Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 21, 2018, 09:03:44 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Aviation & Flying Activities  |  Topic: "USAF Aux" Off of CAP Aircraft
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 [2]  All Print
Author Topic: "USAF Aux" Off of CAP Aircraft  (Read 9546 times)
flyguy06
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,195

« Reply #20 on: October 14, 2006, 01:19:11 AM »

Such in my scenarion with my unit. My unit is an iner city unoit. These cadets arent into going to the woods and camoing and all that. They do however ehave a trong interest in engineering and aviation. I try to steer the programtoward that due to the interest
Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,967

« Reply #21 on: November 02, 2006, 07:05:18 PM »

Still waiting to see some actual confirmation that this will occur.  The regulation requiring USAF Aux on the tail still stands and if a plane has Civil Air Patrol on it, it is out of compliance.  I'm not arguing that such a change might not be made due to some of the reasons expressed in prior posts, just that as of right now I still consider this a rumor. 
Logged
bosshawk
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,588

« Reply #22 on: November 03, 2006, 04:32:56 PM »

It is my understanding that USAF directed that we remove the USAF AUX from the tails of our airplanes.  I believe that said directive came straight from HqUSAF.  Implementation is TBD.

Some of you folks are correct: we do have some significant support roles with Law Enforcement.  We do "reconnaissance" for illegal drug activity, we do airborne radio relay for police and sheriff departments and we work with the Forest Service and DEA on various operations.  Just to set the record straight, no third party agencies currently pay for any of this: it comes from our AF appropriations.  Correction, some states do contribute to the CAP budget in order to have us respond to emergencies and other requests from state agencies.  California gets $80k a year from the Office of Emergency Services: primarily for SAR missions.

One member stated that we do "surveillance".  That is forbidden by law.  Maybe the member really meant "reconnaissance". 

Just to set the record straight, I have flown a lot of these missions and am now the CDO for CAWG.
Logged
Paul M. Reed
Col, USA(ret)
Former CAP Lt Col
Wilson #2777
DNall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,721

« Reply #23 on: November 03, 2006, 07:58:26 PM »

To clarify, roles in assistance to LE have absolutely no bearing on "USAF AUX" being on the tail. Those same exact missions - literarlly the same missions - are flown by national guard & federal military helos w/ US Army painted on the side. I've heard speculation the order came from AF, but nothing solid, and this is after the AF cleared it going on there & wrote a reg clarifying their authority to regulate it. If they want it off then fine, if CAP is ordering it off for some actually legit reason then fine, if it's more symbolic BS to act like we're a company than someoone needs a 2x4 upside the head. This is one of those things (like the command patch) that wouldn't matter if it had said "Civil Air Patrol" in the first place, but when you go to "USAF Aux" & then back away from it, that's bad - some would say it sends a negative signal to all parties.
Logged
bosshawk
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,588

« Reply #24 on: November 03, 2006, 09:35:22 PM »

dnall: does your response imply that the AFI(10-2701)quoted above by Mike Johnston does not apply?  It may not be a regulation, but I have a feeling that it could very well drive what CAP does.

I seem to recall that our Wing staff has informed us that this change will have to be made on our aircraft, but only when the aircraft is repainted.  In CAWG, that may be a long time since most of our fleet has been newly painted in the past three years.

In all honesty, this seems like another exercise in tooth-chipping, along with a lot of the uniform and ID card posts.
Logged
Paul M. Reed
Col, USA(ret)
Former CAP Lt Col
Wilson #2777
DNall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,721

« Reply #25 on: November 03, 2006, 10:20:30 PM »

dnall: does your response imply that the AFI(10-2701)quoted above by Mike Johnston does not apply?  It may not be a regulation, but I have a feeling that it could very well drive what CAP does.
No, in fact quite the opposite. That instruction clarifies their authority. If I were AF, I'd be making sure all our planes DID say AF Aux on them, and here's why, because that gives AF authority to decide what kind of LE missions we can be involved in w/o paying for them or bearing any liability. I understand the federal LE missions under AFAM status, that's not what I mean. I mean keeping CAP from crossing a line for state/local LE. I know there's limitations in CAP regs, but CAP could just as easy change those (or write an off the books exception to policy for narrow missions or put it in an MOU) w/o AF consent. The markings deal was a nice little loop hole for AF to keep CAP from going too far & stay in the loop on a corporate mission set.

