The following is taken from the CAPTalk thread National Board Live Video Feed.

It from a CAPer's summation of his experiece at the CAP National Board meeting.

quote:

Next was the Strategic Mission. A lot of neat stuff going on with missions with Coast Guard in FL. {snip} Some missions requiring all night flying and four day deloyment.

I snipped out a sarcastic comment the poster made about the dual-hatted RiverAux - a comment for which the poster apologized later.

I wonder if the USCG's reliance on CAP is due to the fall-off in aircraft and pilots due to the new maintenance policy?

PS - FW no $s due since this is directly an Aux-CAP issue.

Are you reading my comments over there? Sheesh, I am going to have to watch what I say.

Didn't realize you were lurking all the way over on that other web site FL....

The only thing I can think of was there was a joint CAP-CG Aux exercise in NC, but that involved a CAP plane and CG Aux boats during a CAP sarex. Don't believe that is what they're referring to.

It impressed me, John, becaus of my connection to both groups. Apparently it was an announcement of good things to come, and it was that they were working out a MOU where they would do flying for the Coast Guard. It has been going on for years, the west coast of Florida had regular sundown patrols in 1988 that coordinated with the Coast Guard. We tried to get it going here, but then I got out of the loop.

The sundown patrol is alive and well in CT:
From CAP News Online-- forgot I'd seen this yesterday. I wonder who is paying for the patrol? From what I understand sundown patrols in the old days were generally done using funds scrounged from local governments.

quote:

Conn. Wing's new patrol registers first 'find'

Boaters rescued after Long Island Sound Patrol aircrew sees sinking vessel, notifies Coast Guard
August 13, 2007

Col. Peter Jensen
Commander
Connecticut Wing

CONNECTICUT -- The Connecticut Wing's new Long Island Sound Patrol scored its first "find" Aug. 11 when an aircrew spotted a sinking vessel and radioed the U.S.Coast Guard, which rescued the boaters in short order.

"We started up the Long Island Sound Patrol earlier this year," said Col, Peter Jensen, Connecticut Wing commander. "We have now have a great working relationship with Sector New Haven of the Coast Guard. Our aircrews look for vessels in distress, toxic spills and suspicious activities."

The aircrew members, all from the Royal Charter Composite Squadron, were Lt. Col. Tony Cichocki, pilot; 2nd Lt Mike Egan, observer; and 1st Lt Derek Schwalenberg, scanner.

quote:

Originally posted by RiverAux:
The sundown patrol is alive and well in CT:
From CAP News Online-- forgot I'd seen this yesterday. I wonder who is paying for the patrol? From what I understand sundown patrols in the old days were generally done using funds scrounged from local governments.

quote:

Conn. Wing's new patrol registers first 'find'

Boaters rescued after Long Island Sound Patrol aircrew sees sinking vessel, notifies Coast Guard
August 13, 2007

Col. Peter Jensen
Commander
Connecticut Wing

CONNECTICUT -- The Connecticut Wing's new Long Island Sound Patrol scored its first "find" Aug. 11 when an aircrew spotted a sinking vessel and radioed the U.S.Coast Guard, which rescued the boaters in short order.

"We started up the Long Island Sound Patrol earlier this year," said Col, Peter Jensen, Connecticut Wing commander. "We have now have a great working relationship with Sector New Haven of the Coast Guard. Our aircrews look for vessels in distress, toxic spills and suspicious activities."

The aircrew members, all from the Royal Charter Composite Squadron, were Lt. Col. Tony Cichocki, pilot; 2nd Lt Mike Egan, observer; and 1st Lt Derek Schwalenberg, scanner.

While I am not usually 'in the know' re: air ops, (and I'm just a lowly crew member this is news to me (not challenging it, just surprised)- I was on patrol on the water the next day operating under Sta New Haven (SECLIS) for the latter half, and we heard at least one Aux Air opfac on 83A during... Nobody said anything about a CAP rescue the day before (and my Coxswain is usually in the know...) Something to bring up during Good and Welfare (or probably more appropriately during the usual gab afterwards) at the next meeting...

anyway, something to mull over (I wonder if anyone knows exactly what CG asset showed up on scene? Where the rescue was exactly? thanks...)

-C

Are you reading my comments over there?

That board has the best discussion regarding the scandal going on with the Nat Commander.

I had a chuckle when I read your post about the possible amnesty.

Let's see - you get tossed out of CAP for standing on princple. You don't get to fly AuxAir for standing on principle.

Then the PinHead gets tossed (hopefully), you (and everyone else) get a CAP amesty and full restoration of your quals. You then get to fly USCG missions as a CAP pilot - is that irony or justice?

