My point about training costs isn't that CAP training is cheaper than AuxAir training, its that if the flying was outsourced to CAP then CG wouldn't have to pay for any training at all, just missions.

Using your example, if a hospital had its own ambulance service it would have to pay for continuing ed and training for its EMTs. If it outsourced the ambulance service those training costs would disappear. Well, actually they wouldn't since the ambulance service would incorporate those costs into what they charge the hospital. However, in the case of CAP, they would not do that since we only "charge" other agencies actual costs and all the training, etc. (overhead) is covered by other budgets and doesn't affect the "customer".

quote:

Originally posted by RiverAux:
My point about training costs isn't that CAP training is cheaper than AuxAir training, its that if the flying was outsourced to CAP then CG wouldn't have to pay for any training at all, just missions.

Workable, if there was a groundswell of support for the idea, which I don't currently see. But it all starts with one person, then another, etc. How much training costs do you think it would save, and what is the esoteric value others would place on having an air arm?

Tell me, are you proposing the outsourcing of the entire AUXAIR, pilots and planes, or just certain areas?

--
William Baldwin, Jr
MBA HCM program Univ of Phoenix
Ground below Zero, City of New Orleans, La
on the web: www.coastguardauxiliaryslidell8cr.us

Keep in mind that I don't see much liklihood of any major change taking place. Just like I think the federal Presidential primary system is very messed up and needs to be rationalized, I don't think it will happen very soon.

Unfortunately, neither the Aux or CAP is all that transparent when it comes to disclosing exactly how money is spent in any detail. If I recall, the figure that has been given on this board before (for which I can't personally vouch) is that about $300K a year is spent on AuxAir training and that about half of that goes to "spin and puke" training. But, I do wonder how that number was arrived at since Aux mission costs are sort of hidden amongst other CG costs and whether it includes training conducted and funded by the local air station.

A detailed financial analysis of the AuxAir program would definetely be necesary were someone to seriously consider its elimination. Also, I would like to see detailed AuxAir safety statistics published so that they can be compared to CAP's numbers.

The other information that would be needed would be a detailed analysis of the amount and type of actual flying done by AuxAir. This would have to be done for each facility and each air station so that we could see exactly what planes are being used to do what and where. You would need this to be able to compare to CAP's airplane distribution to see where CAP could do the work as things stand now.

Also, we would want to see exactly what flying the CG would like to do. Perhaps fly is right and each airstation is getting as much flying as they need using AuxAir. Obviously, I think it is likely that there are a number of gaps in existing AuxAir coverage that CAP could pick up, even without reducing any existing AuxAir activity (however this would require some modification of the existing CAP-CG-CGAux MOU).

If we had all that data, I think we could have a pretty rational basis for discussing the idea in depth. Of course the non-economic costs (which fly is worried about) and the non-economic benefits (such as not having to manage an air program at all) would then have to analyzed by the decision makers. It could be that even if all the data supports my position that they could still decline to implement it for those reasons.

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

Originally posted by RiverAux:
>Keep in mind that I don't see much liklihood of any major change taking place. Just like I think the federal Presidential primary system is very messed up and needs to be rationalized, I don't think it will happen very soon.

I certainly agree on all three points in that paragraph...

>Unfortunately, neither the Aux or CAP is all that transparent when it comes to disclosing exactly how money is spent in any detail. If I recall, the figure that has been given on this board before (for which I can't personally vouch) is that about $300K a year is spent on AuxAir training and that about half of that goes to "spin and puke" training.

Not a very high figure for a major undertaking. Since CAP is obviously not taking over the whole USCG air program, planes, choppers, rescue divers and all, there would be no management costs saved, nor "outsourcing to focus on core competencies" claims to be made. Some would no doubt argue that paying the 300K and retaining the prestige of an ihnouse air arm would be worth it. 300K is a paltry figure in terms of paying for a national advertising campaign..

