, but my squadron has increased it's membership over the last 2 years.  We spend time bringing CAP aircraft to airshows, fly-ins, and other recruitment activities.  You can't always just expect people to drop in off the street and join.
Report to moderator   Logged
Earhart1971
Seasoned Member

Posts: 397

« Reply #60 on: May 23, 2008, 03:54:40 AM »

Frenchie, we are down 5000 or more cadets, Nation Wide, from 25 ,000 to 20,000, that is 20%. And the Historical numbers point to 20% per year loss of total CAP membership. We turnover membership 100% in five years. We gain and lose. Now I think we are losing and not gaining back. It's demographics, its the economy, and its all working against us.

But we can roll back from this, but its going to take some work, at the grassroots and at National HQ.

Your Squadron sounds like a great Squadron and an exception, what you prefer is what you are used to, and it will work only on a small scale.

Yes, we have volunteer Pilots that can fly about 100,000 hours per year, but what if the missions demand 200,000 hours a year or more. The math will not work. We need to attract people that will fly, no matter what, with some little incentives.

The Civil Air Patrol will be elevated to higher goals through better funding, if the powers that be can sell the program to the Feds, and I think they can.

Its makes sense, and it helps everyone, it helps CAP, it helps us recruit, the spin off will help the Cadets, and it helps our Nation in so many ways.

Larger numbers of membership in CAP, say 50,000 Seniors and 100,000 Cadets, different Civil Air Patrol, more visibility, more funding, more and better Mission performance.

All good, the check book is coming out, again for CAP, we need our membership ready to take on these missions without missing a step. We need the National Leadership to recognize the needs and pursue this vision.

Report to moderator   Logged
lordmonar
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,680

« Reply #61 on: May 23, 2008, 06:22:05 AM »

Dnall I think you are coming to realize my point.

200 Million in Equipment does not make an operating budget.

In other words adding Equipment stresses the Organization. At a recent Airshow, the Sun and Fun in Lakeland, a Brand New CAP Cessna 182 and the GA Air Van sat out alone with out Pilots to show them on the busiest day of the show (Saturday).

I am guessing that not enough Pilots were available to do that.

Or poor scheduling on the part of CAP at the air show.

We have no money or very little money, to operate or maintain that equipment.

BS....sorry but I got to call it like it is.  There is plenty of money to fly and maintain our air fleet.  In fact most wings (according to Gen C at NVWG's Conference) do not fly enough!  Our planes sit idle because no one wants to fly them.  One of the reasons why they banned member owned aircraft on missions and SAREXs is because the corporate aircraft were not being used enough.

The 35 ro 40 Million per year in budget we get operates National HQ with about 90 Admin People.

Yep....NHQ staffers, wing adminstrators and state directors.  The rest is used for everthing else.

We are losing membership.

And dramatic steps need to taken, and the situation completely understood, to change that.  We are not going to "market CAP" or recruit more membership, and get out of this.

In the Cadet Program we will drop below 20,000 Cadets next year. There are Wings with less than 150 Cadets.  I am using Cadets as a yardstick.

Membership is decreasing not increasing.

How will paying pilots fix this?

Loosing cadets is because of local programs are not targeting their intrests.   Sure things like the CPP and the fact that we can't take cadets repelling may be a factor....but it not money.
Report to moderator   Logged
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP
Pacific Region
lordmonar
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,680

« Reply #62 on: May 23, 2008, 06:31:26 AM »

Yes, we have volunteer Pilots that can fly about 100,000 hours per year, but what if the missions demand 200,000 hours a year or more. The math will not work. We need to attract people that will fly, no matter what, with some little incentives.

Simple you recruit more pilots.

One of the main reasons why we loose people is because there is not enough for them to do.  If we had more missions, then we would be able to get more people in the air doing what they want to do.  Not the other way around.

Larger numbers of membership in CAP, say 50,000 Seniors and 100,000 Cadets, different Civil Air Patrol, more visibility, more funding, more and better Mission performance.

No...I think you have it backwards.  More seniors will mean less profecint pilots, groud crews and mission base personell....as there are only so many training hours available and so many aircraft.  You recruit to the needs of the mission.   Not the other way around.

Also more cadets are for the most part a drain on our operational side of the house.   (This is not cadet bashing....I am a CP guy myself).  Cadets add little to our operational readiness.  They are even less likey to help out on prolonged mission due to school commitments and the fact that they don't usually have a bunch of money in the bank to pay their own way over a long mission (even if later they are going to be reimbursed).
Report to moderator   Logged
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP
Pacific Region
Ned
Resident Philosopher

Posts: 2,214

« Reply #63 on: May 23, 2008, 04:22:36 PM »

Also more cadets are for the most part a drain on our operational side of the house.   (This is not cadet bashing....I am a CP guy myself).  Cadets add little to our operational readiness.  They are even less likey to help out on prolonged mission due to school commitments and the fact that they don't usually have a bunch of money in the bank to pay their own way over a long mission (even if later they are going to be reimbursed).

Patrick,

Saying that cadets are a "drain" is indeed cadet bashing, if for no other reason than it simply isn't true.

By and large cadets are "operations neutral" in that they neither add to nor subtract from operation efforts.  Different mission, different resources, and different leaders.


But I think a strong argument can be made that cadets are an overall positive for the operational side of the house.

