reference April 2009 issue:

EDIT - UNAUTHORIZED HYPERLINK REMOVED

Page 2 shows a 25' RBS with U.S. Coast Guard on the hull, a six-digit OPFAC number and an AUX patrol banner.

Can anyone shed some light on these seeming incongruities?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: LetsGoRedSox,

D17 AUXSTA Seward, AUXSTA Whittier , maybe more up 17 have 'em. I think the one in the photos outa whittier-JRC

quote:

I thought since it was uscgaux.org that the link would be legal. Here it is in an acceptable disguise:

h*t*t*p://w*w*w.cgaux.org/response/_documents/uptopinoperations/2009/UpTop%20April%2009.pdf

UNAUTHORIZED HYPERLINK EDITED.

SAR -

Please read my "Unauthorized Hyperlinks" post at the top of the Aux boards.

Your link above is a ".org," thus not authorized. It doesn't matter what is in front of the ".org"; ALL ".org" sites are not valid for hyperlinks on Miltary.com discussion boards.

Just the way it is...

pachesma
I take it that it is an AUX manned CG 25' with aux style OPFAC number (6 digits) vs standard CG OPFAC number (5 digits).

On another thread much was made about AUX "appearing" to be LE.

How confusing is this setup - "U.S. Coast Guard" on the hull with an aux patrol sign on the cabin top?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: JerryG,

I gotsta agree with you SARDOG. To the uninitiated that looks like a USCG boat and I find that unacceptable. Does any other service, or law enforcement agency allow untrained volunteers (in a relative sense I suppose) to not only wear their uniform but also drive vehicles with their insgnias on them?

Jerry G
My apologies. I thought I had it right, but I didn't. Thanks for setting me straight.

quote:

I take it that it is an AUX manned CG 25' with aux style OPFAC number (6 digits) vs standard CG OPFAC number (5 digits).

It is also likely that the CG will end up with over 1,000 of these boats and so needed the additional digit. First two obviously denote boat length......next three identify the individual boat, so they would run out after boat number 25999.

quote:

Does any other service, or law enforcement agency allow untrained volunteers (in a relative sense I suppose) to not only wear their uniform but also drive vehicles with their insgnias on them?

Actually most Law Enforcement agencies have volunteers (not Reserves) who wear uniforms (no guns) and drive similarly marked vehicles. The only difference is the vehicles have yellow lights and say volunteer after the word sheriff/police

quote:

Does any other service, or law enforcement agency allow untrained volunteers

UNTRAINED!!! I've got to take SERIOUS exception to that statement. D9 has 10 25' RB-HS boats in the hands of Auxiliarists at various AuxOp stations and AuxSARDets. The PQS is VERY extensive. The training took 2 months to accomplish. True, there were concessions made to the fact that we (the operators) are older, less fit than the typical A/D crew, but we are certainly not untrained.

Robert Carr
RB-HS Crewman
AuxOp Sta Alpena

I DON'T THINK thats an AUX OPFAC number, I believe thats a CG Hull Number. The CG owns 'em, the CG maintains them(with AUX help as I understand), but they are USCG RBS Boats.

From what I also understand from "googlin", it would be NO USCG presence at all in these Alaskan areas without the AUX. I think Homer, Seward, and Whittier are all AUXSTA's, 100% operated by the Auxiliary. And I believe the USCG has "given" them all SAFE boats. Think about it from the CG's standpoint, give 'em a boat, give 'em support for that boat, and you got a CG presence in that area. Sounds like a pretty good deal for the CG, AUX to I bet.

But signage like that could be pretty confusing to the unknowing I guess. But I'm willing to bet with local knowledge everybody understands whats going on.

BUT, on one of these units websites it DID SAY that there two primary missions were- Search and Rescue and Law Enforcement-JRC

Don't know about Seward and Whittier but I have worked with CG people who had done tours in Homer. When I lived there, 20 some years back, they had a rather busy station rescuing crabbers and fishermen.
There are a bunch of CG boats being run by auxie crews. The old 6 digit number only disappeared with the advent of the Defender class boats. We had RHIBs and Safe Boats (a misnomer) with 6 digit numbers like 254669, 25 being the length, 4 being non-standard vessel, 669 being the hull identifier.

Aux Doc,

You see many US Customs volenteers? Many ICE Auxiliary members? I do know that are local police department has Auxiliary and Traffic Assistance members. They go through either the exact same training as the paid police (auxiliary) or an abreviated training with different uniforms and yes different vehicles.

KD8FQM,

Untrained is a relative term (as I stated in my original post). When you go through 8 weeks of basic, 10 weeks of "A" school, constant "C" schools, and daily trainng then we'll talk. There is no way you're as prepared as the average coastie and when you are driving a boat with the USCG emblem, and wearing USCG uniforms thats what the public expects.

Pachesma,

You have highlighted a important issue. I appreciate the USCGA. They do important work (for free) and are extremely useful. But the are not in the Coast Guard. Period. How can members with absolutely no law enforcement authority do "Law Enforcemnt" as you said they claim.

At one time the hull #'s on CG small boats reflected if they were CG "standard" or "non-standard" designs.

5 digit numbers were "standard" boats:

Boat #'s with 3 after the hull length were typically designed and/or built by the CG.

