DHS Change over

Flying Pig · May 20, 2009, 01:59:02 PM

All of this talk about going under DHS, I think the entire culture of CAP will change. Going from a military culture to a Law Enforcement culture (they are not the same) I think we will find different priorities between the two. I think the topics of uniforms will become something completely enforced by CAP since DHS doesnt wear uniforms or those in DHS that do, they are very limited.
I don't know if it will be a 100% change over completely cutting our ties with the Air Force, but when we have SAR's, will Air Force Pilots show up to evaluate us or will their be Law Enforcement/DHS reps showing up? Will we still be allowed to meet on military installations? As a law enforcement officer, will I have to drop out of CAP? As it stands right now, I am not allowed to be a volunteer fire fighter or a volunteer with another LE agency. Hmmmmmmm.

heliodoc · May 20, 2009, 02:07:37 PM

Good Questions, Rob

My experience...FWIW...There will be changes

With those CApers desiring more DHS type involvement and missions....

DHS MAY find a way to either keep CAP the way its is OR completely do away with the so called CAP, Inc for sheer ease and the problems associated with 501C3 organizations

Not saying it will be done, but assuming the DHS button does get pushed, ther's going to be a whole new world to live by and I am making a STRONG assumption, here.....

I am sure CAPM 39-1 will be least of our problems

Eclipse · May 20, 2009, 02:09:45 PM

Its just talk.

Much more likely that our role would include being lent to other agencies under our current structure than any whole-scale change.

heliodoc · May 20, 2009, 02:24:21 PM

Might be.....

Might be just talk you might right, Eclipse

We'll have to wait for the GAO / Congressional study on how cheap we are as a resource, cuz there will be arguments all about this.. might even be cheaper to put ARCHER on an already flying Predator owned by CBP than burning 100LL 'cuz that will be flying ALLL day long...longer than a C182

Nonetheless, we will be working for the customer who is in charge and more reasons for ALLLL those FEMA course everyone so dreads to include those ground teams and aircrews who thought they were exempt from ALLLL that.

But again, if things do change ..... CAPM 39-1 will be the least of both DHS's worries and ours

RiverAux · May 20, 2009, 04:45:04 PM

There is no "going over to DHS". There isn't even a proposal on the table to change the federal law that makes us the AF auxiliary whenever we are working for ANY federal agency.

We've been working under DHS/FEMA for decades. All that is being discussed is expanding the types of missions that we're being used on.

Flying Pig · May 20, 2009, 05:02:08 PM

DHS hasnt been around for decades.

Gunner C · May 20, 2009, 05:06:02 PM

Correct, but we have supported agencies that are now DHS components. Lo mismo.

RiverAux · May 20, 2009, 05:27:18 PM

Quote from: Flying Pig on May 20, 2009, 05:02:08 PM
DHS hasnt been around for decades.

Which is why I said "DHS/FEMA"

USADOD · May 20, 2009, 05:54:27 PM

I hear the Army is looking for an Auxiliary..any takers? j/k

Eclipse · May 20, 2009, 05:56:51 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on May 20, 2009, 04:45:04 PM
There is no "going over to DHS". There isn't even a proposal on the table to change the federal law that makes us the AF auxiliary whenever we are working for ANY federal agency.

Exactly.

It would be nice to stop people with an agenda trying to insinuate anything else is ever going to happen.

Its not.

RRLE · May 20, 2009, 07:27:38 PM

QuoteAll of this talk about going under DHS, I think the entire culture of CAP will change. Going from a military culture to a Law Enforcement culture (they are not the same) I think we will find different priorities between the two.

Don't forget that the USCG, one of the five Armed Services, is under DHS. With that said, the USCG Auxiliary is very much less military then CAP is - no saluting between members and no rank - just for 2 examples. So whether or not CAP is directly affiliated with a miltiary agency or not isn't the deciding factor. CAP's own culture will determine if it retains whatever miltiary bearing it has.

QuoteI think the topics of uniforms will become something completely enforced by CAP since DHS doesnt wear uniforms or those in DHS that do, they are very limited.

DHS has the experience of the USCG Auxiliary. They have less uniforms then you but complain about each other's compliance (or lack thereof) with uni regs as much as you guys.

RiverAux has been a proponent on the Aux boards of merging CAP and the air side of the USCG Aux. That could happen - just merge CAP into the USCG Aux.

RiverAux · May 20, 2009, 08:56:00 PM

QuoteRiverAux has been a proponent on the Aux boards of merging CAP and the air side of the USCG Aux. That could happen - just merge CAP into the USCG Aux.

To be clear, I've proposed that the CG Aux air program be discontinued and the work be given to CAP -- provided that CAP also makes allowances for the use of private aircraft to handle the extended duration over-water missions often done by CG Aux air.

sparks · May 20, 2009, 10:54:35 PM

Using cap member aircraft makes sense. My squadron can't do "O" flights becaue the assigned aircraft is gone for at least two months. If member aircraft could be used that wouldn't be a problem. Of course safeguards will need to be put in place to ensure member aircraft are safe but it is a viable option. CAP needs to do less arguing about uniforms and more discussion about accomplishing the mission. Whether you prefer the flight suit or something else should not be the primary issue.

I don't know anything about the the CGAUX air mission so I don't know how difficult it would be to meld the two into one. Does someone have a draft plan?

RiverAux · May 20, 2009, 11:02:36 PM

Its a little too "pie-in-the-sky" to ever really be seriously considered. I just consider CG Aux's aviation program redundant with what we can do better for the most part. However, for extended overwater work we would want to use member owned two-engine aircraft.

Rotorhead · May 21, 2009, 12:41:28 AM

Quote from: sparks on May 20, 2009, 10:54:35 PM
Using cap member aircraft makes sense. My squadron can't do "O" flights becaue the assigned aircraft is gone for at least two months. If member aircraft could be used that wouldn't be a problem.

Back in the 90s, member a/c were commonly used for both training and missions.

Eclipse · May 21, 2009, 01:42:50 AM

Quote from: sparks on May 20, 2009, 10:54:35 PM
My squadron can't do "O" flights because the assigned aircraft is gone for at least two months. If member aircraft could be used that wouldn't be a problem.

I would stake my oak leaves that your state has more than one aircraft. Having one assigned to your unit is a luxury, not an excuse.

See here regarding MOA's: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=8058.msg146556#msg146556

arajca · May 21, 2009, 02:24:44 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on May 21, 2009, 01:42:50 AM
Quote from: sparks on May 20, 2009, 10:54:35 PM
My squadron can't do "O" flights because the assigned aircraft is gone for at least two months. If member aircraft could be used that wouldn't be a problem.

I would stake my oak leaves that your state has more than one aircraft. Having one assigned to your unit is a luxury, not an excuse.

The unit I work with does not have an a/c. It has never had an a/c. The only problem we have in getting o-flights is getting the cadets to sign up. We've set up a regular schedule for every month with a unit that has an a/c. All it took was some communication and willingness to work together.

whatevah · May 21, 2009, 03:00:36 AM

wasn't this mentioned last month?

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=7599.0