  • Cadet o-flight funding supports the airframes directly and enhances pilot skills.
  • While nowhere near the majority of the effort, qualified cadets (including a few MPs) do participate directly in missions.  That can only help.
  • "Operational folks" do not normally devote significant time or efforts to supporting the cadet program that would otherwise have been devoted to operations.  IOW, we are grateful for the help and support we get from operators, but the generous time and efforts they give us do not significantly affect the amount of time and effort they give to ES.

So, at worst they "only" add a little to the operational side of the house.

Only adding a little is not the same thing as being a "drain."


Thank you for the work you do with our cadets.  It is truly appreciated.

Ned Lee
National CP Advisor
Report to moderator   Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #64 on: May 23, 2008, 05:37:13 PM »

100% turnover in 5 years?  Yes, in the cadet program that is probably true since pretty much by design most will have "graduated" the program by then.  In the senior program, which is where we have drifted, I don't think it is anything like that. 

By the way, the military has extremely high turnover rates and they manage to do pretty well with it.  Turnover by itself doesn't meant that you can't perform your missions. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Gunner C
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,748

« Reply #65 on: May 24, 2008, 04:03:25 PM »

I haven't read a copy of the latest bill either.  However, CAP "funding" is not the issue per say.  The issue is DHS using us as a force multiplier and cost efficient asset. 

Funding for assigned missions from other agencies come from the requesting agency.  Fees charged are for  expenses and "appropriate" per diem if authorized. Current policies are already in place.

Getting more young and experienced mission pilots is a difficult task.  It may become easier when the Flight Release Program becomes more streamlined and Post Flight reporting is made simple with a smooth reimbursement processes in place.  (all being worked on at this time)

Wings just need to have corporate avgas cards in the planes to be used on reimbursed missions. Take the burden and responsibility off of the individual pilot, and let the corporation handle themselves getting reimbursed like the rest of the world does it. Both wings I've flown with (PA and TN) have cards in the planes for these uses, I can't imagine why every wing wouldn't.

And the Flight release program is relatively simple. I've been an FRO for over a year now, it's nothing complicated unless you're doing stuff through WMU. Our mission tasking process (going through the NOC and all, "A/B" missions vs "C" missions, etc) needs some streamlining though.

Agree, and the other missing ingrediants, are a per diem ($300 per day for a Pilot makes sense), and approved employee time off from work, like the National Guard gets.

I think the problem is, we are eager for the missions, and we still have not learned to negotiate the funding.

Everybody assumes there is a an endless pool of pilots.

Numbers of people with pilots licenses are falling. Look at the FAA stats.




I can't think of anywhere in the US Gov where anyone gets $300/day.  Why just pilots?  What happens to the observer?  More pilot-centric junk?  It's stuff like this that make observers and scanners feel like passengers and not crew members.

GC
« Last Edit: May 24, 2008, 04:28:02 PM by Gunner C » Report to moderator   Logged
Flying Pig
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,043

« Reply #66 on: May 24, 2008, 06:51:48 PM »

Are you talking about $300 per diem AND expenses? Holy cow!  Staying in a 5 star hotel and eating at high end restaurants are we?   Your not looking for per diem, your looking for a part time job! ;D  Like Gunner said about the Observers, I think us pilots would end up flying by ourselves or we would end up splitting it 3 ways with the rest of the crew.  Im not a very experienced Mission Pilot, but the experience I do have shows me that without every other piece of the puzzle, we'd end up talking to ourselves up there.

A Mission Pilot is a taxi driver.  The Observer and the Scanner are the stars of the show.  The payload.  Sure, you could fly without them but then you would be about as useless as a bomber with no bombs.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2008, 07:08:41 PM by Flying Pig » Report to moderator   Logged
FW
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,186

« Reply #67 on: May 24, 2008, 07:48:05 PM »

^I think Earhart means $300 per diem for all aircrew.   :clap:

The problem is getting it. :(

Even if the impossible happended and we got this amount, my wife would take it anyway.  >:(   I'm just happy to have the chance to fly some missions every couple of months and not pay for the privilege. :D

Report to moderator   Logged
Earhart1971
Seasoned Member

Posts: 397

« Reply #68 on: May 25, 2008, 05:10:12 AM »

^I think Earhart means $300 per diem for all aircrew.   :clap:

The problem is getting it. :(

Even if the impossible happended and we got this amount, my wife would take it anyway.  >:(   I'm just happy to have the chance to fly some missions every couple of months and not pay for the privilege. :D



FW you mean you don't have a secret SLUSH FUND like me? Wifeykins would never know, LOL about the extra money, she's not in CAP! If she joins please don't tell her.

If you want Aircrew we need the 35 to 45 year olds, I cannot see them joining CAP in mid career for the current situation. Its too much of a financial DRAIN!


Somebody posted the JROTC Budget Link, read it.

It's for all the JROTCs, read the numbers, the Millions

That's all money and paid instructors down to unit level that just do a Cadet Program, that's it.

Let's start with the Cadet Program, why shouldn't the CAP Cadet Program be funded at 40 Million per year? The Congress is increasing the JROTC Budget as a priority, 700 million or so per year.

Our operations are say over 100,000 hours of flight time per year, and probably HLS mission could take us up to almost 200,000 hours.

Our existing Budget is 40 Million give or take Total.

We have many missions our Budget is .....40 Million Total

Spacing - MIKE
« Last Edit: May 26, 2008, 01:27:53 AM by MIKE » Report to moderator   Logged
Earhart1971
Seasoned Member

Posts: 397

« Reply #69 on: May 25, 2008, 05:52:38 AM »

^I think Earhart means $300 per diem for all aircrew.   :clap:

The problem is getting it. :(

Even if the impossible happended and we got this amount, my wife would take it anyway.  >:(   I'm just happy to have the chance to fly some missions every couple of months and not pay for the privilege. :D



I found the link, I think I stole it off River Aux post somewhere in the lobby.

