Talk:Civil Air Patrol/Archive 2

This page is archived through 01 December 2007.

Only an auxiliary while performing missions?
Is the first sentence of this article really accurate? It states that we are only the auxiliary when performing non-combat missions or programs for the Air Force. What is the source for this? --OuroborosCobra 17:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I don't know the source, but this is true. When we are performing missions for agencies, companies, individuals or whatever (anything outside the Air Force, Air National Guard and related subsidiaries), we are just considered a corporation.  Many pilots have been buying unofficial patches with the words "Aux On / Aux Off" (see the patch and examples here).  Basically, when we operate for the Air Force family, we are a U.S. Code Title 10 organization; when we operate outside of the Air Force, we are a U.S. Code Title 36 organization.  IIRC, this is a situation that's been on the books for a while, but only recently recognized by the community at large. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 18:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've always been given the impression that those were simply the cases where we were acting as an auxiliary (more a matter of insurance coverage and such), not the only cases where we are the auxiliary. Considering that a large number of our regulations, manuals, and pamphlets also call us simply "the official auxiliary", and not the "part time auxiliary", I still feel this should have an actual citation. What unofficial patches pilots purchase really doesn't count a whole lot to me since you will see a lot of people with beliefs of things that are not true. I still run into people convinced that it was announced we were becoming the Navy's auxiliary. --OuroborosCobra 19:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, not saying it doesn't need a citation, but the Titles are the technical statements. Technically, when we operate outside of the Air Force, we are not acting as the Air Force Auxiliary.  It's all confusing, which is what lead to much consternation within the ranks regarding the difference between 10 and 36.  I'm certainly not an expert, so someone with more knowledge needs to comment as well.  However, who on earth thinks we're going to be the Navy's Aux?  That's just rediculous. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 19:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I still think there is a confusion of language here. Not acting as the Air Force Auxiliary doesn't suddenly make you not the auxiliary. As for the Navy thing, for the most part it is ridiculous. There was a rumor, which I think had some basis in fact, that the Navy expressed interest in use of CAP for something, and the same people that make the rumors that the Air Force is "going to drop us next week, you'll all see" say that the Navy is going to pick us up. Having had discussions with Col. Hodgkins at multiple conferences, I've never gotten the impression that the Air Force is going to drop us, in fact I have usually heard how they want to expand our role. --OuroborosCobra 21:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, actually, you are 100% correct. I think my eyes glazed over reading that opener, and I got too much into the technicalities.  I'm going to do a little reading, and figure out a good way to reword the opener.  I actually think that the simple phrase "The Civil Air Patrol is the civilian auxiliary of the United States Air Force (USAF)." might work, but I'll look into it further. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 07:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The way I understand the opening sentence, it is saying that we operate as the USAF Aux only "when performing non-combat missions or programs for the Air Force" (from the page). We never stop being the USAF Aux, however we do go out on missions that may not be strictly Air Force related. For example, I know that we have an MOU with the Red Cross, so we might go out and help them on a mission but it wouldn't be covered under FECA and all that stuff (I'm pulling this out of my GES part 1 training, which is still in it's infancy) As I understand we always operate as their auxilary, but some of our missions (which may not be with the air force, but are approved by the air force or National HQ) are not for the Air Force. Something tells me I said that in too many words, but I'm tired, sick, and in school. Hoep it helps though ;)--Cadet hastings 13:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To me, that is a detail that doesn't belong in an opening sentence describing Civil Air Patrol, it belongs later in the article in a section about either emergency services or operations. The opening sentence should be about what Civil Air Patrol is, not how we operate on certain missions. We are the Air Force auxiliary, and the opening sentence is very misleading into making people think that most of the time, we aren't. --OuroborosCobra 16:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've modified the opening paragraph to reflect the sentiments here. CAP is the official auxiliary no matter where we are or what we are doing, but that doesn't mean we don't act in "unsanctioned" non-auxiliary roles for other entities. Check the diff and let me know what you think. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 17:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks great :) --OuroborosCobra 04:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, sounds more clear now. BTW, I added a link to the civillian page--Cadet hastings 14:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The first line needs to be accurate, and saying CAP is the Air Force Auxiliary is inaccurate. Check 10 USC 9441 (easily available on the web). "The Civil Air Patrol is a nonprofit corporation that is federally chartered under section 40301 of title 36. Except as provided in section 9442(b)(2) of this title, the Civil Air Patrol is not an instrumentality of the Federal Government for any purpose." 10 USC 9442 sets forth the limited conditions upon which the CAP acts as an Air Force auxiliary. Basically, Air Force auxiliary is a status CAP receives when working for the Federal government (not just the Air Force), and is temporary (it only applies during an Air Force-assigned mission). When in AF Aux status, CAP members are treated (in large part) like Federal employees. If you do not trust the Federal law, check AFI 10-2701 (also available on the web). CAP members need to be proud of the great organization it is, and not for a status it occassionally receives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.207.179 (talk • contribs)