Quote
In all honesty, this seems like another exercise in tooth-chipping, along with a lot of the uniform and ID card posts.
I know what you mean, but it's not like that. I have no problem with it saying "civil air patrol." I just don't like that they put "AF Aux" on it & then took it off. Wether you like it or not, that sends a pretty loud signal. You can discount that as overly dramatic & paying too much attention to symbolism, but uniforms & paint jobs are intentionally designed to to be dramatic symbols that influence behavior thru visual cues & familiarity.
Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,967

« Reply #26 on: November 03, 2006, 11:40:30 PM »

Lets review what we know:
1.  CAP regs require USAF Aux on our corporate aircraft tails.
2.  AFI 10-2701 says the following:
Quote
2.8. Restrictions on CAP Corporate Activities. Notwithstanding any DoD or Air Force regulation, policy or agreement, the following specific restrictions apply to CAP’s corporate activities.
2.8.1. Air Force Markings. CAP Corporation may not use aircraft and resources that are marked with “USAF,” “USAF Auxiliary,” “US Air Force,” or similar identifiers to engage in the law enforcement activities listed in paragraph 2.2.3. of this instruction and its subparagraphs, without prior approval by USAF/XO.

If you actually read the AFI carefully, it does not prohibit CAP planes marked with USAF Aux from being used in law enforcement activities, it just says it can't be done with AF approval.  As the vast majority of our LE support is to the CD program, which is an AFAM, I don't see where the problem is. 

The AFI was approved in 2005 and I imagine if they wanted to prohibit us from doing LE in these planes they would have said so. 

So, what sort of LE are we going to be doing outside of an AFAM?  Well, there has been some argument that CAP can do all the LE it wants under corporate mission status.  Frankly, I don't see that as a very big market.  Why would we give up the prestige of having USAF Aux on our planes for a very small number of LE missions? 
Logged
DNall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,721

« Reply #27 on: November 04, 2006, 02:26:27 AM »

Lets review what we know:
1.  CAP regs require USAF Aux on our corporate aircraft tails.
2.  AFI 10-2701 says the following:
Quote
2.8. Restrictions on CAP Corporate Activities. Notwithstanding any DoD or Air Force regulation, policy or agreement, the following specific restrictions apply to CAP’s corporate activities.
2.8.1. Air Force Markings. CAP Corporation may not use aircraft and resources that are marked with “USAF,” “USAF Auxiliary,” “US Air Force,” or similar identifiers to engage in the law enforcement activities listed in paragraph 2.2.3. of this instruction and its subparagraphs, without prior approval by USAF/XO.

If you actually read the AFI carefully, it does not prohibit CAP planes marked with USAF Aux from being used in law enforcement activities, it just says it can't be done with AF approval.  As the vast majority of our LE support is to the CD program, which is an AFAM, I don't see where the problem is. 

The AFI was approved in 2005 and I imagine if they wanted to prohibit us from doing LE in these planes they would have said so. 

So, what sort of LE are we going to be doing outside of an AFAM?  Well, there has been some argument that CAP can do all the LE it wants under corporate mission status.  Frankly, I don't see that as a very big market.  Why would we give up the prestige of having USAF Aux on our planes for a very small number of LE missions? 
Put a LE officer in charge and find out, wait I think we're there. I don't believe the AF asked CAP to take AFAux off th eplanes at all. I believe they said we don't want you violating Posse Comitatus on corporate missions & because we have this AFI here we can tell you not to, so our LE Officer-in-chief ordered it taken off the planes. Seem familiar? Like you can't have metal grade, oh hey look at this new corporate service dress. Both of those are CAP complying with the letter & flying in the face of the spirit via loop holes. I believe, in combination w/ the above AFI, it is in the interest of the AF to keep AF Aux on the planes. I think CAP going against that interest just because they techincally can is counter to the best interests of CAP.
Logged
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,402
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #28 on: November 04, 2006, 03:31:09 AM »

Lets review what we know:
1.  CAP regs require USAF Aux on our corporate aircraft tails.
2.  AFI 10-2701 says the following:
Quote
2.8. Restrictions on CAP Corporate Activities. Notwithstanding any DoD or Air Force regulation, policy or agreement, the following specific restrictions apply to CAP’s corporate activities.
2.8.1. Air Force Markings. CAP Corporation may not use aircraft and resources that are marked with “USAF,” “USAF Auxiliary,” “US Air Force,” or similar identifiers to engage in the law enforcement activities listed in paragraph 2.2.3. of this instruction and its subparagraphs, without prior approval by USAF/XO.