River Aux found this link, I think!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail/10003233.2006.html

 
They appear to be on a very aggressive footing for funding anything but the CAP
Report to moderator   Logged
mikeylikey
Banned

Posts: 3,755

« Reply #70 on: May 25, 2008, 10:43:34 AM »

^ Makes you wonder why we are flying JROTC Cadets around huh?!?!

Report to moderator   Logged
What's up monkeys?
FW
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,186

« Reply #71 on: May 25, 2008, 11:23:45 AM »

Funding for cadet programs is not be part of H.R. 1333.  However, I've always thought it amazing there should be a AFJROTC and a CAP cadet program where one organization gets big bucks for instructors and uniforms/books and, the other program gets a few "unpaid mandays" from reservists for encampment and the allowance of spending a couple of $HT for cadet uniforms.

You would think in these hard economic times, the AF would pick at the budget which was deepest.  I guess not.  Thank goodness our friends in congress keep our funding to current levels.

It would be nice if the BOG helps out and let us go to congress to change things.  We have a plan, We have the man, We have the motivation.  All we need is the permission.  

Of course, there is no reason why we can go outside the AF for funding for the cadet program.  We could expand the School Program and go to DoEd for funding. I've been told we do have friends in congress who also sit on the education committee.  We could eventually get additional funding expressly for the cadet program and AE program which could eventually give us $millions more.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2008, 12:16:51 PM by FW » Report to moderator   Logged
FW
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,186

« Reply #72 on: May 25, 2008, 12:22:15 PM »

Our operations are say over 100,000 hours of flight time per year, and probably HLS mission could take us up to almost 200,000 hours.

Our existing Budget is 40 Million give or take Total.

We have many missions our Budget is .....40 Million Total


Adding another 100,000 flying hours would add about $15 million to the budget for O&M.  It would add millions more for fleet turnover.  Funding would be assured by payment from requester agency.
Report to moderator   Logged
Earhart1971
Seasoned Member

Posts: 397

« Reply #73 on: May 26, 2008, 01:16:05 AM »

^ Makes you wonder why we are flying JROTC Cadets around huh?!?!



We are recruiting AFJROTC Cadets, because they want to do more flying, and there are some other things going on.

AFJROTC and CAP can work together, in spite of the funding differences.

We might be able to get better funding, by just asking why there is a difference, people from National read these threads.

We are dealing with relationships that have not been explored, and misunderstandings.

There are some AFJROTC Instructors on our side.

There will be some changes, the tide is coming in for CAP.
Report to moderator   Logged
Earhart1971
Seasoned Member

Posts: 397

« Reply #74 on: May 26, 2008, 03:44:10 AM »

Funding for cadet programs is not be part of H.R. 1333.  However, I've always thought it amazing there should be a AFJROTC and a CAP cadet program where one organization gets big bucks for instructors and uniforms/books and, the other program gets a few "unpaid mandays" from reservists for encampment and the allowance of spending a couple of $HT for cadet uniforms.

You would think in these hard economic times, the AF would pick at the budget which was deepest.  I guess not.  Thank goodness our friends in congress keep our funding to current levels.

It would be nice if the BOG helps out and let us go to congress to change things.  We have a plan, We have the man, We have the motivation.  All we need is the permission.  

Of course, there is no reason why we can go outside the AF for funding for the cadet program.  We could expand the School Program and go to DoEd for funding. I've been told we do have friends in congress who also sit on the education committee.  We could eventually get additional funding expressly for the cadet program and AE program which could eventually give us $millions more.

FW: We are making Progress on the Middle School Front! Details after next week.
Report to moderator   Logged
DNall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,721

« Reply #75 on: May 26, 2008, 06:32:49 AM »

Dnall I think you are coming to realize my point.
I appreciate that we have serious membership issues, particularly with regard to retention & that aggressive action must be taken on that front.

I appreciate that CAP is prohibitively expensive for a large percentage of the population, and getting worse along several variables. I would love to see some effort to offset those factors in a reasonable way.

Per diem that amounts to pay in order to compensate for time away from work is not reasonable & not going to happen. Functioning out from under the FAA in the way the military does is not even a slight theoretical option.

Employment protection laws & paid leave from govt employer laws are a good start. Federal inclusion in guard/reserve employment protection, and paid leave from federal employers is the next step. Modest limited per diem &/or reimbursement to cover actual expenses within GSA limits is reasonable, and should be a part of negotiations with other agencies, but it isn't a make/break factor & don't count on it.

Better funding across the board would be awesome, but that's not reality. My guard unit could use a lot more funding, but they aren't getting it, and we're a real military unit which has & does deploy flying active combat missions with distinction. I still can't get a full issue of basic required gear/uniforms to all my people though.

100% turnover in 5 years?  Yes, in the cadet program that is probably true since pretty much by design most will have "graduated" the program by then.  In the senior program, which is where we have drifted, I don't think it is anything like that. 

By the way, the military has extremely high turnover rates and they manage to do pretty well with it.  Turnover by itself doesn't meant that you can't perform your missions. 
He's right about the turnover rate. Obviously some people stay around for long careers, but 2-3 other people have joined & quit during that time. The average or mean membership is probably 2-3 years. In active participation terms it'd be worse then that.