>A detailed financial analysis of the AuxAir program would definetely be necesary were someone to seriously consider its elimination. Also, I would like to see detailed AuxAir safety statistics published so that they can be compared to CAP's numbers.

My flotilla's Air Operations page has a link to a site that lists all USCG aircraft crashes (including Aux) that resulted in fatalities. Doesn't list all safety incidents, and is more story oriented than numbers based...(Not sure if they can be compared, anyway, you would need to factor in flying time, and the fact that maritime flying is more dangerous.)


--
William Baldwin, Jr
MBA HCM program Univ of Phoenix
Ground below Zero, City of New Orleans, La
on the web: www.coastguardauxiliaryslidell8cr.us

With due deference to that infintesimally small percentage of General Aviation airman who maintain their aircraft to first tier airline standards, there is another consideration here that hasn't been brought up, quality of product. I have been in both organizations. CAP has about 550 aircraft nationally, and having been involved in the maintenance of the twenty of those aircraft that belonged to Florida, I would not hesitate to climb into any one of them and fly it unrestricted. On the other hand, during my time with Auxiliary Air, there were only two aircraft that I felt comfortable in: my own, and a twin owned by a medical PhD. who kept it in pristine condition. The rest of them were held together with baling wire. Truth be told, I think this was due to the recruiting philosophy which said that if you were having trouble paying for your aircraft expenses, the Coast Guard had a program that could help. I never was comfortable flying in aircraft that had owners who couldn't afford proper maintenance and that were operating under a program with minimal quality control.

quote:

Originally posted by Skyray:
With due deference to that infintesimally small percentage of General Aviation airman who maintain their aircraft to first tier airline standards, there is another consideration here that hasn't been brought up, quality of product. I have been in both organizations. CAP has about 550 aircraft nationally, and having been involved in the maintenance of the twenty of those aircraft that belonged to Florida, I would not hesitate to climb into any one of them and fly it unrestricted. On the other hand, during my time with Auxiliary Air, there were only two aircraft that I felt comfortable in: my own, and a twin owned by a medical PhD. who kept it in pristine condition. The rest of them were held together with baling wire. Truth be told, I think this was due to the recruiting philosophy which said that if you were having trouble paying for your aircraft expenses, the Coast Guard had a program that could help. I never was comfortable flying in aircraft that had owners who couldn't afford proper maintenance and that were operating under a program with minimal quality control.

there must be changes happening; one of the costs to be saved included the fact that AUX planes now have a higher standard than CAP in terms of hours on the engines..

quote:

there must be changes happening; one of the costs to be saved included the fact that AUX planes now have a higher standard than CAP in terms of hours on the engines..

Actually, it is any component that has a manufacturer TBO (time between overhauls). Not only engines, but props, and certain components of retractable landing gear. This is a Coast Guard mandated change, and the one that you have heard a number of gripes about, both on this board and off. It is a start, but it only affects certain components. For instance, it wouldn't disqualify the Piper Aztec with the cabin door lock replaced by a Home Depot gate latch. The door lock doesn't have a TBO. If you think I am kidding, I'm not. I actually ran into this "fix" on an Aztec. The problem is that the Aztec becomes nearly uncontrollable if the door comes open in flight and disturbs the airflow to the tail.

In June I attended an Air Station meeting where the CG was asked if they would consider using CAP assets during surge operations. The CG Commander’s answer was unequivocally no, and he rattled off the following reasons:
1. CAP’s lack of operation-specific training and experience relating to both the CG’s mission and the marine environment (the Spatial Disorientation training that some have derided was mentioned, as was egress training, water survival and swim tests)
2. CAP aircrews lack required PSI screening
3. Past experience had convinced the Air Station that CAP’s command structures (not aircrews) can be difficult to work with and unprofessional.

Given the recent fiasco with CAP’s disgraced National Commander, it seems that this unprofessionalism permeates the highest levels of the organization. The Air Force, the CAP’s own parent service, has been trying to distance itself from the CAP for years. Considering this, how can anyone expect the GC to embrace the CAP?