 * First, please sign your comment (you can use four tiddles (~). Second, we already had a conversation about this and as of now have decided to keep the article the way it is. We are the Air Force Aux. Saying that "(CAP) is a auxiliary of the United States Air Force (USAF) when performing missions assigned by the Air Force" implies that there are other official auxiliaries of the Air Force and that we stop being the Auxiliary of the Air Force when not on a mission. If that is the case I wonder why we wear the USAF uniform when not on missions and follow Military customs and such when not on USAF assigned missions.
 * Also, I believe that the reg you are refering says that we are only covered by FECA and the other insurance program when on USAF assigned missions. I have to read that reg to be sure though. Oh, one more thing, we never said we were an "instrumentality of the Federal Government", we have been federally chartered as a non-profit civilian organization that operates as the Auxilirary to the Air Force. In no way do we claim to be federally employed or have an special rights (suchs as law enforcement, pension, etc...) Please discuss further changes here--Cadet hastings 14:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * | 10 USC CHAPTER 909 - CIVIL AIR PATROL Just thought I would link you guys to it. I think I need to read it with my lawyer glasses on though (and I really don't want to go find those). Anyhow, I'm going to show this to my squad commander and see what he says. Let you know ;)--Cadet hastings 15:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that we are incorrect. We are not "the auxiliary of the Air Force" all the time. We are the auxilary of the Air force only when the Sectary of Defense or a lower USAF peron in the chain of command requests the assistance of CAP and a USAF mission number is issued. All other times we are a congressionally chartered benevolent non-profit organization (this is where we had the problem, what we are if we aren't the USAF Aux). This is what my squad commander said so I hope it helps ;)--Cadet hastings 04:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Once again, I feel that is a technicality over when we are covered by federal insurance, etc. Why do all of our membership cards, our nameplates, our seal, our regulations, etc. say "Civil Air Patrol, USAF Auxiliary"? --OuroborosCobra 04:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's what made me say that we are always the AUX, but after seeing that chapter of the USC it made me wonder, and what my commander said seems to be in line with what the code says. Also it would explain some of the sayings in regards to flight suit patches (Aux on, Aux off)--Cadet hastings 15:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As a counter-example, I had just asked my squadron commander, who agreed that we are always the aux. There's obviously differing opinions running around.  However, I'm having him ask our state's AUX-USAF liaison about this issue, and will try and ask the wing commander as well.  Hopefully I'll get a response on this soon. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 08:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe we can get Brig MajGen (my bad :S ) Pienda to answer this for us ;) I agree that we should get another opinion and for the most part, I look at CAP as the USAF Aux, but thats because of the membership cards and everything else that says United States Air Force Auxiliary...--Cadet hastings 15:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize for not signing, but that is impossible at present. I assure you, I am more knowledgable about these matters than any CAP-USAF State Director or Maj Gen (CAP) Pineda.  The fact the CAP continues to use "Air Force Auxiliary" on its membership cards and letterhead (etc.) is not legal support for the proposition that it is "the" Air Force Auxiliary.  More likely, it is a result of CAP Corp not making the appropriate changes since the law changed in 2000.  So, what should be the best authority for whether the CAP is permanently "the" Air Force Auxiliary?  CAP corporate documents or Air Force published documents?  I would say that if the Air Force says the CAP is not permanently its auxiliary, then the CAP is not "the" Air Force Auxiliary.  Anyone disagree -- CAP can't just say it and its so.  Therefore, to put this issue to rest and for those who have not read the Air Force Instruction like I have (many many time), the following is a direct quote from AFI 10-2701, paragraph 1.2:  "CAP Status as an Auxiliary of the Air Force. Title 10, USC § 9442 identifies CAP as an auxiliary of the Air Force when carrying out a mission assigned by the SECAF to provide services to any department or agency in any branch of the Federal government, including the Air Force. CAP is deemed to be an instrumentality of the United States while carrying out missions assigned by the Secretary."    Taken with the Federal law, it is quite clear, Air Force auxiliary is a temporary status held by CAP when performing missions or programs assigned by the Air Force.  With all this said, the Wikipedia entry should be accurate, and I am happy to correct it for the editors.  But, if these editors are truly cadets, you should live by the CAP core values.  I live by the Air Force core values:  Integrity, Service Before Self, and Excellence In All We Do.  We are not upholding these core values if we continue to assert information we know is false.  (I have provided ample support for this position, without the need of identifying myself.)  I truly appreciate all that CAP does, and understand why it would like to be The Air Force Auxiliary; however, at present, that is not the case.  Please be proud of the Civil Air Patrol as the Civil Air Patrol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.207.179 (talk • contribs)