If you actually read the AFI carefully, it does not prohibit CAP planes marked with USAF Aux from being used in law enforcement activities, it just says it can't be done with AF approval. [remainder redacted] 

Emphasis mine. Did you really mean with, or did you mean without, as in the AFI quote?

Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
lordmonar
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,650

« Reply #29 on: November 04, 2006, 01:41:51 PM »

I don't believe the AF asked CAP to take AFAux off th eplanes at all. I believe they said we don't want you violating Posse Comitatus on corporate missions & because we have this AFI here we can tell you not to, so our LE Officer-in-chief ordered it taken off the planes. Seem familiar?

Exactly right....the USAF-AUX cannot violate Posse Comitatus....and we are only the USAF-AUX on USAF issued mission numbers.....so why are our plane USAF-AUX 24-7?  By removing USAF-AUX from the planes it free them from Posse Comitatus, and now everyone is happy. (except your for some reason).  Accepting missions from more customers is a good thing is it not?


Like you can't have metal grade, oh hey look at this new corporate service dress. Both of those are CAP complying with the letter & flying in the face of the spirit via loop holes. I believe, in combination w/ the above AFI, it is in the interest of the AF to keep AF Aux on the planes. I think CAP going against that interest just because they techincally can is counter to the best interests of CAP.

Well now not only are you speaking for all of CAP you are speaking for the USAF too?  If the USAF needed us to keep the USAF-AUX on the planes....they would have written the AFI differently.  Is it just possible that these changes were done in conjunction/approval of USAF-CAP?  Do you have any connections over at Maxwell of USAF officials pulling their hair out about this loose cannon in CAP?

Seems to me...they have a pretty good working relationship.  USAF said nice uniform loose the "US"....we lost the "US" and went "CAP".  Seems like a good compromise.  We kept the metal rank and the USAF has plausible deniablity.

CAP took USAF-AUX off their planes and I have not seen any nasty letters from USAF-CAP about it.  No hurried meetings with congress to force CAP back into the USAF-AUX fold.  I hear a lot from you about how this is pushing us away from the USAF but I don't really see it happening.
Logged
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP
Pacific Region
DNall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,721

« Reply #30 on: November 04, 2006, 03:50:54 PM »

Exactly right....the USAF-AUX cannot violate Posse Comitatus....and we are only the USAF-AUX on USAF issued mission numbers.....so why are our plane USAF-AUX 24-7?  By removing USAF-AUX from the planes it free them from Posse Comitatus, and now everyone is happy. (except your for some reason).  Accepting missions from more customers is a good thing is it not?

You're not bound by Posse Comitatus on a corporate mission no matter what it says on the side of the plane. The markings are legally meaningless. The purpose of the AFI was to give the AF power over CAP on corporate missions for state/local LE so that AF could prevent CAP from flying missions for those parties which would otherwise be counter to Posse Comitatus if it were the AF flying the mission.

Quote
Well now not only are you speaking for all of CAP you are speaking for the USAF too?  If the USAF needed us to keep the USAF-AUX on the planes....they would have written the AFI differently.  Is it just possible that these changes were done in conjunction/approval of USAF-CAP?  Do you have any connections over at Maxwell of USAF officials pulling their hair out about this loose cannon in CAP?

Seems to me...they have a pretty good working relationship.  USAF said nice uniform loose the "US"....we lost the "US" and went "CAP".  Seems like a good compromise.  We kept the metal rank and the USAF has plausible deniablity.