Sheesh, I am going to have to watch what I say.

Why start now?

ROFLMAO!

The amnesty comments got the thread locked. I don't know what floats their boat.

I'm soon going to have enough money to retire the rate you guys are going!

The AUXAIR program is alive and well here in the panhandle...with no CAP "support" (they're doing their near daily forest fire gig for Eglin). Year to date = 248.3 reimbursable flight hours logged on my single aircraft facility. I expect we'll pass 350 flight hours before the year is complete.

Very rewarding, enjoyable experiences -- and the AIRSTA and Sectors seem to be well pleased with the service we provide.

Cheers to those who seem to thrive on conflict and negativity! (especially those who openly and vocally wish the program would end....nothing like sour grapes, eh?)

The AUXAIR program is alive and well here in the panhandle...

AuxData only shows 1 pilot with any time in 8CR and Florida (the Panhandle) for 2007. That is hardly the sign of a healthy program. However, that one pilot (FlyAndScuba?) has done a heck of a lot of flying - 320.7 hours in CY07. That is not only all the time that 8CR shows for the Panhandle - it represents 41.4% of all the flight time of 8CR. I guess he loves to fly - and it shows. But 1 pilot doing 41.4% of all the flight hours of a large geogprahic district does not speak well for the program as whole.

Ah, more hours than I thought -- guess I need to go back and check my bank statements, huh?

One pilot and one airplane combined with 6 observers and aircrew in FL and another 3 (1 in training) across the line in AL are getting the job done. Everyone is very proficient and the customers are served and satisfied. There is another aircraft and two pilots available just across the line in AL to utilize the same trained crews. Additional facilities and crews associated with the squadron are located in the remainder of the AOR (LA).

"More" in terms of number of aircraft would not necessarily be a sign of a program with better health -- especially if proficency begins to suffer. Having a couple of well-equipped and suitable aircraft routinely flying rather than a fleet of hangar queens combined with possibly less-than-proficient crews would not be a shining example of health. After all, the entire AIRSTA has only 5 HH-65Cs available. With one at Bravo-0 and one at Bravo-1, that leaves a spare with two usually in maintenance.

My point is -- that even with the changes in operational policies (TBO), there are Auxies who have taken the steps necessary to meet the requirements and make themselves available for service (rather than sitting back and complaining for days gone by). We are dedicated -- and yes, very active. There have been weeks when I felt like I had two full-time jobs (no, I'm not retired). However, I made a commitment to make myself, and my aircraft, available whenever possible -- to respond to the mission needs and requests of the AIRSTA. Rarely, have I had to say "no". The AIRSTA personnel hold us in high regard and genuinely appreciate and support our program.

This success is a product of healthy and effective relationships. We realize that we are there to support the Gold side -- not to be served by them. Positive attitudes and a willingness to follow and comply with the direction of the leadership has produced fruit. No, we are not perfect -- and yes, at times there have been frustrations. However, judging by what I've observed elsewhere -- and read through on this forum (the majority of posts relate to negativity and complaints, some by people no longer in the organization) -- the positive way in which the 8CR AUXAIR personnel work together (across Flotilla and Division boundaries) and with our Gold-side sponsors and customers is not the norm, and it is clear that our squadron is both healthy and successful.

I only wish that others could enjoy their time of service in the Auxiliary as much as I am enjoying mine...

Regards.

I have to agree with FL that this shows a fairly weak air program that is overly dependent on too few people. Yes, you appear to be getting the job done, but it shows a remarkable lack of depth on the part of 8CR Aux Air.

Frankly if I was a pilot with a plane I would be grousing about the good-old-boys club that is hogging up all the flying time. fly, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you're doing anything wrong here at all--in fact you're showing an outstanding devotion to the job. But, if I was the Aux Air staffer in 8cr I'd be embarrassed by these stats.

River,

But you feel the AUXAIR program should end....right?

quote:

originally posted by riveraux- I've been saying for a few years that the CG Aux air program needs to be shut down and CAP should take up all their missions, and should make room for privately-owned planes to do the off-shore missions now down (sp? done) by CG Aux Air.

The CG could save a bundle by calling on CAP to do these missions as they would only have to pay reimbursement rates to us -- for CG Aux Air they have to pay the reimbursement, pay to train the pilots, and now, help pay for more of the maintenance on the private planes. Why not dump all that hassle and work with us? We've got plenty of coastal units that could pick up the slack, again, providing that CAP accepts the private planes that can do the extended off shore missions we don't want to do in 172/182s.