The GC is a proud and self-reliant service. To expect them to outsource a critical core responsibility to an external entity makes no sense.

Actually hadn't thought it through completely, but your number 2 is enough to kill the deal. All aircrew require a DO determination, and that requirement is not going to go away.

I don't know what air station you were talking about, but the one near me had a counter narcotics LtCol who insisted on driving his civilian car onto the ramp and leaving it in the parking spot donated by the CG to the local CAP Group while he was flying. We told him numerous time to knock it off, but he was more arrogant than Tony, and the final upshot was that we lost the parking place.

On the other hand, a couple of DSOs-Air ago, the member in that position was really tight with the now discredited General Pineda, and they even went out and got the CAP National Safety officer to be the District 7 Safety Officer. My understanding is that he didn't work out.

quote:

My understanding is that he didn't work out.

Probably because no one would salute him and call him "General". <GDR>

quote:

Originally posted by ENGELJ:

quote:

My understanding is that he didn't work out.

Probably because no one would salute him and call him "General". <GDR>

I think it was actually because he was a useless do nothing.

I know Forewatch thinks we should not discuss our rival sister auxiliary, but it is my devout belief that Florida CAP has pollinated South Florida Aux Air with all that is evil about it's existence. I see the same "Black Hole" mangement that I was introduced to and trained in when I was an operations officer in CAP. Now I am on the receiving end, but that doesn't mean I can't recognize the techniques.

All CAP members go through the equivalent of the Aux's basic PSI. CAP doesn't have a direct don't equivalent the Aux DO PSI, however, CAP aircrews involved in the counternarcotics program do have to go through a slightly more detailed check in order to participate in these sensitive operations for the DEA and Customs Service. Its a fair criticism, and frankly, I wouldn't be adverse to having CAP go through a direct equivalent of the AuxDO check.

quote:

I see the same "Black Hole" mangement that I was introduced to and trained in when I was an operations officer in CAP.

I know ZERO about the Auxair program from an experiential perspective. I only know from my reading and discussion with our Auxair folks in this neck of the woods.

But I see danger in any elitist program like Auxair. Most of the guys I know here are totally air-oriented. They use the Auxiliary system to get themselves and keep themselves airborne. They pay minimum lipservice to the Auxiliary as a whole and work diligently to defend and enhance the air-program at the expense of all else, including "plain old Auxiliry primary missions". Boriiiiing !!!

And jump-suited sun-gods will always be a tad egocentric and arrogant <G>. But a good aircrew probably deserves some of that accolade and admiration. It is after all, an unforgiving business.

I don't resent them at all but I wish there were a way to incorporate them back into mainstream Auxiliary. A way to roll their efforts back into it's perspective place in the greater scheme of things. But it's probably not going to happen.

I guess I can't blame them though. The hard-core boat crew guys do the same (albeit IMO, they do work harder at general Auxiliary administration and leadership).

So when a group of propellor-heads gets into senior leadership without any offset balance there is cause for concern, a high requirement for general Auxiliary scrutiny and a constant reminder that they have to play by the Auxiliary rules, not their own.

Like the boat-crew programs, there is a large potential for abuse of regulations, improper use of implied authority and dissillusionment and loss of members who will not buy into their distorted version of the Auxair program.

quote:

Originally posted by RiverAux:
All CAP members go through the equivalent of the Aux's basic PSI. CAP doesn't have a direct don't equivalent the Aux DO PSI, however, CAP aircrews involved in the counternarcotics program do have to go through a slightly more detailed check in order to participate in these sensitive operations for the DEA and Customs Service. Its a fair criticism, and frankly, I wouldn't be adverse to having CAP go through a direct equivalent of the AuxDO check.

Two problems, John. First, the CAP check is nothing like the NacLac check. If CG were only doing what CAP does, Forewatch would still be a member. Even the CN mission check is not up to a full "ankle grabber." And second, these checks are expensive. Who is going to pay for them?

