Just as a Point of Info or FWIW there is an MOU Between USCGAUX, USCG, CAP and CAP-USAF

quote:

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 see this statement as naive and elitist. We are dealing with "just plain folks" here. We get great ones, good ones, weak ones and a few twisted ones. It's our job, not theirs, to lead them into maturity within our organization and help them be all they want to be.

A better admonishion would be can you live with leadership who "suffer from petty jelousies, and tear you down, never give and always expect to be given to...even at the cost of others? "Are you willing to work to build a better leadership cadre? Do you have the strength to stand up and criticize faulty programs, bad leadership, misguided programs?" Can you say "No, that's a bad idea?"

I had thought we had talked about the MOU...but..

The current MOU is really outdated in terms of the preferred CAP mission request procedures that were implemented after it was signed.

The MOU would have to be revised were the CG to really want to use CAP since one of the requirements is that each organization is responsible for paying its own mission costs, even if that mission was conducted on behalf of the other. For example, if CAP flew a mission for the CG, the Air Force would be paying for it. Obviously, as long as that is the requirement, CAP won't do much flying for the CG since it would be on the AF dime. Maybe the AF would be willing to pay for it, but I doubt it. So, a reimbursement mechanism would be needed.

quote:

Originally posted by ENGELJ:

So here's how I read this oath. My comments are added in square brackets [..]

The pledge you are about the take is your commitment to support the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary, [not the USCG, which is a completely different organization] an organization dedicated to the promotion of boating safety [our first and primary mission] and providing assistance [when asked]to the United States Coast Guard in the fulfillment of its civil [NOTE - Purely civil functions - not para-military] functions.

It's the prologue to the oath -- not the oath one recites when joining...

Everything we do, even in the AUXAIR program, is in support of the civil functions. We do not participate in combat (strap on bombs, etc.) nor engage in active law enforcement. The sentance listing boating safety and assisting the Coast Guard has nothing to indicate a higher importance of one item over the other. The author considered both items of equal importance -- as does the USCG. Granted, I emboldened the assist phrase in my post in order highlight the awareness of the role. In no way, however, am I trying to say the assistance we provide is of greater importance than boating safety. They are both primary missions and goals of the Auxiliary. In addition -- the missions we complete in the AUXAIR program do relate to boating safety. So, in a sense, we are accomplishing both in the process.

quote:

Originally posted by ENGELJ: Do you have the strength to stand up and criticize faulty programs, bad leadership, misguided programs?" Can you say "No, that's a bad idea?"

No. However, if there are examples of "bad" then there have to be examples of "good" as well. Since all I seem to read about here are the "bad" of everything -- which seems to be everything -- then please list those things/programs that are "good", managed well, and properly guided. I'd really like to know what the members present here feel is positive about the organization.

Better yet, WHO are some of the good leaders? Anyone? After all, the organization elected their leaders, correct? If they were thought of highly enough to be elected, then shouldn't they be trusted to appoint staff worthy of support. Are the bad ones at the Flotilla level, Division level, Disctrict level, National level -- or all levels? If things truly are so poorly run -- then make a change through the election process. Until then, support the leadership position, until you can make a change in the person filling that role.

quote:

Originally posted by FL51D7:
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?

Sorry FL -- mised your post. That would be Ft. Gaines on Dauphin Island. It sits across Mobile Bay from Ft. Morgan, scene of the Civil War battle of Mobile Bay on August 5, 1864. This is where Adrmiral Farragut made the statement "Damn the torpedoes! -- full speed ahead!" (torpedos of course in that day being more of a mine). The USS Tecumseh (a sister ironclad to the famous Monitor) still rests at the bottom of the bay after being sunk by a "torpedo".

USCG Station Dauphin Island was in the foreground of the photo.

.

Originally posted by flyandscuba:

>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.

And if the mission had been flown by CAP, the "fan" would have been impressed with the CAP, not the AUX, which would not have even been on his mind. Not that we should be having jealousy trips with a sister service / complementary organization, but it is the job of CAP to look after CAP; and the job of the AUX to look after the aux.

their is prestige to having our own air assets. There is an advantage to having boaters in the air on boat missions, not aviators whose current customers are boaters. An allied agency will fly for you when it does not conflict with their own thing, (who can blame them), ..

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

quote:

Originally posted by ENGELJ:
[QUOTE]

The pledge you are about the take is your commitment to support the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary, [not the USCG, which is a completely different organization] an organization dedicated to the promotion of boating safety

Just like the USCG reserve is not the same organization as the coast guard, and my flotilla is not the same organization as the flotilla across the lake. (otherwise we wouldn't have a secretary, a tressurer, etc for each)
Looks like a dangerous attitude...