 * I'm sorry, but when you claim you are more knowledgeable than Maj Gen Pineda, and by extension most every other member of the organization, yet claim that you cannot identify yourself for unstated reasons, you lose all credibility. Even the material you present does not state that the organisation isn't always the auxiliary, only that the missions sactioned/ordered by the Air Force are performed as the auxiliary (and the missions performed for other agencies are not performed as the auxiliary).  This is an important distinction, because the fact that we don't always perform missions for the Air Force does not mean we aren't always its auxiliary.
 * For example, I am a police dispatcher professionally. It is a job that I attend to based on when I'm scheduled to work.  I may mow someone's lawn on a day off, and not do it under the auspices of my police department, but that doesn't mean I'm not still a dispatcher.  Does that make sense?  Anyway, as stated, the official website, printed materials, patches, products, etc, all say United States Air Force Auxiliary, at least some of which has received authorisation or has been vetted by the Air Force. The official USAF website itself calls CAP its official auxiliary in all related stories and webpages. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 17:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe this language from Air Force Policy Directive 10-27, paragraph 2.1, will help clear this issue up: “CAP is an auxiliary of the Air Force when it assists the Air Force or any Federal agency in fulfilling its non-combat programs and missions.”  What is the point in this statement if they are always an Air Force Auxiliary, or if they are THE auxiliary?  Do you not see that the Air Force policy and regulations are clear -- CAP is not always an auxiliary of the Air Force, and consequently is not THE Air Force Auxiliary.  In addition to Air Force guidance, I would encourage you to read the law.  36 USC Chapter 403 is the provision creating the Civil Air Patrol.  You will notice no where in this Chapter is the CAP referred to as the Air Force Auxiliary.  Then check 10 USC Chapter 909 which discusses CAP’s relationship with the Air Force.  It is very specific, Sec. 9441 states “Except as provided in section 9442(b)(2) of this title, the Civil Air Patrol is not an instrumentality of the Federal Government for any purpose.”  Your example about the police dispatcher is very illustrative.  If advertising for mowing work, you do not claim to be “the Police Dispatcher,” because you have no authority to speak for the police department in your civilian capacity.  I am sure you do not put on your advertisement or business cards for the mowing business “Police Dispatcher” because that would probably violate some of your city’s ethics regulations.  There are legal reasons for this distinction, because as an Air Force auxiliary, the CAP is entitled to certain legal benefits and protections (i.e., Federal Employee Compensation Act, and Federal Tort Claims Act).  To suggest the CAP is always the Air Force auxiliary is to suggest they are always entitled to these benefits and protections.  Wikipedia should not help perpetuate or be complicit in the mischaracterization of the Civil Air Patrol, regardless of the mischaracterizations by the Civil Air Patrol.  If you will provide a link to the Air Force website that claims CAP is the Air Force Auxiliary, I will ensure it gets corrected soon.
 * , —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.207.179 (talk • contribs)


 * Ok, first, I fail to see how you can get so many facts and documents and yet are unable to add four tiddles or click the signature button, but I digress. In ES training the first thing I learned was that you are only covered by FECA and the FTCA when on a USAF assigned and approved mission. Second, about the police dispatcher. Of course he wouldn't print it on his business cards, it wouldn't make sense. However saying CAP is a civilian auxilary of the United States Air Force does. I have more to add but my time is limited so I will leave you be for now --Cadet hastings 19:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I read these statements are referring to the missions performed, not that the organization itself isn't the auxiliary. For example, for that first quote you use, to me it reads that when CAP is performing a mission for the Air Force, it is performing the mission as the auxiliary, which is what I've been saying all along (conversely, when CAP is performing a mission for a non-Air Force entity, it is not performing the mission as the auxiliary; this doesn't mean we still aren't the auxiliary of the USAF, just that the mission performed isn't sanctioned by the USAF).  As for the USAF website, perform a search for "Civil Air Patrol": every link I checked calls CAP the auxiliary of the USAF.  I don't know how clearer that could be. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 19:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