CAP took USAF-AUX off their planes and I have not seen any nasty letters from USAF-CAP about it.  No hurried meetings with congress to force CAP back into the USAF-AUX fold.  I hear a lot from you about how this is pushing us away from the USAF but I don't really see it happening.
I do know a general officer with something to say about it, but not even he can speak for the AF. The AFI is written to do as much as they can within the limits of congressional authority. They created a loop hole to gain power over an aspect of CAP operations they were concerned about & CAP close the loop hole so they could do what they want. CAP is not bound by an AFI & free to make our own rules to twist and turn thru AF regs & federal law to get what we want. That's been a long-term problem in the relationship.

AF at no point said the new corporate uniform was good, they said you need to make this list of changes cause this thing is against international law & the UCMJ for our co-serving members.

There are numerous examples of CAP executing symbolic items that distance us from the AF. Some people take that seriously cause they're here for the AF, not the individual missions. I'd say in an HLS enviro with billions flying around, with all that's happened & been needed since 9/11 that the AF hasn't really helped step CAP up to a lead agency role that we're capable of & have served throughout the cold war in. They have mostly frozen us in place & we haven't taken much initiative. I think the AF really loves CAP & sees great potential in it, maybe not quite as much as we can see, but a lot. I think the AF would love to maximize that potential & put CAP in the lime light, but CAP insists on being independent & not so much working hand in hand w/ the AF or at any point making Congress happy.
Logged
lordmonar
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,650

« Reply #31 on: November 04, 2006, 04:23:32 PM »

You're not bound by Posse Comitatus on a corporate mission no matter what it says on the side of the plane. The markings are legally meaningless. The purpose of the AFI was to give the AF power over CAP on corporate missions for state/local LE so that AF could prevent CAP from flying missions for those parties which would otherwise be counter to Posse Comitatus if it were the AF flying the mission.

Hence the reason why it was a good Idea to loose the USAF-AUX.  Why are we letting the AF dictate what missions we can or cannot take when they are not paying for it?  It would be different if we were on the USAF dime...but if The State of Arkansas wants to pay us for a corporate mission....what does the USAF care, so long as they don't assume any liability.  Hence the USAF's desire to limit missions with USAF-AUX on the side of planes.  We remove USAF-AUX and there is no problem.  Does the USAF have a problem with us flying missions with just CAP on the side of our planes?

I do know a general officer with something to say about it, but not even he can speak for the AF. The AFI is written to do as much as they can within the limits of congressional authority. They created a loop hole to gain power over an aspect of CAP operations they were concerned about & CAP close the loop hole so they could do what they want. CAP is not bound by an AFI & free to make our own rules to twist and turn through AF regs & federal law to get what we want. That's been a long-term problem in the relationship.

So....I don't know what you are saying....is the USAF happy about us taking USAF-AUX off the planes or not?  You are saying that USAF does not want us to fly LE missions on corporate air craft but we are free to fund those mission and fly them with member owned air craft.  You are saying that the USAF for some reason does not want CAP to fly LE mission.  That is what I don't understand.  Just as CAP has a duality of identity....the USAF has a duality of control.  They can't control anything they don't pay for.  If we are not on USAF mission they can't control it.  They can control us in our USAF-AUX capacity and so they try that "no LE missions with corporate Air Craft" bit.  So we changed. As we are completely free to do.  If we make a rule (our own rule, made by us, for us) that is preventing us from doing what we need to do....we change the reg. 

We have not power over AFI's or Federal and State laws.  If a CAP Reg said all Corporate Vehicles must have flashing red lights on them and a state law said no flashing red lights on vehicles....we change the regulation so we are in compliance with the law...and we get our flashing blue lights.

So.  USAF has a problem with their axillary flying LE missions.  They want to protect themselves from liability so they write an AFI.

We want to fly LE mission, so we re-write our regulation to allow us to fly those missions.  Let the USAF flap in the wind over it.  It does not affect them.

AF at no point said the new corporate uniform was good, they said you need to make this list of changes cause this thing is against international law & the UCMJ for our co-serving members.

Well that is debatable.