The basic CAP check is equivalent to the CG Aux basic check in terms of the information provided by the member (fingerprint card, 1 page form with basic info). I do not know how far CAP or CG Aux then takes that information in checking it. I'm not sure CAP even says exactly how they use this data so can't say that they follow the exact same process as CGAux. We have heard various things here about exactly what level the CG background check is, but I don't recall any official documentation backing that up. Would be interesting to compare though.

I didn't say the CD check was equivalent to the Aux DO check, it is clearly not, at least in terms of the information the member is required to produce. However, it has clearly been sufficient enough that other federal agencies have said that it is good enough for them to allow CAP members to participate in their operations, which are at least as sensitive as what the CG is doing. Also, CAP members have participated in various sensitive DoD missions as well, with no required extra checks.

However, the CG would certainly have the option of saying that isn't good enough and that they would want any CAP members flying on their dime to go through an ankle-grabber check. Like I said, the background check issue is a fair one to raise.

FYI, I wouldn't go nearly as far in my opinion of AuxAir as Engel.

quote:

1. CAP’s lack of operation-specific training and experience relating to both the CG’s mission and the marine environment (the Spatial Disorientation training that some have derided was mentioned, as was egress training, water survival and swim tests)

I definetely would not say that if called tomorrow CAP could immediately take on all the duties of AuxAir though inland missions would require only a little extra training.

Nearshore and Offshore missions would require additional work and training as there are CG-specific tasks and knowledge that CAP aircrews would have to learn.

quote:

3. Past experience had convinced the Air Station that CAP’s command structures (not aircrews) can be difficult to work with and unprofessional.

CAP is no different than the CGAux or the CG in that respect. Sometimes you get good people and sometimes you don't. No different than there being some CG units that love working with Auxies because they've got a good group of Auxies and other CG units that had a bad group of Auxies 5 years ago and won't deal with them today because they heard bad things about Auxies that probably aren't even there anymore. Obviously, the onus is on CAP (as well as the CG Aux) to develop and maintain good working relationships.

As FL is fond of saying, "Your milage may vary".

quote:

Originally posted by AcfCmdr01:
In June I attended an Air Station meeting where the CG was asked if they would consider using CAP assets during surge operations. The CG Commander’s answer was unequivocally no

It's good to know that I'm not the only one hearing this message from the USCG operational leadership. This, in and of itself, should be all the answer (or justification for that matter) that is needed regarding the death of the "proposal" pushed here. Unfortunately, I suspect that even if the words had come from Admiral Thad Allen's own lips -- some here could not accept them as being absolute...

It was a good operational day today... As I approached the airport for landing to pick up my seasoned aircrew and a newly transferred in MST2 from Sector, I saw one of the Squadron's HH-65s taking the option on a differing runway -- it was good to recognize the the friendly voice on the radio. Then, as I taxied to the ramp -- a Jayhawk from ATC began a simulated autorotation to the runway I had just vacated. Three USCG related aircraft, each in the pursuit of a mission -- all at the same community airport...it was a good day indeed.

Upon reaching the FBO, my aircrew was waiting and the new MST arrived shortly. During the pre-flight safety brief and orientation to the aircraft, it was discovered that this particular MST had not been in a small airplane before. The day's conditions were absolutely great for an MEP mission. A scattered layer of clouds at 3000' aided in tempering the normal summer heat, but the visibility was severe clear -- almost as if Hurricane Dean in the far distance had "sucked" all of the crud out of the air.

It was quite enjoyable to provide the day's service our active duty "customer". Since supporting the Coast Guard is a core goal and purpose of the Auxiliary, we were able to do so in a way that could only be accomplished by air. Although he had arrived to this duty station a month or two earlier -- his only exposure to the AOR had been via ground. Not only did the 4.2 hour flight provide a new perspective to what he had only just begun to know as his new turf -- but as expected, the mission did not disappoint in producing a few "real" items and issues for him to work on.