The military has people locked in for 4-6 years, and into tightly focused jobs.That's a big deal. In CAP you burn out & go on your way. In the military you get more frustrated cause bad things happen & there's absolutely nothing you can do about it, and you don't have the choice to walk away. In most cases you get past that bad patch & it works out for the best in the end, so you stay on when you would have otherwise walked away if you could.

It gives them some stability & predictability that they can account for in recruiting for each year group. They also spend billions on recruiting and entry level training. We invest in members and then often lose that investment when they choose to leave whenever they feel like it. IMO, that's a big reason why we don't bring on a lot of advanced tech. If we have to invest in training members that may just walk away from the org or not show up for the mission, then that's a whole ton of money wasted.

We all know retention is a massive factor and our active participation levels are a major problem that's not even being measured. All that does require action, but per diem for missions is not going to solve it. A whole ton of streamlining & common sense might make a real dent, and more mission would too, but we have to be reasonable not rash.
Report to moderator   Logged
Frenchie
Forum Regular

Posts: 183

« Reply #76 on: May 26, 2008, 11:05:13 AM »

He's right about the turnover rate. Obviously some people stay around for long careers, but 2-3 other people have joined & quit during that time. The average or mean membership is probably 2-3 years. In active participation terms it'd be worse then that.

I have no idea what the actual figures are for senior members, but a high turnover rate wouldn't surprise me at all.  Many join because their kids are cadets and quit because their kids are no longer cadets.

It would be more interesting to see if CAP is losing or gaining numbers on the operations side.  The Texas wing has about 200 pilots who are on the wing pilots list (for about 33 aircraft) and one would have to assume all of them are at least active enough to keep their form 5s up to date.

I'd say that's a pretty healthy number on the operations side for the state of Texas and CAP does virtually nothing to recruit senior members.  Imagine what our numbers would be with even a minimal recruitment effort.
Report to moderator   Logged
Gunner C
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,748

« Reply #77 on: May 26, 2008, 11:28:33 AM »

As a commander, I originally looked at the problem as a recruiting challenge.  I soon found out that it was akin to trying to fix a hole in the swimming pool by refilling it faster - it just doesn't work.

The key is retension. 

The key to retension is providing what the members originally joined for:  challenging, worthwhile activities. 

The key to challenging, worthwhile activities are:

1.  A cohesive, reasonable, thought-out plan.

2.  Good leadership.

3.  Removing unnecessary road blocks, administrivia, and stupid requirements.

4.  High standards: so when a member finishes something, they feel like they've really accomplished a personal goal instead of spent time checking a long list of boxes.

Just an opinion.

GC
Report to moderator   Logged
DNall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,721

« Reply #78 on: May 26, 2008, 06:43:06 PM »

It would be more interesting to see if CAP is losing or gaining numbers on the operations side.  The Texas wing has about 200 pilots who are on the wing pilots list (for about 33 aircraft) and one would have to assume all of them are at least active enough to keep their form 5s up to date.

I think it's really low actually. The formula is you need 3 volunteers on a single mission to cover the same commitment you can expect from one paid worker - people can't take off work/life forever. Add crew rest to that. Add a geographic focus so you can't easily take people from really far away, or at least their response time is going to be several days. You start getting down to a number that doesn't allow for real quick scramble all the time or doesn't allow for sustained operations.

I've actually had a 4 pilots join CAP & then quit because they were denied fm5 rides (sight unseen) by the lead check pilot in the area. The justification being, 'CAP has too many pilots.' That's absolute crap.

As a commander, I originally looked at the problem as a recruiting challenge.  I soon found out that it was akin to trying to fix a hole in the swimming pool by refilling it faster - it just doesn't work.

The key is retension. 

The key to retension is providing what the members originally joined for:  challenging, worthwhile activities. 

The key to challenging, worthwhile activities are:

1.  A cohesive, reasonable, thought-out plan.

2.  Good leadership.

3.  Removing unnecessary road blocks, administrivia, and stupid requirements.

4.  High standards: so when a member finishes something, they feel like they've really accomplished a personal goal instead of spent time checking a long list of boxes.

That's exactly right.  :clap:
Report to moderator   Logged
Earhart1971
Seasoned Member

Posts: 397

« Reply #79 on: May 26, 2008, 09:25:25 PM »

I am not eliminating the possibility of pay for CAP Pilots, but for now, we are just not funded correctly for performance of the mission and retention of pilots for the mission.

And the retention numbers reflect the problem.
Report to moderator   Logged
mikeylikey
Banned

Posts: 3,755

« Reply #80 on: May 26, 2008, 10:01:13 PM »

Why the crap would we even consider paying Pilots??  Our Name might be Civil AIR Patrol, but in reality, pilots and crewmembers do not make up the majority in the organization.  As soon as DOD or even GAO sees CAP branded money going to pay for Pilots in CAP......I bet CAP would cease to exist the next fiscal year. 

Report to moderator   Logged
What's up monkeys?
DNall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,721

« Reply #81 on: May 26, 2008, 10:45:57 PM »

I am not eliminating the possibility of pay for CAP Pilots, but for now, we are just not funded correctly for performance of the mission and retention of pilots for the mission.

And the retention numbers reflect the problem.

