quote:

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?

Did you not read where I said "on missions where CAP's planes would be appropriate"????

I know my Wing's aircraft have the marine frequencies in them and it was my understanding that this was now common practice across CAP (I could be wrong and I believe it has become this way only in the last few years).

If the CG wanted CAP to fly for them, it certainly could be done as an Air Force assigned mission giving all the same benefits CG Aux pilots get AT NO RISK TO THE COAST GUARD (another benefit of switching to CAP where appropriate).

The reason I think it would be to the CG's benefit to use CAP for most all inland missions and near-shore missions where CAP's aircraft are appropriate have been given in this group numerous times, but I'll summarize my view:

I do not believe AuxAir is doing a bad job. I just believe it is redundant and unnecessary for all inland missions except those where AuxAir is transporting supplies or people in planes larger than CAP uses. CAP can pick up just about all near-shore work done by AuxAir with no problem. Way off shore work cannot be done by CAP in our planes. What I would recommend is that if AuxAir was disbanded that CAP make a special effort to recruit those AuxAir pilots doing that work into CAP and change CAP regs where necessary to allow them to do these missions in their own planes.

Why?

1. CAP's planes are better equipped than AuxAir. All high wing for better search visibility. All have direction-finding equipment on board. More and more CAP planes are being fitted with the gear to transmit digital photos through a sat phone while in the air. More and more CAP planes are fitted with a photo window to make taking photos easier.

2. CAP HAS more planes. At last count CAP had twice as many total planes as AuxAir and many, many, many more pilots and crews. And even in coastal areas I think you'll find the distribution pretty darn good.

3. CAP does have better continuing education training than AuxAir. Pilots meet together on a very regular basis and there is a strong emphais on safety. Flying is the main emphasis (like it or not, and sometimes I do not) in CAP and is just not an afterthought like it is in the Aux.

4. Training standards -- CAP upped our standards a few years ahead of AuxAir but now they are probably near the same. So, this is probably now a draw. However, if you'll allow me one snarky comment--- most of the photos you posted wouldn't pass muster if submitted by CAP aircrews, at least not in my Wing (window glare, wings, struts, and even the plane's interior are in the photos -I'll give a pass on the helicopter photo since that one wasn't obviously a mission target).

5. Cost is by far the biggest point in CAP's favor. The CG has to pay for training and other costs associated with every AuxAir member and plane in addition to direct fuel costs for using them on missions. If they arranged for CAP to do the jobs WHERE APPROPRIATE all they would have to pay is the fuel/oil costs for CAP and avoid all the overhead.

6. Finally, AuxAir isn't doing much that CAP hasn't been doing for many years. There are numerous examples of CAP's planes doing near-shore or big lake/river patrols looking for boats in distress (heck I posted one above). Up in PA (I believe) CAP is doing aerial patrols over the harbor. So, it wouldn't really be breaking any new ground for CAP -- remember it was CAP carrying bombs while doing anti-submarine aircraft patrols in WWII, not the CG Aux.

CAP works with other agencies all the time and I am sure that any interagency coordination would be worked out.

Plus, the other issue that is a threat to CAP and CG Aux is the spread of the DHS Homeland Security Air Wings. Those little empires are going to be looking for work and may just push both organizations out of the air along the borders and coasts.

OK, I think I've got this figured out now -- it is a solution in search of a problem. For some reason, you feel that anything other than off-shore should belong to the CAP. Somehow, the river and lake over-flights performed by the AUXAIR personnel in your area are a threat to your existence (though it's really not).

This is a typical turf battle sort of thing that does nothing but waste tme and resources.

I've met the 8WR and 8ER personnel during some of our training sessions (yes, we have training sessions) -- and they seem quite capable to handle the missions they are currently flying over the areas you feel should belong to your preferred organization.

OK, let's go over some of your points.

1. High wing is good -- that is why most of the AUXAIR facilities used for search/surveillance are high wing. DF equipment is good for a CAP ELT locate mission. However, in ALL of the SAR cases I've flown or the USCG -- none have involved an ELT/EPIRB or PLB. Now that 121.5MHz is illegal for boats and the COSPAS SARSAT will only monitor and detect 406MHz beacons (soon for all beacons in 2/09) a more accurate point location will be provided to the SAR controllers. A decent pilot performing a sector search over a point in space (especially over water) will be quite adequate.