One particular frequent trouble spot had the normal rainbow sheen present in several areas, but we also encountered a fresh vessel aground on the rocks, and another partially submerged in the channel. He was able to view a few remnants from the past year's hurricanes, as well as overfly a large refinery that had suffered a fire late last week. We capped the mission off with a pass along some barrier islands and then over the State docks prior to the return to the airport.

Upon exiting the aircraft, I could tell that we had a new "fan". The MST expressed his gratitude for "making his job easier" and hustled back to Sector in order to return to the trouble spot with a few others from the Response office.

During the short flight back to home base, I pondered what we try to do in this organization. Since I had sworn in a few new members in the previous week's Flotilla meeting (yes, this AUXAIR member does more than just fly), the prologue to the pledge for new members was fresh in my mind. I feel it is fitting to paste it here -- as I think some forget why we exist:

The pledge you are about the take is your commitment to support the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary, an organization dedicated to the promotion of boating safety and providing assistance to the United States Coast Guard in the fulfillment of its civil functions. You accept this membership as a volunteer, and as a member you are charged with certain responsibilities and obligations. These include your willingness to support the Coast Guard Auxiliary and its purposes, to faithfully execute your duties, and to participate in its authorized programs to the best of your ability and to the extent that time and circumstances permit.

As an Auxiliarist, you enjoy certain honors and privileges, among them, wearing the Auxiliary uniform and flying the Auxiliary Ensign. Wear the uniform neatly and correctly and fly the Blue Ensign proudly. Remember that your conduct reflects directly upon the image of both the Coast Guard and the Auxiliary. The satisfaction you derive from your Auxiliary membership will be in proportion to your level of participation in the organization’s activities. The success of the Coast Guard Auxiliary will depend upon the extent of your participation and upon the quality of the Auxiliary leaders that you, the member, select.

Today, my aircrew from a neighboring Flotilla and I had participated in an authorized program to the best of our ability -- established a relationship with a new friend and USCG co-worker -- aided him in the completion of his duties -- and yes, we were satisfied. We were proud to be part of the Auxiliary.

Are you satisfied in your Auxiliary membership? If not, why? Are you doing everything you can to become involved in the programs -- or are you waiting for someone to take you by the hand? Do you support your leaders -- or tear them down? Do you support the organization's programs -- or do you find fault, suffer from petty jelousies, and tear them down? Are you one who gives -- or do you expect to be given to...even at the cost of others?

I ask these questions honestly -- as it really does seem that the majority of the posts/threads in this forum are negative in nature, but yet originating from only a very few sampling of voices.

Just something to think about...

[edit to add]

I decided to browse the CAP forum a bit...geesh, they've got it much worse! So bad that a moderator is assigned to sanitize and delete offensive threads...

Insteresting that some of the same negative voices from here are over there too -- always pointing out and inflamming problems but never offering real soultions.

I'm now convinced we have nothing to worry about...

[edit off]

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

FlyAndScuba:

This is a bit off-thread but ...

in one of the earlier pictures you posted there appears to be an old fort in somewhat need of 'repair'. Where is that fort and what is/was its name?

I would guess from the photo and what remains of it that it pre-dates the Civil War?

One of the other dicussion boards had a quote from the CAP Board of Governors meeting that covered their background check for Corporate Officers. It looks to be the same as our "ankle grabber."

quote:

BofG Meeting 6 Dec 2006

MAJ GEN PINEDA also briefed a selection process for wing and region commanders,
which outlined the following criteria: (1) Applicants for region or wing command will sign
a waiver to allow a background check, if required. (2) A board of three CAP members
(selected by the National Commander) will convene, review applications and offer a
ranked order. (3) A background check will be run on their number one candidate
(database criminal record search including financial and traffic). (4) If this individual
“passes” the check, this appointee may be considered for position, pending National
Commander final approval. (5) If appointee fails a background check, the selection
board will recommend the next candidate for National Commander approval.