Most (all) in the AUXAIR program (and active duty USCG) agree this would be no solution at all -- but create further problems. Poor interface with the customers (USCG), different operational guidelines, uncertain levels of training, unfamiliarity with over water operations, the list goes on. Basically, for the same reasons that the USAF is not relied upon or tasked with off-shore SAR in place of the USCG air stations. Different missions for different resources. With all of the internal problems CAP seems to have in it's own house right now, it seems you'd be content to continue the mission tasking you receive currently -- rather than lobbying for another organization's program to end in hopes that your organization could somehow do it better (doubtful)...what's the logic in that? Ah, but there is no logic -- it's more about turf battles and the like. Being divided between two organizations makes it impossible to fully support one, I suppose.

As for the DSO-AV -- although I can't speak for him directly, I expect that he is quite proud of how the group has responded to the changing requirements, and maintianed the level of service to the customers. All of the remaining aircraft and crews in our squadron have stepped up to maintain or even increase our level of service. In my facility's case the 300 or so hours mentioned earlier were spent conducting 28 MEP missions, 11 SAR-actual missions, 5 LE support missions, 5 RWAI missions, 4 SAREX missions, and 4 logistics missions. 57 missions in 7.5 months is pretty darn healthy for this pilot and facility owner. If others want to step up and be a part of the team -- I've seen nothing (no vast conspiracy or good ol' boy club) to limit or prohibit their participation. If one has the time and resources to offer -- and has the right motivation and attitude to be a positive asset to the program -- I've not seen anyone turned away in my group.

Sure, someone can find a negative slant an any statistic if they choose. So, if the program is so diseased -- what would be a solution in minds of the ever-so-insightful paticipants here? I can't help but go back to the over-all tone of this forum -- negativity and complaints. It is one thing to discuss topics and bounce around possible solutions -- but most of what I read on these pages stops at "this is wrong, this is bad, the leadership are idiots, I was treated bad, I know better than anyone else, I got booted because I took a stand, etc., etc., ad nauseum".

Rarely are legitimate -- repeat legitimate -- solutions offered or discussed. I'd much rather read about the great things others are doing within the organization. Sadly, not much of that is seen in this web forum.


As I said before, I'm pleased and honored to be part of the AUXAIR team -- and enjoy the opportunities for service it has to offer. I work within the chain of leadership (Silver and Gold) and refuse to second-guess their decisions at every turn....but then, I guess we really don't know what the heck we're doing...

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

quote:

it is clear that our squadron is both healthy and successful.

I am a little confused. Are you in the Auxiliary or the Civil Air Patrol?

quote:

But you feel the AUXAIR program should end....right?

Yes, I do. That doesn't mean that I actually think it will happen, so I've got to accept the situation as it is for now.

Like I said YOU are doing a great job, but the problem is that its ONLY you, doing that job (almost).

Anyone remmber that speech that Michael Douglas gave in "Wall Street" where he starts with "Greed...is good"? I see a parallel to this situation:

Part of that speech is talking about how once uppon the time there were hundreds of buggy whip (I think thats what it was)manufacturers, but as cars began to come into common use there were fewer and fewer buggy whip companies until finally there was just one left. That company made the best darn buggy whip ever made, but the company went out of business anyway because its product was obsolete.

That seems to be what is going on in AuxAir. I don't actually think it is AuxAir's fault, after all it was the CG that imposed all the aditional requirements and runs the fuel budgets, but "fault" doesn't matter.

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

quote:

Originally posted by Skyray:

quote:

it is clear that our squadron is both healthy and successful.

I am a little confused. Are you in the Auxiliary or the Civil Air Patrol?

The Auxiliary -- see here for information regarding "The Squadron Concept":

http://www.cgaux.info/g_ocx/missions/auxair/AUXAviationSquadronConcept.pdf

As for obsolescence, the AIRSTA reports that we save them in excess of $6.5 million per year with the missions our crews complete -- as compared to the costs it would take to complete them with the Dolphins or Falcons.

Usually, a small portion of the surface-only Auxies have issues with the funds used to support AUXAIR. But I believe as long as the AIRSTA CO's and OP's officers along with the Sector Commanders feel the program is beneficial -- it will be funded.

This buggy whip intends to continue flying -- even if folks on the sidelines wish it was gone.

quote:

Originally posted by RiverAux:

quote:

But you feel the AUXAIR program should end....right?

Yes, I do. That doesn't mean that I actually think it will happen, so I've got to accept the situation as it is for now.

Like I said YOU are doing a great job, but the problem is that its ONLY you, doing that job (almost).