All the AUXAIR facilities I'm familiar with have the digital photo equipment on board -- some, like mine do have a dedicated camera window. Real time photo transmission is good for things like fire fighting -- where the conditions and approaches change. Not so important a capability for SAR cases, LE support, and MEPs. Good try though.

2. More aircraft is somehow better? Better proficiency and solid relationships with the call-out authority is better. Our active duty pilots can recognize our voices on the radio and are familiar with the call signs of the aircraft. We are a known asset to them and they are comfortable with the relationship -- especially when we are working in the same search grid at different altitudes (not uncommon for an Dolphin to be at 300', AUXAIR at 500' and a Falcon at 700' within a few miles of each other). Throw an "unknown" CAP asset into the mix -- where they don't know the pilots, are unfamiliar with their level of training or proficiency -- and they'd no longer feel comfortable in close proximity operations within the "box".

3. Our crews do meet regularly and train -- of course the high frequency of actual mission tasking provides excellent opportunities to train newer or lesser experienced crew members during the "real deal". (all missions are training opportunities!) For all of the AUXAIR pilots and facility owners I know, flying is the main emphasis of their involvement in the Auxiliary -- I know it is what brought me to the organization. Again, the AIRSTA -- the order issuing authority -- considers AUXAIR to be a primary team component of the AIRSTA, not an after thought. It is the surface members of the Auxilairy, who tend to express their jelousy of the program as it's being an after thought. Of course if we're going to throw stones here...the Auxiliary is a congressionally mandated component of the USCG, and part of the Department of Homeland Security -- rather than a private corporation like the CAP, who is tolerated by the USAF...

4. The photos displayed were taken for personal use, not as a mission task -- and the overall frame of the picture was chosen to capture the environment of the moment. But then, your real issue here is becoming ever so clear. Maybe youre not part of AUXIAR for whatever reasons (I have my suspicions) and are part of aircrew with the CAP -- therfore, you're attempt is to build a case with "who lets you play", correct?

Maybe these are "more acceptable" to you...

5. Hmmm. They'd still be dealing with an "unkonwn". They could just as easily charter an aircraft from the local FBO and not deal with the CAP at all. You see, the USCG wants to invest the overhead. They want a resource asset, completely within their control (not dealing with the corporate layers of the CAP -- and certainly avoiding the inter-service issues associated with the USAF).

"Cost" is relative. There is tremendous value to the order-issuing authority in having their own resource within their complete control. They simply would not have that with the CAP -- sorry. And no, MOUs would not solve the problem. The AIRSTA likes having a relationship with their own team members. I can't speak for all of the air stations, but the one to which I am assigned treats our crews as an integral part of their staff. I have been pleasantly surprised at the comfort levels and mutual respect offered by all of the active duty personnel -- especially pilots. We train together, work together, and yes -- even play together.

Can you say that the relationship with CAP crews are even remotely close to USAF pilots and squadrons? Talk about being considered an after though -- how about only being tolerated rather than openly accepted.... One of the things that would go a looong way in gaining respect from the active duty personnel is to remove the "ranks" from flight suits and give up the rank titles. This one, and very simple thing, does more to lose respect of the CAP in the eyes of active duty military pilots than anything else I've heard -- and I've heard it from Navy pilots, Marines, and the USCG pilots. Although office insignia is optional on AUXAIR flight suits -- not a single pilot or air crew in 8CR chooses to wear any. It simply is not necessary. This simple show of respect is noticed -- trust me.

Just as important as how a crew sounds on the marine radio, how they look carries a significant load in the perception by the customers (the USCG). Although all volunteer organizations draw a certain quantity of "colorful personalities", my experience in the Auxiliary is that most of them are not in the AUXAIR program.

6. So why do you feel threatened by the existence of AUXAIR? Enjoy what you've got. Trust me, you'll not be dropping any bombs in the future. Of course back in WWII, the Auxiliary was the USCG Reserves -- an armed component of the USCG. Again a trivial grasp in hopes of showing legitimacy...whose the congressionally manadated program of a military branch now -- and who is a private corporation?

