E.S. Training Opportunity

If you read my previous post, I alluded to the fact that the USDRC's leadership all have the SGAUS's Military Emergency Management Specialist badges. I also commented on the value I thought the program would give the member.

For those that do not know, the program is designed to take military officers and men, civilian government employees and emergency services professionals and give them training on how to better deal with emergency situations. The program itself is designed for the State Guards, but is also used by other government organizations, such as the Medical Reserve Corps (MRC). The training consists of FEMA ICS courses (many of which we have already taken), a narrative, and further training that may include an internship at an actual Emergency Operations Center.

I was looking at the brochure again after work, and noticed that there are liaison officers with several government and private agencies. One of them was the aforementioned Medical Reserve Corps, but another that stood out was the American Cadet Alliance. The ACA is like our cadet program, but has no emergency services component. Therefore, I found it curious that members would be interested in pursuing this class. However, it is a cool course to take, and I applaud them in their effort.

I am puzzled further by the fact that neither the CAP nor the Coast Guard Auxiliary have agency liaisons for this program. Could it be that we are a government agency and the SGAUS is private? No, because the MRC is also government, and they have a liaison. An answer to this question escapes me, still.

I have little doubt that CAP officers have undergone this training. I also have little doubt that it aided in developing them professionally as emergency services officers and professionals. It may seem all too logical to have a liaison in place for those members (such as myself) who would like to take this training.

Any readers who have undergone this training, I would like to hear of your experiences. Please comment below.

Legitimacy and Uniforms

With the launch of he-who-should-disappear's U.S. Ranger Corps, faux militias have been a popular topic of conversation within the Civil Air Patrol community. Indeed, VA Joe and his regular visitors like to rag on these groups of volunteers almost endlessly. Some veterans there do insinuate that CAP, the USCG Auxiliary and the various SDFs are also false militaries of some kind. Of course, I believe them to be mistaken.

What separates CAP and the others from the likes of the Ranger Corps or the United States Service Command? Government charter is certainly one such requirement. However, I believe it must go further than that. I developed this criteria for a stalled project I was set to do this summer, but instead wound up working for a UAV company. However, the criteria still works. A legitimate volunteer military organization (VMO) needs to meet the following requirements

• Are chartered by the Federal or State Governments; and are administered by such. These organizations are usually organized under a military department (such as the Air Force) or the State’s National Guard office.
• Operate in direct support of a parent service. The parent service is the service that the organization is chartered under. For example, the Coast Guard Auxiliary is organized under the Coast Guard, making it the parent service.
• Are made up mostly of volunteers, with those paid positions ones that are only necessary to maintain the day-to-day operations of the service. These are generally in the administrative field.
• Operates in a non-combatant role; serving only as a humanitarian organization.
• Perform missions the parent service cannot feasibly do itself.

These requirements were stitched together from the CAP, CG Auxiliary and the various SDFs out there. Legitimate VMOs will meet all or most of these requirements, with the only one not needing to be satisfied is the final one: "Perform missions the parent service cannot feasibly do itself." Sometimes, the organization can serve simply as a force multiplier for a mission the parent service can do, but needs additional personnel or expertise at a lower cost than bringing on additional parent-service members.

Of course, the most fundamental objection to the faux militias are their use of military style uniforms. Uniforms can be good. They bind an organization together, and create a corporateness that is needed. However, the design of the uniform is what is controversial. If they did not wear military style uniforms, would we be so willing to bash them? Probably not. The United States Homeland Emergency Response Organization (US HERO; catchy acronym, huh?) wears a uniform, but it consists of an orange shirt and black BDU pants. Non-military if there ever was one. Their mission is professed as one of life-saving and disaster support, but I don't hear nearly as much criticism of them as I do the Ranger Corps, Service Command or the Disaster Relief Command. In fact, a quick jaunt around US HERO's website and you'll find frequent training events, and a true commitment to their job. I cannot, in good conscious classify these guys as a faux militia, though perhaps a little renegade.

To be fair, I've been following the Disaster Relief Command for some time now too, and it appears to be cleaning up it's act. At least, online. True it's website is not the best, but it now boasts a Medical Battalion (on paper, at least). Their leadership have also earned the State Guard Assiociation's Military Emergency Management Specialist badge. (I am, of course, assuming it was earned legitimately.) MEMS is a pretty good program, and I would participate if I had the time. If the DRC would only change their uniforms, I would have half a mind to check them out further. However, they still have a long way to go before I'm willing to attach my good name to them.