I read the "MOU Between USCG Aux, USCG, CAP and USAF" (dated 31 Aug '01) and it says that the MOU will be renewed every 5 years, provided there is no objection by any party.

Does anyone know if this MOU has been renewed? Have there been any amendments or revisions made?

I'm planning on joining the Coast Guard Auxiliary after college and would like to know more about how a Coast Guard Auxiliarist can work with CAP in their auxiliary duties. I'm a former CAP cadet, so I have knowledge about CAP. I also have some ES and SAR experience.

I assume that since it is still up on the CAP web page that no one objected to the automatic renewal and that it is still in force.

quote:

Since all I seem to read about here are the "bad" of everything -- which seems to be everything --

That is because this forum is where the VERY small percentage of Auxiliary "malcontents" hang out. There are about six or seven of them that post here and three of them have been thrown out of the Auxiliary. Probably won't be long before the other ones get walking papers.

FlyAndScuba,

Thanks for the info on the fort.

The sentance listing boating safety and assisting the Coast Guard has nothing to indicate a higher importance of one item over the other. The author considered both items of equal importance -- as does the USCG.

That is true of the document you cite. However, at N-Train or NACON 2006 (the actual cite is buried somewhere in the RBS thread), the CG gave the Aux a prioritized list of items and RBS was at the head of the list.

And a Knowledge Base entry of 20 MAR 2007 indicates the following:

All Flotilla's should participate in the "four cornerstones" defined in the AuxMan (Chap 2., Sec A) as:

A.1. Four Cornerstones

Historically, the Auxiliary’s primary missions have been vessel safety checks (VSCs), public education (PE ), and operations. These three missions, together with fellowship, were known as the four cornerstones. Today, the four cornerstones are defined as follows:

• Member Services
• Recreational Boating Safety
• Operations and Marine Safety
• Fellowship

In the RBS program, PE , VE , and organizations RBS Visitation Program are part of this particular cornerstone, and all Flotillas are expected to participate in these programs.

So, operations (including air operations) are considered a primary mission. If that is not the case, then the posters who advocate a lack importance for AUXAIR but yet advocate a need of membership levels high enought to support "a boat patrol at every station -- everyday" really feel that surface operations are as unimportant. Simply limit yourselves to boater education classes and VE ramp checks... Better yet, out-source the entire RBS program to the U.S. Power Squadron and save the USCG major dollars, right?

Wouldn't it be amazing if everyone would find a program or few that are of interest -- and become engaged in those programs, with little worry or concern about what others are doing in other programs? Imagine the positive impact that could be realized! Sadly, we have to deal with the "human condition" that hinders such success possibilities.

I'm still waiting on the list of positive and well run programs (and good leaders) within the Auxilairy.... anyone? I figured as much.

Better yet, out-source the entire RBS program to the U.S. Power Squadron and save the USCG major dollars, right?

In slightly modified form, that is almost what CurA advocated in the RBS thread. However, he advocated an expansion of the Aux Assoc Membership Program and the creation of the Red Shirt Brigade for that - not turning it over to the USPS - who does it already. However, as will be posted in a few days - the Associate membership program is in deep trouble, as evidenced by the report of its Chairmen to OpCom. (If you think we are negitive - wait until you read that report - written by the program chair.).

Wouldn't it be amazing if everyone would find a program or few that are of interest -- and become engaged in those programs, with little worry or concern about what others are doing in other programs?

Unfortunately all programs are not treated equally. For example, AuxAir is about the only program that gets direct training dollars from the CG. It gets between 300K-500K a year for spin-and-puke training for about 300 pilots. The RBS programs with qualified members in the thousands gets ziltch in direct aid. PE is obligated to not only support itself but to provide the throw off funds for the rest of the Auxiliary.

Imagine if AuxAir got nothing from the USCG and had to raise its own funds - maybe by towing sponsor banners or big decals on the aircraft. And then it would be mandated to give a good chunk of the funds raised to non-Air programs. Until you realize how the dollars are spent for so few you will not understand the depth of dissatisfaction many members feel toward AuxAir.

FWIW- prior to the demise of my membership I was Air Crew qualified, flew several times a month and was the part of a crew that had several 'saves and finds' to its credit. I had a ball in the air program - yet I fully understood why other non-air members had it in for the Air program. The haughtly attitude (not implying you are displaying this - you aren't) assumed by most of the AuxAir personnel doesn't help them being accepted as a member of the team by the land-bound.

FWIW2 - the pilot I almost exclusively flew with was also boat crew qualified and had the largest facility in the flotilla. I was one of the two coxswains he trusted to take it out under orders. He wasn't haughtly and everyone wanted to (air or boat) crew with him.