41300 designated the 41' UTB.

44300 designated the 44' MLB.

32300 designated the 32' PWB

40300 designated the 40' UTB.

The 47' MLB is a standard boat, but was built under contract. I believe there's a 2 after the 47 in the hull #.

The New RB-M, replacing the UTB has a 5 digit hull #.

Non-standard boats always seemed to have 6-digit hull #'s.

This would apply to all the Boston Whalers of various lengths purchased through the years, and now includes the Defender 25' RBS.

As I recall, when the Aux uses CG boats it is usually after we have we have done the exact same PQS for that boat as the CG. At least sometimes that also extends to the physical qualifications.

quote:

Originally posted by rvacoast:
Aux Doc,

You see many US Customs volenteers? Many ICE Auxiliary members? I do know that are local police department has Auxiliary and Traffic Assistance members. They go through either the exact same training as the paid police (auxiliary) or an abreviated training with different uniforms and yes different vehicles.

KD8FQM,

Untrained is a relative term (as I stated in my original post). When you go through 8 weeks of basic, 10 weeks of "A" school, constant "C" schools, and daily trainng then we'll talk. There is no way you're as prepared as the average coastie and when you are driving a boat with the USCG emblem, and wearing USCG uniforms thats what the public expects.

Pachesma,

You have highlighted a important issue. I appreciate the USCGA. They do important work (for free) and are extremely useful. But the are not in the Coast Guard. Period. How can members with absolutely no law enforcement authority do "Law Enforcemnt" as you said they claim.

Get over yourself son you aint that important.I went thrugh Cape May in 1967 when a DI could knock your head off. You are very Rude so this is the way the New Guard teaches you to act. I for one am getting sick of your bilge water. If you wanted to wear a flight suit you should have joined the Airforce.

Rude? How so? Because I don't blindly say yes sir to someone who spent 4 years in the Coast Guard 40 years ago?

Personally, I'd be more inclined to say that you showed up on the boards and immediately began posting in a very blunt and hostile (to some) manner as opposed to the term "rude"...

How about you tone it down a bit, and we all have good discussions with logical posts instead of all of this silly stuff.

I for one agree with baloo0136 and others who have notice the raw hostility and insulting comments posted by rvacoast & spotweld. I don't know if this is one in the same person or just coincidence that both are CG reservists. Most of the active duty CG posting on this board conduct themselves like gentlemen and appreciate the important contribution auxiliarist make to overall CG mission. These two have some sort of ax to grind and are certainly no gentlemen, insulting former marines, former AD CG, axiliarists and anyone else with a differing opinion. I could point out to the both of them the long and uniquely American tradition of volunteering from the Minuteman and Green Mountain Boys to Teddy Roosevelts Rough Riders. I could also point out that 87% of the fire depts in country are volunteer or that thousands of police depts have auxiliary officers. That many organizations have unpaid volunteers that recieve the same training, where the same uniforms, drive in the same vehicles and have same authority (police powers and carry arms) as their full time counter parts. Auxiliary Conservation officers, State Police, Sheriffs deputy and Park Rangers to name a few. I guess I could also point out that to the person trapped in a burning building or being robbed at gun point that these brave volunteers assist it really doesn't matter how they are classified. I seriously doubt the fisherman or boater in distress aided in the area of Alaska manned by Auxiliary really cares too much if you or anyone else mistake his rescuer for regular coast guard they are happy to see them just the same. No, I learned long ago not to argue with fools, best if I let the Commandant make my point but then again I am sure these two think they know better than Admiral Allen.

"A special message to our Coast Guard Auxiliary Members: As the finest all-volunteer organization
in our Nation, I consider each of you an integral part of our Coast Guard. We simply could not meet the
challenges we face or conduct the missions we do on a day-to-day basis without your selfless devotion to
duty, as was so vividly demonstrated most recently in the Coast Guard’s extraordinary response to the
many hurricanes we responded to last year. I sent the following letter to our Coast Guard men and
women upon assuming the duties of Commandant. My priorities and dedication outlined in the letter
below apply equally to each of you as they do to our workforce. I pledge to you my relentless support
for our Auxiliary and will rely upon your continued service to our Nation as we work together to remain
Semper Paratus.
-- Admiral Thad Allen, Commandant

I'm not a reserve member, I used to be.

quote:

I appreciate the USCGA

Hmmm, rude? Demeaning? I'm sorry that you don't agree with me. I'm sorry that you are NOT in the military. If you are retired, thank you for you service. If you never served in the military and are now in the aux then once again, thank you for your help.

None of this changes the fact that I disagree with current comdinst on Aux uniform wear. None of you are as well trained as the average BM3, none of you have to weigh in twice a year. I could go on. I find it frustrating when I read on an auxie website that they do "law Enforcement". To me thats indefensible. This is not an attack on the auxilliary (as so many of you think it is).

It appears that you have riled up the "wannabees." Be unafraid. You have as much right to vent your spleen as anyone else in this forum. In fact, vent spleening is good for what ails you. Who wants a stuffed up spleen?

quote:

I'm not a reserve member, I used to be.

So by your argument, you are no longer serving. I do thank you for your previous service.