The CAP should continue to pursue the work with the other agencies -- mostly local agencies I'm sure. The city, county, and sometimes state agencies can be greatly assisted by the CAP. But then, I'm not the one calling for the elimination of CAP (sounds like the current leaders are doing a good job of that on their own). Speaking of which, it sounds like you really mean to eliminate the AUXAIR program only over the lakes and rivers (your turf I suppose), as you have stated the off-shore work is not "appropriate" for the CAP. So, you really don't mean the total elimination of the AUXAIR program, do you?

As far as the DHS is concerned -- the AUXAIR program is a DHS aviation asset... And, we're certainly not fearful of a loss of turf. They are not going to want some of the mission tasking that we do -- they have other targets of interest. Doubtful that they'll fight to be the ones to pick up an MST from Sector and take them in search of fuel and oil spills in teh Gulf of Mexico.

If you enjoy what you do with the CAP, great. If you enjoy what you do with the Auxilairy -- again great. But in a spirit of constructive criticism (some may view as a "flame" but not the intent), it really appears that the issue here (and with some others on the forum) is that there are some hurt feelings with their Auxiliary experience -- and the feelings have manifested themselves in unhealthy ways.

Insanity is defined as repeating the same behaviors over and over in hopes of obtaining different results. Day after day, these forum threads beat the same complaints, disagreements, issues to death and get nowhere. Some have left the organization because of their issues -- but yet remain on the forum solely to spew forth crap. Quite honestly, I can not understand what quality of life an individual might have -- who could be part of two labor intensive volunteer organizations and then spend every seemingly waking hour posting thousands of threads on a webforum. There has got to be more to life that that...

As I said a few posts up -- I am enjoying my Auxilairy experience. I wish others could find something they enjoy -- other than thriving on negativity and airing complaints...

Headed to the airport -- enjoy!

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

OK, River, here is an article from your favorite e-zine that supports you.

quote:

The Civil Air Patrol Homeland Security Support Act of 2007
The Civil Air Patrol Homeland Security Support Act of 2007 amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to direct the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to enter into agreements with the secretary of Defense to use Civil Air Patrol personnel and resources to support homeland security missions.
It authorizes the secretary to consider the use of such personnel and resources to provide: (1) aerial reconnaissance or communications capabilities to the Border Patrol to protect against illegal entry and trafficking; and, (2) capabilities to respond to an act of terrorism, natural disaster, or other man-made event by assisting in damage assessment and situational awareness, search and rescue operations, evacuations, and transporting time-sensitive materials.
It also directs the secretary to consider the Civil Air Patrol as an available resource for purposes of national preparedness and response planning activities.
The latest major action on this bill occurred on March 12, 2007. It was referred to the House Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness and Response. The bill is HR 1333.

OK, River, here is an article from your favorite e-zine that supports you.

Maybe not.

There is also this provision in the bill:

quote:

`(d) Reimbursement- A memorandum of understanding or other agreement entered into under subsection (a) shall include a provision addressing the manner in which the Department of Defense is to be reimbursed for costs associated with the use of Civil Air Patrol personnel or resources for homeland security purposes.'.

Since the USCG would have to reimburse DOD for the use of CAP there is no cost savings to the USCG for the use of CAP vs AuxAir. The USCG uses CAP rates for reimbursing Auxies. Fuel costs would be the same for both and would have to be paid no matter who flew. There is a good chance that CAP and/or the USAF would add in an 'administrative overhead fee' just to process the paperwork for CAP.

RiverA does claim some possible savings in training expense but that is probably negligble. All the current pilots should have spun and puked by now - so there is no savings there if the program is terminated. Also RiverA is only calling for the elimination of the inland cases - we haven't seen any numbers (and therefore dollars) on how much the savings would be by eliminating future inland AuxAir pilots - the only place where training savings would come into play.

Commercial Rating for charter work?

fly, you're forgetting that I am in both CAP and the CG Aux. I support both organizations and have no personal dog in this fight -- I'm not in AuxAir, I'm not a pilot, and only fly with CAP probably 3-5 times a year. Heck, check my comments out on CAPTalk and you will see that I am constantly hacking on CAP for focusing too much on their air program while leaving the ground SAR program behind. So, I believe I'm as unbiased as you can get while being in both groups.