If you mean funded correctly in terms of we're not providing per diem to offset the cost of volunteering. Okay, but that's not happening. If the govt gave us 100mil next year, we still would not do that. There are to be certain hundreds of things we need to be spending money on & can't afford. We absolutely need a truck load of money at the field level, not just supporting a bigger & bigger HQ. There is a lot we need to do. Changing the nature of the org from pure volunteer to kind of volunteer/kind of compensated is somewhere between not on the table & not going to happen.

Retention is certainly a problem. While you may be right to a degree about some of why it's occurring. There is nothing anyone in any part of CAP can do about that. We can't change our nature from volunteer to semi-reserve. That's not in our power. Congress isn't about to do that either. While you may want millions, the fact is it doesn't exist. There is no ton of money to be had. Giving a penny more to CAP means cutting it from some other deserving program. CAP gets what it deserves in that competition for resources, actually quite a bit more than it deserves thanks to our sponsor.
Report to moderator   Logged
Earhart1971
Seasoned Member

Posts: 397

« Reply #82 on: May 27, 2008, 02:43:40 AM »

DNall, the money and the priority for giving to a good Program exists, and Congress is increasing funding for JROTC, more units and more paid people. JROTC is not the CAP Cadet Program, and I believe CAP deserves equal funding on a scale adequate for all our missions. I am using Cadets as a Yard Stick because, we have mission not carried out by other agencies in a similar fashion.


So, I ask this: Why is not National HQ picking up on this willingness of Congress to increase funding of some Programs and not others. 700 Million or so for just a Cadet Program Mission, and increased funding. My guess is our own Mindset prevents change in our situation.

Why does CAP have to suffer from multi Mission Taskings and 40 Million Total Funding, for a National Program?

Right now, count our Missions, 3 to 10 if you count all the underfunded taskings.

I will ask these questions to Board Members in August I am not Shy.




Report to moderator   Logged
Earhart1971
Seasoned Member

Posts: 397

« Reply #83 on: May 27, 2008, 05:35:07 AM »

Why the crap would we even consider paying Pilots??  Our Name might be Civil AIR Patrol, but in reality, pilots and crewmembers do not make up the majority in the organization.  As soon as DOD or even GAO sees CAP branded money going to pay for Pilots in CAP......I bet CAP would cease to exist the next fiscal year. 



The Bigger Danger is CAP will cease to exist anyway, we are heading down that path now.

If we take on every mission under the sun, without necessary funding, that will happen at light speed.

Just start raising up the flying hours, and adding on missions, and see how long it takes for that to happen.

I compare this to a business that sells it services cheap, then when sales increases, the business goes bankrupt.
Report to moderator   Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #84 on: May 27, 2008, 01:18:13 PM »

I don't know exactly what unfunded missions you think we're taking on now.  If anything, the first words out of our mouths to potential customers lately has been, "and just how will you be reimbursing us for today's mission, sir?  Cash or credit card?"
Report to moderator   Logged
DNall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,721

« Reply #85 on: May 27, 2008, 02:25:52 PM »

DNall, the money and the priority for giving to a good Program exists, and Congress is increasing funding for JROTC, more units and more paid people. JROTC is not the CAP Cadet Program, and I believe CAP deserves equal funding on a scale adequate for all our missions. I am using Cadets as a Yard Stick because, we have mission not carried out by other agencies in a similar fashion.

You're assuming CAP is a good program, and that Congress believes that. And also that there's unlimited funds to give to similar causes, or that any of this need be fair.

JROTC is the primary under 18 cadet program for each DoD component. It is far more effective in recruitment objectives if only because of scale. It is far more politically popular, again because of scale & the number of communities it touches & public recognition of what it is.

They gain political points with the people back home when they fund JROTC & it accomplishes what they want, which is increased enlistments & greater public support for military service. They get very very little of that on each count by funding CAP.

The time for CAP to act was at the outset of the JROTC movement. We should have way back then interposed ourselves as the parent agency of AFJROTC. That didn't happen & there is no going back.

Quote
So, I ask this: Why is not National HQ picking up on this willingness of Congress to increase funding of some Programs and not others. 700 Million or so for just a Cadet Program Mission, and increased funding. My guess is our own Mindset prevents change in our situation.

Again you're assuming because they've proposed increasing funds to folks like JROTC & DHS that CAP is also owed something. They don't care about JROTC or DHS. They care about meeting objectives, and right now CAP doesn't get that done. Just because they're passing out some money doesn't mean there's unlimited funds or that we're the right people to give them to.

Certainly they could massively reorg CAP & quadruple the funding, to turn us into something much more useful to the country. It's just as reasonable to disestablish CAP & use those funds/resources on other agencies that are already effective. From here inside the box it seems so clear that CAP is a great thing that deserves so much more support. But, most of the country either doesn't know that or doesn't agree with it.

The Bigger Danger is CAP will cease to exist anyway, we are heading down that path now. If we take on every mission under the sun, without necessary funding, that will happen at light speed. Just start raising up the flying hours, and adding on missions, and see how long it takes for that to happen. I compare this to a business that sells it services cheap, then when sales increases, the business goes bankrupt.
Again, if the usefulness of CAP actually reaches its end, we will become a drain on the best interests of the country, despite our best efforts. If & when that happens then CAP should be dissolved & a more effective distribution of resources followed. Just like SAC went away when their purpose for being did.