From what I understand the only thing they had trouble with it was that it was too like an active duty uniform.  So the CAP vice the US was the compromise.
There are numerous examples of CAP executing symbolic items that distance us from the AF. Some people take that seriously cause they're here for the AF, not the individual missions. I'd say in an HLS enviro with billions flying around, with all that's happened & been needed since 9/11 that the AF hasn't really helped step CAP up to a lead agency role that we're capable of & have served throughout the cold war in. They have mostly frozen us in place & we haven't taken much initiative. I think the AF really loves CAP & sees great potential in it, maybe not quite as much as we can see, but a lot. I think the AF would love to maximize that potential & put CAP in the lime light, but CAP insists on being independent & not so much working hand in hand w/ the AF or at any point making Congress happy.

If the AF is holding us back.....why do you want to stay with them so much?  You seem to think that any stepping away from the AF would some how make them stop supporting us at all.  Won't happen.  The USAF is dependent upon us to fly all those SAR missions that they don't have the money for.  But if we can get more missions and we can adequately support those missions....why can't we do those thing necessary to fly them.

If that means we can't wear BDU's or Green Flight suits...maybe that is a good way to go.  We can serve all our customers, local, state, and national in all their aviation needs.
Logged
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP
Pacific Region
DNall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,721

« Reply #32 on: November 04, 2006, 05:37:29 PM »

Hence the reason why it was a good Idea to loose the USAF-AUX.  Why are we letting the AF dictate what missions we can or cannot take when they are not paying for it?  It would be different if we were on the USAF dime...but if The State of Arkansas wants to pay us for a corporate mission....what does the USAF care, so long as they don't assume any liability.  Hence the USAF's desire to limit missions with USAF-AUX on the side of planes.  We remove USAF-AUX and there is no problem.  Does the USAF have a problem with us flying missions with just CAP on the side of our planes?
The AF also bears no liability on a corporate mission no matter what it says on the side of the plane. The markings are legally meaningless. I do in fact think the AF should have a massive amount to say about what we do on someone else's dime. We're doing it in a plane they bought over radios they bought in uniforms that look similiar to theirs (don't bite the hand that feeds ya). If that plane drills in, they may bear no liability, but they have to buy a new plane & radio gear, they have the headache of working on the safety & liability concerns that flow from it to AFAMs. An AF Sq can go off & do what they want just cause they can get someone else to pay for it.

Under what circumstances do you think it's a good idea that CAP should be able to violate Posse Comitatus (or how ever you want to phrase it)? I don't for a second want us flying direct survellience missions or any thing remotely like that. I think  Posse Comitatus is there as much for our protection as a legal formality, and we SHOULD operate like we're bound by it all the time regardless of who's dime it is. I think that's the intent of the AFI & the desire of the AF.

Quote
So....I don't know what you are saying....is the USAF happy about us taking USAF-AUX off the planes or not?  You are saying that USAF does not want us to fly LE missions on corporate air craft but we are free to fund those mission and fly them with member owned air craft.  You are saying that the USAF for some reason does not want CAP to fly LE mission.  That is what I don't understand.  Just as CAP has a duality of identity....the USAF has a duality of control.  They can't control anything they don't pay for.  If we are not on USAF mission they can't control it.  They can control us in our USAF-AUX capacity and so they try that "no LE missions with corporate Air Craft" bit.  So we changed. As we are completely free to do.  If we make a rule (our own rule, made by us, for us) that is preventing us from doing what we need to do....we change the reg. 

We have not power over AFI's or Federal and State laws.  If a CAP Reg said all Corporate Vehicles must have flashing red lights on them and a state law said no flashing red lights on vehicles....we change the regulation so we are in compliance with the law...and we get our flashing blue lights.

So.  USAF has a problem with their axillary flying LE missions.  They want to protect themselves from liability so they write an AFI.

We want to fly LE mission, so we re-write our regulation to allow us to fly those missions.  Let the USAF flap in the wind over it.  It does not affect them.

I believe the point is in fact that the AF does not want us flying corporate LE missions for state/local, at least not outside limits they set.  Posse comitatus is there for our safety & legal well-being. It's not about liability on AF or fear that some moron lawyer would think that's violating the law in some crazy way. It's about they don't want CAP doing it cause that's not what they want CAP to be about.

