Talk:Civil Air Patrol

Template:Mainpage date

File:CAP MAJCOM shield.jpg

USAF MAJCOM shield for CAP

• Archived talk page 1
• Featured Article Attempt Archive
• Introduction Dispute Archive
• Time to split the article...? Archive
• Japanese Fire Balloons Archive
• Links Dispute Archive
• Mitchell vs. Spaatz vs. Eagle Scout Archive

Page-related discussion

I would like to note that the NMMA was canceled for 2005-2006, and from those I have talked to about it within CAP is not returning. (You may note its absence on [1].)

CAP and the Military

In my opinion, it is very important to have a section in this article that makes it very clear that the CAP is not a branch of the United States Armed Forces and that CAP members are never placed in command of active duty U.S. troops. This was actually in the article quite some time ago, but edited out long ago probably through routine cleanups and not by any design to hide this info. Anyway, this group is confusing to non U.S. folks who see it as simply a branch of the Air Force. And, as a military reservist, I cant tell you how many times Ive bumped into CAP people who demanded to know why the active military did not salute them. Not that all CAP people are like that, of course, just thats its a point of confusion within the CAP itself. -Husnock 09:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Have the changes User:Husnock suggested been made, does anybody think the article needs some further clairfication? If so, where should we put it? I know there is a section within the Cadet Programs part of the article about Cadets and the Military, but that doesn't seem like a good place to put this. It would need to be somewhere that includes all members, both seniors and cadets. Grant 03:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I have a question about this passage in the member section of the article:

Under the UCMJ, CAP members do not have command authority over members of the United States military. Similarly, military officers have no command authority over CAP members. As part of recognition of CAP's service to the USAF, however, CAP members are allowed to wear "U.S." as part of their uniform, and most members of the U.S. military will render military courtesy to CAP officers, though they are not required to. CAP members are required to render military courtesy to all members of U.S. and friendly foreign military personnel.

CAP members are not subject to the UCMJ since they are not members of the military. How should we update this to be more accurate in the status of CAP members? Grant 05:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think that the quoted excerpt is accurate as-is. The UCMJ does establish who does, and who does not, have command authority over others, and that really has nothing to do with "who is subject to the UCMJ" in the sense of who can be court-martialed. For example, the President of the United States has command authority over the military, while he himself is not "subject to the UCMJ". Perhaps this could be explained better in the article, but the accuracy is not really in question. Also, your statement about CAP members not being subject to the UCMJ is not 100% accurate. What you probably meant to say was that "CAP members are not subject to the UCMJ unless they are members of the military", since of course there are many CAP members that are also members of the armed forces. Merenta 15:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page Archive

Looking forward to when these current debates are behind us, I want to discuss how we intend to archive this page. I think we should archive it by sub-topic, since most of the discussions seem to be on specific topics. Right now this talk page is very hard to read, and I think it would be well served from some solid cleaning. What does everybody think about making sub-pages to archive these discussions by topic? Grant 00:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. McNeight 02:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I've archived all of the old discussions. I really want to archive the Eagle Award discussion and Link Dispute discussion but they have both been commented upon recently. In a week or so, if there aren't any more additions to those sections, I would like to archive them. I also left the CAP and the Military section up, since it doesn't seem like it has been addressed. We should take care of that and clean off everything left todo on the article and then attack it again to make it even better. Grant 03:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Everything that should be archived is archived. What's next? Grant 18:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

CAP and September 11

The claim of CAP's importance with regard to 9/11 is unfortunately overstated: the blood being flown to "victims of the attack" more than likely went unused.[2] There was a large outpouring of blood donors in NYC itself in anticipation of a large number of wounded who never materialized: most people either escaped the towers unscathed or died.

If CAP continued to fly such missions in the week following 9/11 when most civilian craft were grounded, that would be a greater claim to importance.--TidyCat 12:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

This is untrue. Blood was flown directly to the WTC site using CAP aircraft, so in actuality 100% of the blood, not 1%, was transported. And the comment made below is also true. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 19:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not the transporting I'm referring to; it's that the blood probably didn't get used. I did find a few mentions on CAP sites about Governor Pataki requesting CAP do flyovers and take photographs on 9/12/01; that's a reasonably strong claim to importance.

But I'd like to point out that "CAP transported blood to WTC victims" is a weak claim to importance. It's good that CAP flew the mission, but not a terribly strong claim to importance since the blood went unused.