Consider this: If CAP decided to start a boat-based SAR program (and I can think of several decent justifications that could be made for this), I would say it was redundant and unnecesary as there is already a military auxiliary that has an outstanding boat program that can do it much better than CAP ever could since it is their primary reason for being.

I just see no logicial justification for having two programs doing essentially the same sort of work living right next to each other when they could be combined with out having to make more than minor changes in procedures for using them.

No, I didn't forget. I understand your desire to be helpful -- and attempt to "improve" things, but here are some problems...

First, you say that you are supportive of both organizations -- but yet you vocally express that a program you're not involved in, nor possibly understand the complete operation of, be eliminated in favor of another organization's program that may not be well suited for the tasking. Admit it, it really isn't possible to fully support both organizations..."you can't serve two masters"...

Herein is an inherent problem with webforums. Opinions and arguments expressed by non-participants who are not fully informed -- but yet may be percieved by the masses as possessing expertise from an armchair position.

The USCG Auxiliary typically mirrors the programs within the USCG. They have boat crews, we have boat crews -- they have coxswains, we have coxswains -- they have marine safety personnel, we have opportunities to be involved in marine safety. With the exception of active law enforcement, opportunities exist in the Auxiliary that partner with active duty counterparts. The same goes with aviation. The USCG has an aviation mission and resources that vary from those held by the USAF branch of service. The auxiliary has an aviation program that makes available a mirror resource to the active duty program -- with the exception of active law enforcement, and of course hoist operations. This aviation resource is under the direct operational control of the air station (not the Flotilla, Division, or District) -- making this resource rapidly available to the needs and requirements of the active-duty aviation component.

The air operations of the Auxiliary not only relieve the active duty assets of certain mission tasking (MEPs for example) at a fraction of the cost that would be incurred by the active duty assests, but at times -- operational burdens in the Air Station's resources have resulted in mission tasking (SAR cases for unsubstantiated may day's -- or first light searches) for AUXAIR that if were required to be completed by active duty assets, would have placed them out-of-service due to "bagging out". Better to save a Bravo-0 HH-65 on the pad at the AIRSTA for SAR tasking that may require hoist operations, and send the nearby AUXAIR aircraft out on the SAR mission for the unsubstantiated May Day call picked up by Sector on the Rescue 21 system (probably a kid playing on a radio, but worthy of a check-out none-the-less). Many of the AUXAIR mission tasking is scheduled in advance -- but in my area, about 40% is unscheduled spontaneous call-out.

Having an auxiliary aviation program directly under control of the air station -- that can be quickly be mobilized (they keep track of every aircraft and pilot's availability in a given month) is invaluable. As I stated before, having a known relationship with the people and knowledge of the assets involved with the AUXAIR program creates a level of trust with the AIRSTA personnel that can only be developed over time and through hard work.

Losing these types of advantages and control -- by allowing another organization (CAP) with whom they have little or no operational control, take the misison tasking in hopes of saving a few dollars on aircraft maintenance overhead (doubtful as I'm sure CAP would try to bill out) simply doesn't make good strategic sense. The opportunity cost to the air station is simply too high.

Sorry, but anyone reading your previous statements show that you are biased -- especially with your lack of involvement in the actual program in question.

Your final statement makes about as much sense as saying that the Marines don't need an aviation component because the Navy has one too. As similar as you may think the roles are of the AUXAIR program and the CAP -- there are differences. Could one organization step in and do the other's job to a degree, sure. Would it make the most operational sense? Not necessarily. The procedures and agreements for a shared service would be neither minor or consist of simple policy changes. That's why in many communities you have dedicated, rather than shared, aviation assets for law enforcement, fire/rescue, and EMS. Some multi-agency programs do exist, but they are very complicated and face a constant battle of customer attention. This is where I spent my first 15 years in aviation -- and can attest that the diffences in mission focus (as small or insignificant as they may seem to an outsider) create significant differences in operational requirements. The element of control of the resource by the sponsoring agency is the over-riding reason for specialization -- just as we see with the direct control benefits of the AUXAIR program by the Air Stations.