I do think CAP has some serious economic issues to deal with as the mission shifts. That's part of a range of issue sour current & future leadership have to deal with in this historic period. I do think that'll lead to dramatic reorg of the CAP, but it'll remain under the AF, because that's the life blood & no one else is willing to let us drink at such a fountain.
Report to moderator   Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #86 on: May 27, 2008, 04:03:00 PM »

Which objectives is CAP failing to meet that JROTC is meeting?
Report to moderator   Logged
mikeylikey
Banned

Posts: 3,755

« Reply #87 on: May 27, 2008, 05:21:26 PM »

JROTC was historically the ROTC program.....getting qualified Soldiers (think Cadets and Officers) into the Military.  When the actual JROTC designation came......it was thought of as a leadership and civic minded program to further the patriotism of youth in the 1950's-70's.  (think Cold War.....and "better dead than Red" type patriotism).  Today it is nothing more than a throwback to that era.  Sure they updated the texts and present wider information resource depths to include Physical Fitness and modern leadership principals, but it is still a throwback.  There is a "recruitment edge", as the actual military Dept. is principally showcased on a daily basis.  I can not accept that many JROTC cadets actually go on to enlist....but then again I have not read that far into the material. 

Lets not forget the name of the Program is Junior Reserve OFFICER Training Corps.  JROTC is NOT producing Officers like the program was originally attended to do.  That is where ROTC comes into play.  Heck.....Most Senior ROTC units (AF/Army/Navy) do not even give course credit for JROTC accomplishments.  You have to get an "official waiver" at most University ROTC units and the unit does not even do the waivering, it is sent to higher HQ. 

JROTC is a tax on our school systems......and an even larger tax on the TAXPAYERS.  I am all in favor of abolishing JROTC for a real Nationwide Civics program to be taught to High Schoolers.  Leave ROTC and its mission of creating Officers for the military at the College and University level, stop paying retired Officers and NCO's $$ in High Schools......and start giving more $$ to programs like CAP that are using the Cadets (as resources) to do more than just sit in a classroom and read about leadership theory.  At least CAP puts its Cadets to work on Ground Teams and has the ability to find other usefull work for them to accomplish in carrying out volunteer activities. 

Sorry....my Rant is OVER

Report to moderator   Logged
What's up monkeys?
Earhart1971
Seasoned Member

Posts: 397

« Reply #88 on: May 27, 2008, 06:00:03 PM »

You guys on your last posts, are missing the point slightly.

JROTC combined is being increased in funding by Congress, I was using that as just a YARD STICK to prove a point. Congress is willing to increase funding for these programs. And they are doing it AGRESSIVELY, almost like a BLITZKRIEG.

It means one thing Money is FLOWING, Money is AVAILABLE, and we need to get our share. We can get our Share, IF WE CAN SELL OUR PROGRAM. 

A window into the mindset of the givers, "CONGRESS", they obviously like these programs. Why is CAP and our Program being overlooked. I do not intend to compete with JROTC. Our Strategy should be cooperation. I am doing that on a local basis.

I gather with JROTC instructors, they see Civil Air Patrol Michell Award Cadets, they understand one thing, CAP has the best Cadet Program in the World. They envy the Culture of the CAP Cadet Program. It cannot be duplicated by JROTC.

So I propose to advance on two fronts, more Money for Cadets and for the Missions.


Report to moderator   Logged
mikeylikey
Banned

Posts: 3,755

« Reply #89 on: May 27, 2008, 06:49:52 PM »

^ But it will come down to, "fellow members of Congress, do we fund CAP this year or should we fund JROTC".  The answere will allways be JROTC, mainly because the age of our elected Officials.  They see JROTC as what they had when they were kids.  Unless our elected officials volunteered in CAP, either as a Cadet or Senior, they will only see CAP as one more operation that takes away money from the stuff they want for their State. 

We really need the AF to say "We want to make CAP the Full-time Auxiliary of the USAF, here is our revised operations and oversight plan".  We need USAF to take a real liking to us, and perhaps move in more AF missions.  We should be doing mostly AF assigned missions, and very few state and local agency missions. 

Someone or a group of someones really let the ball slip 1989-1999.  I think it was most likely on the CAP NHQ and Corporate side. 

This bill could have been good for CAP.  I speak all the time to those that were there when it was being pushed around originally, and it was supposed to be more than what we have now.  We really had a chance to get in a good bill, but someone (or once again, a group of someones) really jacked it up.     
Report to moderator   Logged
What's up monkeys?
DNall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,721

« Reply #90 on: May 27, 2008, 11:32:10 PM »

JROTC was historically the ROTC program.....getting qualified Soldiers (think Cadets and Officers) into the Military. .... I can not accept that many JROTC cadets actually go on to enlist....but then again I have not read that far into the material. 

JUNIOR ROTC is meant to be a feeder system for SENIOR ROTC, which is the officer producing program. Like CAP, JROTC does not have an explicitly (publicly) stated objective of putting people in the military. However, many many times more people enter the military each year from JROTC programs than from CAP. That is principally a function of their MUCH greater size. I think CAP actually performs much better on a percentage basis, but percentages don't meet black & white yearly recruiting quotas. JROTC has some very strong metrics to demonstrate their real impact on that front, and that translates to funding. CAP is not capable of matching that, even if 100% of our cadets in each year group enter the military.

Quote
JROTC is a tax on our school systems......and an even larger tax on the TAXPAYERS.  I am all in favor of abolishing JROTC for a real Nationwide Civics program to be taught to High Schoolers.  Leave ROTC and its mission of creating Officers for the military at the College and University level, stop paying retired Officers and NCO's $$ in High Schools......and start giving more $$ to programs like CAP that are using the Cadets (as resources) to do more than just sit in a classroom and read about leadership theory.  At least CAP puts its Cadets to work on Ground Teams and has the ability to find other usefull work for them to accomplish in carrying out volunteer activities.