If you or anyone else could confirm that CAP continued to fly blood transport missions across the country during the week following 9/11, that would be a stronger claim.--TidyCat 10:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The significance of CAP's 9/11 involvement was, in fact, that it continued to fly such missions nationwide in the week following 9/11 when most civilian aircraft were grounded. Previous unsigned comment by User:71.37.74.55 04:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Ranger School Text

Today, the Civil Air Patrol Search and Rescue missions are conducted by an elite team of highly trained Senior Members and Cadets. The Ranger program is a comprehensive training program with a Air Force designed curriculum. The training takes place at two locations. One, is the well known "Hawk Mountain Ranger School" located in Pennsylvania. The other school is located on a small former missile base in South Florida, otherwise known as the "Falcon Ranger School". Both schools offer the same intense training. The curriculum includes basic to advanced survival techniques, medical assistance training, basic to advanced navigation, and basic to advanced search and rescue theory. Ranger school takes place once a month except during the winter and summer in which a 9 day activity takes place for medic and/or staff trainees. Each Ranger trainee is required to prove their knowledge and skill through numerous tests before they receive their Search and Rescue patch. After receiving the Ranger 2nd Class rating or "R2", they then may begin other training courses such as medic and staff training (the hardest of the two). The final level is "Master Ranger", the notorious "black shirts" or "black belts" of the Civil Air Patrol. Very few have reached that level. To see the list, refer to the Hawk Mountain Ranger School website. Typical R2 training lasts about eight to ten months, and the drop out rate is the highest among the various activities in the Civil Air Patrol.

So, what to do? In some areas, this would merit an article all by itself. It seems that Florida Wing has copied the Hawk Mountain model and "made it their own". Compare http://pawg.cap.gov/hawk/ with http://www.flrangers.com/. Should there perhaps be a separate article for detailed information about Ranger training? McNeight 04:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 19:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Please make a not that distinguishes that this training is far less strenuous and difficult than the US Army Ranger School training. Swatjester 23:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, duh. (I mean this in the nicest way possible, of course ;-) )Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 01:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Mitchell Awardees get E-3 in Air Force and E-2 in Army, Navy, and Marine Corps

Call a recruiter to be sure. Ask about the 'Advance paygrade Enlistment Statement of Understanding" and Navy Regulation: NAVCRUIT 1133.101 and you will see that this information is correct. Despite the fact that McNeight wants to delete anything I contribute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by T`sitra Yel Darb (talk • contribs) 18:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC).

SO CLOSE! God, you almost made a meaningful edit complete with a reference and everything! Unfortunately, this is what you get for making a phone call instead of doing the research yourself. See, NAVCRUIT 1133.101 is a form. Just because there is a checkbox on a recruiters form doesn't mean that there is a regulation stating a fact. The actual reference is COMNAVCRUITCOMINST 1130.8F, Chapter 4, Section 4C-2, paragraph d.

Since I've already done the work for you, I won't go to the trouble of deleting your edit. However, your "page" about NAVCRUIT 1133.101 is not only non-encyclopedic, but your attempt to make it a "reference" is truly laughable. McNeight 20:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Re-adding 102nd Composite Squadron reference

This was already discussed (see the link dispute talk page), and apparently someone removed this quietly and without me noticing. I'm going to readd it. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 22:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

June 2nd?

I was listening to AFN Radio today, and it had a "This Day in History" public announcement for June 2nd. It mentioned something about the Civil Air Patrol being granted some type of wartime authority/mission on June the 2nd. I didn't hear the year, but I think it might have been in the 1970s. I wish I could have heard the whole thing, but it was on a radio playing in the background and I missed it. Anyone have any clue as to what it might be?

History

Someone should mention Flood of 1993 in Missouri, I don't have the facts at hand but it was certainly a significant event for CAP nationwide, involving the first CAP airspace management program ever allowed by the FAA.

Space Camp/Aviation Challenge on NCSA List

Should 'Space Camp/Aviation Challenge' remain on the NCSA list, since it is not a CAP activity, and the only major affiliation is that you can wear the NCSA ribbon for attending?JColgan 01:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Senior Members

Under Civil_Air_Patrol#Senior_members, this should be edited: 'Senior members are those who are over 21 years old, or who joined CAP for the first time past the age of 18.' Anyone 18-20 can be a flight officer, and the majority of flight officers are cadets who become senior members before age 21. JColgan 01:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Well, what's stopping you? ;-) Seriously, though, if you feel that it needs to be changed, go ahead. Linuxbeak (AAAA!) 01:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I didn't like any of the possible revisions I had in my head, so I figured somebody else would come up with something that sounds nice. JColgan 01:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)