Truly being supportive of the Auxilairy should make you proud that the organization has a variety of programs and resources available to the membership for their volunteer service to the USCG -- rather than a desire to "fix" a problem that doesn't really exist by lobbying for the elimination of one of the most visible and valuable operational programs within the organization.

Regards.

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

Yeah, you're right, being in the top 20% in terms of activity in my Aux flotilla and probably my CAP Wing (no stats kept) means I can't really do much to help either of them.

Having experience as a unit leader (in CAP) and having held multiple staff positions in both organizations obviously means that I don't understand either of them very well and lack perspective.

It is obvious to me now that only someone totally devoted to one organization can really understand the capabilities and limitations of both.

Of course I was wrong to think it silly and a waste of money and time that the AuxAir plane nearest to me regularly flew past at least 4 airports with CAP planes while conducting its patrols.

Yes, that is correct -- it is you that admitted that you are not in the AUXAIR program and only fly as an observer with CAP 3 to 5 times per year. So, I'd not think you'd feel comfortable attempting to dictate or influence policy for a program you're not involved in -- or have very limited involvment.

That would be like me saying the Auxiliary boating safety education programs are a waste of time and money since the U.S. Power Squadron has similar programs (they're not) -- but I'm not involved in either, so I'd not venture an opinion on how they are operated, their value -- and especially who might be better suited for the job. What I will do as a Flotilla leader is support and empower those members who are involved in these programs and give them the support they need for results -- as well as an enjoyable experience in the their Auxiliary involvement.

If you can be devoted to both organizations and spend a significant amount of time on multiple web forums each day, then I guess your life is full and you have little free time. However, it is not the norm to have an individual truly active in both organizations, much less claiming a leadership role in both -- who can be "everything to everybody" in multiple organizations, or who thinks they are an expert in all areas. I dare ask if you're also involved in rescue squads, volunteer fire departments, and police auxiliaries too...lest the answer be yes.

If you really feel the AUXAIR program is a waste, then run for the National Commodore position and make a change... -- or, I suppose continue posting as a "virtual-leader" on a webforum with the handful of other Auxiliary (and ex-Auxiliary) virtual-experts here whose mission it is to thrive on the negativity and conflict in hopes that your efforts will be considered seriously....

If the AUXAIR facilities flying over CAP assets (on the ground) bothers you so much -- how about the CAP leadership seeking out tasking from other potential governmental customers to get them in the air? Surely that would be more rewarding that trying to take the tasking from another organization given to them by their own sponsors -- and who are already doing the job well. No matter how you try to coat it, your positions concerning AUXAIR smell of turf jealousy -- plain and simple.

Have a gret day!

I only want to say Your Mileage and District May Vary. Here in Seven, Aviation is a district funtion, not a station function, and a couple of years ago we had a DSO-Air make the bald statement that your flotilla had nothing to do with the air program. He took a little flak for that statement, but it is absolutely accurate, the Seventh District air program operates out side the chain of information and management. They do as they want to, when they want to, very much in the manner that the CAP did before their National Commander got suspended. It remains to be seen whether or not the situation improves in the CAP, but I have little hope for the Seventh District, because the Commodore seems to know as little about aviation as you accuse River of knowing, and the aviation program is an entity unto itself. I suspect that it is a good ole boys program where you are too, you just don't notice because you are one of the good ole boys.

Yes, AUXAIR is a district function -- even in D8. However, the individual air stations are the order issuing authority for their respective AUXAIR squadrons (NOLA, Corpus, and Houston here) -- and are the managers of the budget funds for mission reimbursement.

With that said -- it is not a program outside the chain of leadership and management. The DSO-AV (even in D7) is an appointee of the District Commodore. In addtion, DIRAUX has management and oversight for all Auxiliary programs within a given District -- yours included.

If one who was wait-listed for two years before being accepted as an AUXAIR pilot with an aviation facility makes me a good ol' boy, then I suppose I may be guilty...