The CAP cadet program does not utilize cadets as resources. Cadets MAY participate in other aspects of CAP (meaning ES) IF & ONLY IF they are first accomplishing everything they can in the cadet program. That means they have to stay on track with promotions. If they could promote faster by doing less ES, then they are required to do less ES & focus on the cadet program. They are not intended to be resources. That's just bonus for us & them.

I don't think JROTC is the best thing going. I think CAP is far superior in a lot of ways, but JROTC is the program DoD is backing (to the exclusion of CAP), and that won't change. I don't think it is a drain so much as you say. I think it does a decent job of reinforcing personal discipline & motivating young people to fight for their goals in life. As with everything else, CAP is much less consistent & impacts much fewer people.

JROTC combined is being increased in funding by Congress, I was using that as just a YARD STICK to prove a point. Congress is willing to increase funding for these programs. And they are doing it AGRESSIVELY, almost like a BLITZKRIEG.

They are funding THOSE programs in particular because THEY are the lead cadet program sponsored by DoD components. CAP is not & will not be. It is not about which program is better. They reach more people & result in more political capital when funded. CAP loses that battle on every front.

The difference between where we are now & a 100k+ cadet program is NOT funding. It's us. It's not at all hard to recruit cadets. If we got our crap together as an org then we could easily reach out & grow as much as we want, in theory. Money might make that a little easier, but it's not inhibiting us from getting there. If you want money to support 100k cadets, recruit them & the money will follow. It doesn't work the other way around.

Quote
It means one thing Money is FLOWING, Money is AVAILABLE, and we need to get our share. We can get our Share, IF WE CAN SELL OUR PROGRAM. 

Again, money is NOT flowing & NOT available. Just because one org is getting higher funding does not mean there's a competition on for those dollars. They aren't getting that money to run a cadet program. They're getting it because they are already successful at producing public support for the military & in recruiting. If CAP wants more funding, then they need to raise their public recognition & massively grow their program, and do so with what you got.

Quote
A window into the mindset of the givers, "CONGRESS", they obviously like these programs. Why is CAP and our Program being overlooked. I do not intend to compete with JROTC. Our Strategy should be cooperation. I am doing that on a local basis.
They don't care in the slightest about these programs. They care about results for their investment. And they care when funding results in votes. If you have 100 people in a CAP unit, you aren't swinging an election. If you have three HS JROTC units, with the parents of each of those 60-100 kids, it makes a difference.

Report to moderator   Logged
DNall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,721

« Reply #91 on: May 27, 2008, 11:35:38 PM »

^ But it will come down to, "fellow members of Congress, do we fund CAP this year or should we fund JROTC".  The answere will allways be JROTC, mainly because the age of our elected Officials.  They see JROTC as what they had when they were kids.  Unless our elected officials volunteered in CAP, either as a Cadet or Senior, they will only see CAP as one more operation that takes away money from the stuff they want for their State. 

We really need the AF to say "We want to make CAP the Full-time Auxiliary of the USAF, here is our revised operations and oversight plan".  We need USAF to take a real liking to us, and perhaps move in more AF missions.  We should be doing mostly AF assigned missions, and very few state and local agency missions. 

Someone or a group of someones really let the ball slip 1989-1999.  I think it was most likely on the CAP NHQ and Corporate side. 

This bill could have been good for CAP.  I speak all the time to those that were there when it was being pushed around originally, and it was supposed to be more than what we have now.  We really had a chance to get in a good bill, but someone (or once again, a group of someones) really jacked it up.     

That's all correct.

It would be fine with me if Congress/AF moved to merge the CAP cadet program & AFJROTC. With one being the in school variety & the other being an out of school alternative, but both being the same program with the same oversight.

I think we were talking more about mission though...
Report to moderator   Logged
Earhart1971
Seasoned Member

Posts: 397

« Reply #92 on: May 28, 2008, 02:59:21 AM »

It would take another thread to explain, but CAP is the superior Cadet Program, not JROTC. None of JROTC Programs come close to the CAP Cadet Program. That would take another long thread to explain. The only advantage they have is better funding. I have got into the programs deep locally, I know all of their problems, and we are perfectly positioned to help them or save them.

Combining programs might make sense, or even better the Air Force fades out of the Cadet Program Business and we use their instructors to teach the CAP Program, and our own Instructors. Funding shifts, and Admin all combined and then we could really go to town.


Report to moderator   Logged
DNall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,721

« Reply #93 on: May 28, 2008, 11:08:05 PM »

It would take another thread to explain, but CAP is the superior Cadet Program, not JROTC. None of JROTC Programs come close to the CAP Cadet Program. That would take another long thread to explain. The only advantage they have is better funding. I have got into the programs deep locally, I know all of their problems, and we are perfectly positioned to help them or save them.

It has nothing to do with quality. That's not even a factor being considered by anyone. And, there is no competition. They are the primary under-18 cadet program of the AF, because JROTC is likewise the primary cadet program of the other services. DoD wants to support each service's cadet program in balance with the others according to the scale of the service. They prefer to do that within the framework of equiv programs (JROTC vs NJROTC vs AFJROTC vs MJROTC) instead of bringing alternatives like CAP into the mix in any significant way. If the AF really really wanted to, they could probably cut back on AFJROTC & put more of that money to CAP, but dividing resources is not as efficient as keeping it in one basket.