Put simply, CAP and our brethren are different for many reasons, not the least of which is government charter and military oversight. Should these people be commended for taking on the burden of saving lives? Only when they show a true desire to do so. With some, I will admit, I am giving the benefit of the doubt. However, I feel that's only fair.

Back in the Saddle

After nearly a year of not flying missions for one reason or another, I returned to the saddle today flying Mission Observer on a rather routine mission. Regardless, it was still fun.

The mission was simple: test our communications capabilities along various points along the northern Chesapeake Bay. We flew at various altitudes from 1000 ft to 3000 ft AGL along differing portions of the bay. The point was to see how low the aircraft could fly without loosing communications links with our ICP. This mission was part of a SAREX, and had been cancelled just a few hours earlier due to weather. Regardless, at noon today I got the word the mission was re-activated.

I met my pilot a few hours later at my local airport, and we promptly departed on the mission. We were fortunate enough to be flying one of the new C-182 Glass Cockpits. I did most of my flight training in the glass cockpit C-172, and the transition to the C-182 was smooth. All the navigation was the same; and that was my job today. The wing operations officer was even kind enough to put a few checkpoints into the system to make our jobs a little easier.

What did I get out of it? I was able to re-familiarize myself with flight planning and execution, communications procedures, and the glass cockpit system as a search and rescue/navigation tool.

Also, if you've never seen the sun setting on the Chesapeake Bay at 1000 ft AGL, you're missing out. Although we made it back to the airport well before the sun dipped below the horizon, it was still late enough in the day to see it wane from 1000 ft.

I never realized how much I missed flying with CAP...

Commissioning

Personal Feelings aside, a recent CAPTalk thread has opened up debate on weather or not CAP officers are/should be commissioned. Usually, the President or Governor of a state will commission officers. As cited in the thread, the idea of the President commissioning all officers in the U.S. Armed Forces is rather new, and comes out of World War II. However, the President does not 'commission' CAP officers. Rather, they are appointed by the Secretary of the Air Force. Could CAP better accomplish it's missions if the officers were in fact commissioned by the President or other authority?

Firstly, we should acknowledge that a commission would imply authority. Right now, the enisted and subordinate grades are not required to render salute to a CAP officer (although most do); however CAP officers are required to do so to superior grades. Would not a commission warrant a salute from subordinates? I believe that it would require them to regardless of branch. Secondly, it raises the issue of squadrons commanded by a 1st Lieutenant, with majors and Lt. Colonels in them. Although this could turn into a minor point, a commission would imply that the highest ranking officer assume command. Additionally, a commission might place CAP under the auspices of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

However, with CAP assuming more missions alongside the Air Force and other military branches, the idea of a commission may be worth considering. My wing is an equal player in air operations for our state: sitting alongside and equal to the Air National Guard, and Army National Guard Aviation units. If Maj. Gen. Tuxill is to be believed (and I have no reason to think he is lying), then my wing at least will have a greater role to play in Maryland's homeland security mission. So then, wouldn't a commission be a beneficial thing for members who work side-by-side with the Real Military?

I believe the answer to this question to be yes, if only because it would allow us to better integrate us into the real forces. With our expanding mission here in Maryland, we are becoming highly visible in the greater military community. True, many know who we are now, but many others do not. It will become hard to justify men and women running around with bars who are not commissioned. It's not fair to the officers who had to earn their bars.

I should be clear about this point, however. I do not think that a simple commissioning is fair either without a major overhaul of the requirements and training to be an officer. (See "Expertise, Responsibility, Corporatess") A major overhaul of our PD system at the initial levels would be needed before any sort of commissioning could be considered. In this post I will not venture to offer a solution to this problem, as it is not the point of this article.

Integration into the real military is a very real thing right now. What is to be said of us; members who call themselves officers but have no commission? Even state guard officers have a commission: the governor of their state is the promoting authority in this case. Why, then, should the Civil Air Patrol limit itself to simple appointments? I believe that a commission, with proper qualifications to attain one, is an integral part of CAP moving forward. Perhaps a compromise could be considered: the governors of the states that the wings serve could commission the CAP officers within that state. It would be a reversion to the Civil War model of regiments like the 54th Massachusett's or the 23rd New Jersey. However, the solution to modern problems can often be found in the past.