I say again, AUXAIR is a needs based program -- not everyone or every aircraft will be accepted at the time of their choosing. Mine wasn't. Some who are wait-listed can't deal with it and push-back with rebellion. When their own attitudes and actions seal their fate for their (lack of) future in the program -- they then become the ones pointing a finger stating it is a "good ol' boy club".

No matter the organization, political entity, business operation, etc. -- being a team player and working within the system and with the leadership has a far greater chance of success than "taking a stand" and trying to force an issue out of some self-serving principle. Sorry, it is just a fact or life.

Was I always pleased with the speed of the process for my acceptance into the program? Heck no. However, although I received some errant "local guidance" that almost sealed my fate during the process, I found out what steps I could take to be supportive of the program -- learning as much as I could from those currently in the program until an opportunity of service for me came along.

I state without hesitation now -- that the wait and the necessary prep work was well worth the investment. When it comes to aviation, attitude and a willingness to work within the management systems in place is paramount. Loose cannons have a tendancy of poor decision making in the cockpit. Consdering the multiple lives in the pilot's charge -- assurance of a level head and good decision making is a "must have" quality.

So, if all of this makes me a good ol' boy, then I am what I am.

Words of wisdom I heard from a successful leader one time come to mind:

"Make a difference where you can, accept the things you can't change -- and if you can't do either, quit complaining and get the heck out."

When it comes to aviation, attitude and a willingness to work within the management systems in place is paramount. Loose cannons have a tendancy of poor decision making in the cockpit. Consdering the multiple lives in the pilot's charge -- assurance of a level head and good decision making is a "must have" quality.

The infamous flight death in AuxAir7 a few years ago was committed by the "management system". The pilot was the AuxLO for the station and Aux managment ignored many warnings about the pilot for several years because he was part of the GOBs that ran the AuxAir7 program.

It is also worthy to note that the pilot was one of the designated (unofficial) "High Flyers" of the AirSta - so designated by the Gold Side. He had received a fairly high level award from the Gold Side for his high flight numbers and willingness to always go when called. No one seemed to be concerned that some of those high time flights were under instrucment conditions and he wasn't instrument rated. He only had something like 1/2 of instrument fligth at the time of the fatal crash.

And the biggest critic of the GOBs and the Fly By the Seat of Your Pants philosophy was barred from the program. They (Gold or Silver) didn't want to hear that what they were doing was manifestly unsafe. That critic was none other then our own SkyRay. He first tried working within the system - when that didn't work he took his concerns to other forums. That didn't work either.

Only the death of one of the GOBs and his poor unfortunate observer made the system change. And with the passage of time - some suspect that bad old days and some of the GOBs associated with it are sneaking back into AuxAir7.

quote:

Originally posted by FL51D7:
And with the passage of time - some suspect that bad old days and some of the GOBs associated with it are sneaking back into AuxAir7.

I guess facts, rather than suspicions, would determine the true health of your district's program.

Any documentation of unsafe behavior or practices currently? Or, are these suspicions based solely on "who gets to play", personality conflicts -- and stones cast by outsiders?

Operational guidelines are clear here. The risk matrix is in place and employed prior to each flight. No need for IMC work for the mission tasking in place.

Sadly, the actions of a single individual can have disasterous effects on a program -- thus the attention to risk management and operational procedures. Position or level of office is not an immunity for poor decision making.

However, there is always an army of fault-finders available following an incident claiming "I told you so", as if it were a badge of honor on the same level as those worn by others here as being "persona non grata" for various reasons.

The trend here -- on the forum -- of course is negative. We've covered the gamut from "the program is bad", "CAP should be given the job", "the TBO requirments are going to kill the program", "the numbers of facilities are down", "it's a good ol' boy club", etc. I find it interesting that no matter what the topic -- or the policies enacted -- the response by the "all knowing" here is ALWAYS negative.

Tell me, just what WOULD be positive in a program that YOU could design? What would it look like? How would be run? Who would be in it? What would your mission tasking be? And, most importantly how would you manage it -- and how would it be more successful than it is now? Who's going to lay the ground work to make it happen?

Anyone? -- crickets chirping --

Fly safe!

fly, if it makes you feel any better, I think there is something to be said for the criticism that the CG Aux really lacks focus. I'm not sure anyone can even come up with an accurate count of all the different programs an Auxie can participate in (not even counting experimental programs). Each little program has their vocal proponents that say how critical to the overall mission of the Aux their's is.