As far as the two programs, they each have pros & cons. I think CAP cadets are going to be much more committed by the nature of them doing it on their own time & money versus in school getting a grade. That really accounts for the great majority of the difference. Having kids in front of you five days a week is a huge advantage on their side though, and the consistency of well trained instructors & a well monitored consistently delivered program. It's hard to say either program is really that much greater than the other. They ultimately have a great deal in common.

Quote
Combining programs might make sense, or even better the Air Force fades out of the Cadet Program Business and we use their instructors to teach the CAP Program, and our own Instructors. Funding shifts, and Admin all combined and then we could really go to town.
I don't even know what that means. If they get out of the cadet program business then there is no funding, and there are no instructors to teach our cadets or adults.

I do think a high quality cadet programs officer basic course (much more than TLC) is something we really need to look at. I do think we could use significant support from AF, AETC, AU, & AFROTC on that.

I also think that while it's very inconsistent & there are some worthless people out there, that there are also some very superb cadet programs officers out there doing a much better job than many AFJROTC instructors.

Overall, money really is not the answer. Not for the cadet program for sure. Recruiting thousands more cadets & operating a consistent quality program is the answer there.

For missions, we don't need a new sugar daddy (DHS) either. We can do some stuff for them, but not really that much given what we have right now. We really need to push our mission expansion more to the AF & adapt that way. That's where the money is for us. Not so much in other alternatives that are not as supportive.
Report to moderator   Logged
Earhart1971
Seasoned Member

Posts: 397

« Reply #94 on: May 29, 2008, 07:09:11 AM »

I am concerned with the success of Civil Air Patrol and I can get the money, watch it happen, National needs to appoint a member committee to go see Congress. I volunteer for that.

JROTC by the way is hurting, and they are funded, they made a tactical mistake in setting up the program years ago, and its hard to restructure.

CAP has a great program for parents that can afford to buy kids uniforms and equipment.

Funding is the difference between the two programs, and NOTHING ELSE. I could recruit a 100 Cadet Squadron if I offered free uniforms, and free everything like JROTC. As it is I have recruited the largest Squadron in Florida Wing, due to enhanced AFJROTC-CAP Cooperation on a local level.

In school programs are the future, and better funding of Mission Operations should be pursued.
Report to moderator   Logged
DNall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,721

« Reply #95 on: May 29, 2008, 04:40:38 PM »

^ You don't think there's a hundred people advocating CAP items to congress on an almost daily basis? You don't think Congress has heard this? They know they issues and have made an informed decision to support JROTC as the lead under-18 program. I explained to you why. If you don't want to except that explanation then that's up to you.

As far as advocating to congress. I hope you understand that we need a single voice there, or rather a unified message. If they get hundreds of different versions of a CAP agenda thrown at them, no momentum will build to back any of them. We have a legislative liaison, and we have a national command structure. They are supposed to be in front of congress. The only role any of us need to play in that picture is behind the scenes quietly advocating in support of what they decide the org needs to ask for. Anything else is counter productive & tends to result in less funding.

We do offer free blues uniforms, paid by the AF, same as JROTC. All JROTC does differently is the school district fronts the money to purchase the items, & the govt reimburses, so they have adequate serviceable items in stock.

If you want to create that situation, start a school program with tens or hundreds of thousands in school district funding & you'll be all set. That's already going on in LtCol Leveque's unit.

I'm not sure what things are like in your area, but the reasons people join or don't join around here have almost nothing to do with access to uniforms or even money in general. The issues are much more related to programming and consistent quality instructors/supervisors. Funding would certainly help on that front, but it's not the defining issue. The bigger deal is we need many many more professional adult cadet programs officers with the time, training, mentoring from above, and personal abilities to operate the program.

You say you're already operating an joint AFJROTC-CAP program. Well that's great. There's provision for that in the CAP system & it's not regularly used now days. I got no problem with adding such units all over the country. That really doesn't change a lot about CAP. It certainly doesn't shift funding from those JROTC programs to CAP. It just means you may have some more kids to participate in some stuff. Generally in my experience though, such cadets are primarily JROTC cadets who are using CAP for the extra benefits.

As far as in-school being the future. I'm really not so sure about that. JROTC, for better or worse, has a handle on that already. There isn't a need for CAP to move in on that territory, and I certainly don't want to be the junior-JROTC. I think there's a great need to service kids that don't have access to JROTC programs. That means a lot of rural programs, which is good because it increases our geographic coverage for ES purposes, and it means private & home school kids. The AF is still funding the CAP cadet program in order to impact those populations that JROTC doesn't have the capture opportunity over. Rolling up in school falsely pushes up numbers, but it takes away that primary purpose the AF is looking at.

Report to moderator   Logged
Earhart1971
Seasoned Member

Posts: 397

« Reply #96 on: May 30, 2008, 01:14:53 AM »

DNall we are at the limit of what can be discussed on this thread.

In person, I would have you agreeing with me, and also, nobody at National thinks CAP can get any money. Nothing more than we get now.

Come on down to Florida in August, and we head out for a Beer, I will have some people on the ground that will give you an ear full.
Report to moderator   Logged
MIKE
Super Moderator

Posts: 5,461
Unit: LANTAREA

« Reply #97 on: May 30, 2008, 01:17:21 AM »

And with that I think we can close this one.
Report to moderator   Logged
Mike Johnston
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 5 [All] Send this topic Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: What happened to:H.R.1333 : To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.131 seconds with 26 queries.