Anyone remmber that speech that Michael Douglas gave in "Wall Street" where he starts with "Greed...is good"? I see a parallel to this situation:

Part of that speech is talking about how once uppon the time there were hundreds of buggy whips (I think thats what it was), but as cars began to come into common use there were fewer and fewer buggy whip companies until finally there was just one left. That company made the best darn buggy whip ever made, but the company went out of business anyway because its product was obsolete.

That seems to be what is going on in AuxAir. I don't actually think it is AuxAir's fault, after all it was the CG that imposed all the aditional requirements and runs the fuel budgets, but "fault" doesn't matter.

So....what is your solution??

For the time being my recommendation is that the CG develop whatever MOUs and relationships are necessary to be able to use CAP as a backup, on missions where CAP's planes are appropriate, throughout the US.

If the CG is putting the breaks on recruiting new pilots/planes as they are in some parts of the Aux, there isn't anything else that can really be done to provide enough depth to the AuxAir bench.

By the way, that memo doesn't really say anything but AIRSTA N.O. runs the 8th AuxAir program. Doesn't really explain the "squadron" concept at all.

So, you don't have a solution other then call in the CAP? I thought their corporate rules prohibited off-shore flying? Do they carry life rafts, personal flotation devies, and water survival gear for all on board? Have the personnel gone through water survival and egress training? Are all the CAP aircraft going to be equipped with Marine radios? Is the CAP corporate insurance going to cover the hardware and crews during these missions? (We are considered CG pilots and aircraft while on orders) Sounds like a solution in search of a problem for me.

Have the crews been trained in marine environmental protection issues -- do they know how to determine if a vessel is in distress -- do they know what to look for in an off-shore search?

There is no prohibition on recruiting new pilots and/or aircraft facilities by the CG into the AUXAIR program. We've added several of each into the "unit" (since you don't like the term squardon) within 2007. It continues to be -- and always has been -- something that is determined on a "needs basis". If you've had a potential facility declined or been waitlisted for a training program -- it might be specifically related to the needs of your particular area. Naturally, the needs are going to be greater near the coast rather than inland. Of course personality, attitude, and a willingness to play by the rules to be an asset rather than a problem child does enter in to the DSO-AV's decision to take on someone new.

I think I remember you're not a coastal guy -- but a river type (hence your screen name). Off-shore is a different animal than river patrol. None of the CAP folks I run into at the local airports seem to be interested in the off-shore work. As I said earlier, they get all the flying they want from their fire patrols and tracking down errant ELTs. I really do not believe they are permitted to fly off-shore down here. In conversation, where we describe searching at 300' up to 25 miles off-shore for a "floating coconut" (a PIW) -- they've said no thanks. The one time the AIRSTA considered using a CAP aircraft for RWAI training -- they changed their mind quickly because of the red tape and layers of approvals that were required -- and the way the CAP contacts said "to do the training, this is the way it has to be done". The AIRSTA has light civil assets available for their use (AUXAIR) that are easy to request -- and they have made it clear they prefer to "keep things in the family". They make a request of what they want from us -- and we do our best to make it happen. A quite simple process, actually.

So, the squadron concept memo didn't do it for you... Well, the term squadron is not owned by the USAF or the CAP. Since the AUXAIR program is a District operation rather than a Division or Flotilla operation (they cross all lines) -- that is attached to a USCG Air Station, the group of personnel and aircraft associated with that function can be appropriately described as a squadron. See, this is the type of stuff I'm talking about on this forum -- time an effort spent on crap that really has no substance and solves any problems.

Changes have been made to the AUXAIR program -- and we have adjusted to the changes. The program continues to operate and serve the customers. Those USCG customers continue express their satisifaction with our efforts -- and support us operationally and financially (got some new goodies reportedly on the way soon too). Many have wished some of the changes had not occurred, but most dedicated to the program have adjusted. A few -- as with any change -- could not adjust and have moved on to other ventures. Others, who are not part of the program -- sit on the sidelines and gripe (usually about everything). Thankfully, they're not the ones running the programs or controlling the purse strings -- and we just have to deal with the disruption (sad that such energies must be wasted).

So why do you feel that the CAP would be so much better at providing the services to the USCG as opposed to the AUXAIR program? Are the aircraft better suited for the mission? Are the personnel better equipped and trained? Do they bring some specific marine-related expertise to the mission that is lacking in teh AUXAIR program? Or, is it simply because someone feels they've been mistreated or not accepted by the AUXAIR program -- has some sour grapes -- and thus has a stronger devotion to the CAP?