And to some extent they are right. Each little program is contributing something, but the more things you try to do, the less you do well as an organization.

If we all looked deep into our hearts we would all see a lot of Aux programs out there that divert manpower from our primary missions. Each program alone doesn't such too much energy or manpower away from the others, but it adds up.

I just happen to believe that AuxAir is a drain from our other missions that could be met, in many areas, by another organization. Yes, I fully recognize that if the program was cut, we would lose people who only participated in that program and didn't want to go do boat safety checks or other stuff. On the other hand, those that remained in the Aux would, by necessity, refocus on other areas of the program that have a little higher priority.

No skin off my nose if you disagree with my assessment.

Yes, we disagree on the subject.

You see, I believe the Auxiliary exists to supoort the USCG (at least that is the language of the pledge I rose me hand and swore to). Not the other way around.

Each program has customers -- both internal and external. Some, like RBS, PV and VE have a tremendous external impact. Others, like the AUXIAR program -- are more internally based, with the AIRSTA and Sectors being our primary customers.

Your opinion to end the program would actually hurt the internal customers -- the very entity we are sworn to support. The CAP could not provide the operational requirements of ALL of the mission tasking requested by the Air Stations and Sector Commands (you've admitted this yourself). They simply can't -- by policy and design. Trying to force a square peg in a round hole to fill the void needed by our sponsoring service -- the USCG -- would do nothing to improve service and would actually be detrimental to their success.

The cost benefits that the AUXAIR program provides to the USCG are not seen by the majority of the Auxiliary, nor I suspect by much of the Silver-side leadership either. However, the air stations see it. Time and time again, they have expressed the value -- both in operational support and actual resource dollars saved through mission completion by non-active duty aircraft -- of the AUXAIR program.

Unfortunately, my explanations will fail to broaden your perspective on the program -- the reason for it's preference over out-sourcing -- and the true benefit to our sponsor, the USCG. I do, however, take comfort that those who do hold management control of the program realize the benefits and continue to provide support.

Yes, there can be a primary mission focus for the Auxiliary -- RBS. However, that doesn't mean that the organization can't do more than one mission -- and do it well. Many, like yourself, view the funds invested into the AUXAIR program as being funds not available for other Auxiliary programs. However, a more appropriate view would be that funds invested in the AUXAIR program provide huge operational savings to the parent organization -- the USCG. Such savings will, in turn, provide additional funds that can be turned back to support other functions and missions -- including RBS.

Basically, invest thousands or even hundreds of thousands -- to save millions. For example, the operational cost of an HH-65 (to include overhead) is $6253 per flight hour. The operational cost for a volunteer-staffed C-172 (including overhead) is $88 per flight hour (8 gph @ $5 per gallon + $43 per hour maintenance). An average off-shore MEP mission for me is 4.2 hours. The average patrol speed of 90-100 knots would be flown by either aircraft, so lets say the HH-65 would fly the same mission in 4.0 hours. Let's do the math:

HH-65C $6253 times 4.0 = $25,012
C-172 $88 times 4.2 = $397

The result is a savings of $24,615.

I fly, on average, 5 scheduled off-shore MEP missions per month (with an active-duty MST on board) -- resulting in a savings of $123,075 to the Air Station as would be required should they use an HH-65C. Take it out to a year, and the total annual savings reach $1,476,900 -- for my single aircraft facility. Contrast that with the expenses critics here say are excessive and wasteful required to outfit my aircraft with PPE -- and to provide "spin & puke" training to the crews, and you can see the savings to the USCG far outweigh the investment. Top it off that this example only contemplates for the scheduled missions. Add the unscheduled response, SAR tasking, and RWAI missions and the savings increase significantly.

Your opinion to use the CAP is not applicable since they would not be able to complete the mission tasking due to operational limitations.

So, stick to your opinion while your pet programs enjoy additional funding available as a result of the savings the AUXAIR program realizes for the USCG. I'll wave to you from the cockpit -- and maybe take your photo too!


**values edited for accuracy

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