Thanks, Hal. I was puzzled by what Fly was saying, but your response cleared it up.

The entire organization is changing, and our function is to ride out the changes as well as we can. I am tempted to go bury my head in augmenting for sector and come out like a groundhog in a couple of years and look for my shadow.

The Spatial Disorientation training that you guys love to pick on is required for pilots and optional for Air Crew, and is a one-time training program, not a recurring program. Once the current crews have made it through then only new add-ons will require future funding. Reading the negative posts regarding this particular training, one would think you feel it is not valuable. By the way, it also includes CRM (crew resource management) training as well. If such training wasn't provided or required for air operations, the same voices would gripe that proper training wasn't a concern for the AUXAIR leadership for proper program operation -- and that the program is mismanaged or poorly run....especially if an incident occurred as a result of an aircraft entering an unusual attitude (rarely a survivable event). The negative bent simply will not be satisfied.

BTW, since that particular training was in my home town -- it cost little to nothing for me and my 6 crew to attend (no travel, lodging, or food).

Training dollars are available from the CG for non-aviation related opportunities. People apply for, and go to, C-schools all the time on the CG dollar. My flotilla has had several attend such programs, where they can bring the information back down to the Division and Flotilla level. For example, I will be attending the AUXSCE train-the-trainer course as one of three other auxiliarists from my Division. So, the dollars and opportunities are there if the requests are made (given that not everyone will be approved for everything).

Not all AUXAIR people limit themselves to the aviation program. I have a surface facility, that has been used in operations. I am involved in Flotilla leadership (though at times I wish I would "just fly the airplane", and I considered telling the nominating committee this year "no").

The existence of the AUXAIR program did bring me to the organization (I responded to a recruiting poster at a local FBO). However, I joined the organization -- not just a program -- and have become active and engaged as time has allowed, and at personal time expense (remember the discussion on opportunity costs?) I can think of a number of ways I could use a week of vacation time, other than traveling for the AUXSCE training -- but I was asked to go by the Division and I felt the instructor/traininers would be needed in our area for this new course.

It is a dangerous and slippery slope when groups of people are labeled due to experiences encountered as a result of a few individuals. I do not discount that you may have encountered some "less than stellar" personalities in the AUXAIR program. No matter what the organization -- there will alway be a few. However, I can say that I know of no one in my particular area's aviation program that would qualify as exhibiting such counter-productive personalities or attitude. Pilots, observers, and aircrew from various Flotillas and even Divisions work together to provide the level of service desired from our Gold-side sponsors and customers.

I can only think of a couple of people I have declined entry into observer/aircrew training for my facility -- all due to some condition that would impact safety to themselves or the other crew.

Also, my statement about the RBS program and out-sourcing to the Power Squadron was meant to be ridiculous -- as an illustration of how ridiculous the thought of turning AUXAIR over to CAP would be -- and is not my true opinion. I completely support and encourage the members of my flotilla to engage in this important program and they have, in turn, experienced admirable PE and VE numbers to show for their hard work.

I think you are neglecting the fact that the Coast Guard gets charged by the Navy for training, so where you live does not make it free. That said, I think spin and puke is valuable training, especially for people who have never had training and experience in spatial disorientation. I also think that the vision training that so often gets overlooked in reports on spin and puke is probably more valuable than the teacup ride itself.

I, too, was recruited by a flier at the local FBO, and only became involved in the boat crew program when the air program became so badly mismanaged that I went REYR for never being able to get on the flight schedule. That is another story for another time, but I was an aircraft commander in 1995, and my aircraft was a facility in '95-96. Pure mismanagement of the program was the reason my qualifications expired. And that is enough said about that, but don't accuse me of being a malcontent without reason. I gave up on the air program and became a coxswain in 2001.

>Fly&Scuba: > Not all AUXAIR people limit themselves to the aviation program. I have a surface facility, that has been used in operations. I am involved in Flotilla leadership (though at times I wish I would "just fly the airplane", and I considered telling the nominating committee this year "no"). The existence of the AUXAIR program did bring me to the organization (I responded to a recruiting poster at a local FBO).

>SKYRAY: > I, too, was recruited by a flier at the local FBO, and only became involved in the boat crew program when the air program became so

Both of which bring up the point that if AUXAIR were outsourced, such people would have joined CAP, not the AUX. They're exposure to the aux would be the bugs on the ground they work for, not the organization they're a part of. More power to the CAP and all, but the AUX should be saying more power to the AUXAIR, as well. Discussing outsourcing isn't showing support, which is pretty ironic given that's one of the accusations that the flyboys are being accused of, not supporting surface & RBS...