The AFI was written in response to CAP going off in a direction they shouldn't have, and CAP changed the markings to get around it, sooner or later the AF or Congress will reign that in by clarifying limitations on corporate missions in exchange for federal support. You'll see that developing over the next couple years. Some formal & informal discussion has already taken place with more to come. I can only speak for myself & what I hear professionally, but I'd look for developments.

Quote
Well that is debatable.

From what I understand the only thing they had trouble with it was that it was too like an active duty uniform.  So the CAP vice the US was the compromise.
We don't debate the AF on what we'll do or not do, we advocate for our position till they tell us what to do & then we do that for better or worse, same as what we as officers are supposed to do with our own leadership.

Quote
If the AF is holding us back.....why do you want to stay with them so much?  You seem to think that any stepping away from the AF would some how make them stop supporting us at all.  Won't happen.  The USAF is dependent upon us to fly all those SAR missions that they don't have the money for.  But if we can get more missions and we can adequately support those missions....why can't we do those thing necessary to fly them.

If that means we can't wear BDU's or Green Flight suits...maybe that is a good way to go.  We can serve all our customers, local, state, and national in all their aviation needs.
I should clarify the AF's legal requirement in SaR, and please feel free to verify w/ CAP-USAF or AFRCC personnel. The AF is required to provide AFRCC, & to deploy military assets at their expense when no local capability exists. In other words, in remote Alaska they'll fly an HC-130. In the early days, there were no state police air units or purpose trained SaR teams, and that meant military assets would be needed more times than not, so CAP was used to save a buck. Today is different. Now, AF could theoretically fund those planes to state police & provide SaR training to them & then activate tehm thru AFRCC but not be liable or need to reimburse for operating costs, at least not like they do for us. There's been study of that option in the past, but CAP has always been retained because of the bigger picture of what it brings to the AF.

Ultimately CAP does not exist to do SaR missions. It exists to do whatever the AF needs (so long as it's non-combat & domestic) to save money that can be redirected to combat forces, to advocate for support of the AF by the population, and to develop high-quality potential recruits indoctrinated to their philosophy. If CAP doesn't serve that purpose, there's no need for CAP, and you can't hold them hostage with what you think SaR missions mean to them.
Logged
DNall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,721

« Reply #33 on: November 04, 2006, 05:38:08 PM »

Wow, that was long, sorry I'll try to keep them shorter in the future.  :o
Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,967

« Reply #34 on: November 04, 2006, 08:31:56 PM »

SARDRAGON-- you are right.  My mistake. 

Logged
SARPilotNY
Forum Regular

Posts: 194

« Reply #35 on: July 23, 2007, 01:36:34 AM »

It is my understanding that USAF directed that we remove the USAF AUX from the tails of our airplanes.  I believe that said directive came straight from HqUSAF.  Implementation is TBD.

Some of you folks are correct: we do have some significant support roles with Law Enforcement.  We do "reconnaissance" for illegal drug activity, we do airborne radio relay for police and sheriff departments and we work with the Forest Service and DEA on various operations.  Just to set the record straight, no third party agencies currently pay for any of this: it comes from our AF appropriations.  Correction, some states do contribute to the CAP budget in order to have us respond to emergencies and other requests from state agencies.  California gets $80k a year from the Office of Emergency Services: primarily for SAR missions.

One member stated that we do "surveillance".  That is forbidden by law.  Maybe the member really meant "reconnaissance". 

Just to set the record straight, I have flown a lot of these missions and am now the CDO for CAWG.
Naughty...should we be telling the world who we work for?  Didn't we sign an oath about this?
Logged
CAP member 30 + years SAR Pilot, GTM, Base staff
jb512
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 813

« Reply #36 on: July 29, 2007, 09:38:33 PM »

I for one did not join CAP to get involved with ES. I wanted to work with youths and encourage them to pursue carers in aviation. Dont get me wrong, ES is ok. I am a mission observer but its not the main eason I serve in CAP. So, if we begin to emphasize ES< and homeland security what happens to the other missions and the people who joined for them?

There's no reason why cadet programs would be negatively impacted by an increase in ES and/or homeland security.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  All Print 
CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Aviation & Flying Activities  |  Topic: "USAF Aux" Off of CAP Aircraft
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.071 seconds with 25 queries.