December 1 1941
I was looking on the December first page and for CAP's founding and I saw this "1941 - World War II: Mayor of New York City, Fiorello LaGuardia, and the director of the Office of Civilian Defense, sign an order creating the Civil Air Patrol" Pardon me if I am just ignorant, but the mayor of NYC wasn't involved in CAP was he?--Cadet hastings 15:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, he wrote Administrative Order 9, which created CAP, though I do not believe he was ever directly a member (just the person who authorized its creation). He was both NYC Mayor and OCD Director at the same time, albeit this overlap was only for a very short period. That entry is poorly written, though, so I've changed it for grammar purposes.  --  Huntster  T • @ • C 15:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * ok, I wasn't sure if the mayor was a guy or a girl. Names like that confuse me. Cheers ;)--Cadet hastings 19:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just read the Fiorello LaGuardia article? Don't they teach US History in your school? Alright, it was a little over the top, but it wasn't that bad, geez!  --rogerd 19:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that an attack like that is necessary, and no, not every position throughout all of history is taught in school. I'm pretty sure we never covered the head of the Office of Civil Defense when I was in US History, I learned it from my time as a cadet in CAP. --OuroborosCobra 20:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Wikipedia has rules against civility, so please choose your words a little more carefully in the future. I know neither LaGuardia nor OCD was taught in my high school, nor in my history classes in college.  Cheers! --  Huntster  T • @ • C 22:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And I haven't even takn US History yet O_O. Didn't think of reading the article or even looking it up. I was kind of in a hurry when I posted that. And thanks to those who defended me ;)--Cadet hastings 14:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Difference or similarity to the Coast Guard Auxiliary?
I was wondering if this dual status is similar to that of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary. There is a brief section about the legal basis of the USCGA in that article. --rogerd 16:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Coast Guard Auxiliary is more integrated with the Coast Guard than the CAP with the Air Force. CAP runs its missions as a unit outside the USAF direct command; CGA members perform missions as part of the Coast Guard unit.  On duty, they are under direct command of the Coast Guard duty POs and officers.  Legally it's not quite the same structure. -- GABaker 02:01, 25 May 07
 * It is not the same at all; I have been a member of both and am a current, serving member of the Coast Guard Auxiliary. The CGAux is not a nonprofit corporation in any way.  It is always part of the Coast Guard.  The Coast Guard has much more direct involvement with the CGAux than the AF does with CAP, though it was not always that way - I remember years ago the Air Force had much more interest in CAP than it does now.  Many CAP members never work with the Air Force, enter an Air Force installation and many serving AF personnel do not even know who/what CAP is.Dyscard (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

CAP Shield
It should be noted that the CAP shield has been changed, and now reads U. S. (where CAP is ), and Civil Air Patrol (where Air Force Auxiliary is). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.61.133.231 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you know where high-res copies of that new image may be? -- Huntster  T • @ • C 23:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Found a low-res copy of the image in a PDF sent out by National Headquarters. Uploaded and used temporarily until a high-res version can be found. Scetoaux 02:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I may try to do some graphics work and convert the high-res older graphic to the new standard, though I don't know if my photoshop abilities can properly replicate it :) --  Huntster  T • @ • C 03:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There has been yet another change to the CAP Command Shield. It's the current version, except the "U.S." has been removed. The new command shield is displayed on the PA Wing's website (www.pawingcap.com). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.78.99 (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Are there any documents or official announcements stating that this is the new version? I've seen nothing. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 23:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Uniform Regs
OK, I lied, I'm asking this question b/c it ISNT in the uniform regs. What buttons are supposed to be on a CAP service dress uniform? CAP buttons (have no ides what they look like), USAF buttons, or hap arnold buttons? Same for the tie tack/bar, are you supposed to have a CAP emblem, the USAF seal, or the hap arnold winged star device? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.76.156 (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * CAPTalk might be the best place to go for this type of question. --OuroborosCobra 20:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Be careful if you go to CAPTalk, though; they are not very tolerant of what they consider "stupid questions" and will likely tell you to "look it up in 39-1." In my day in CAP, though, the choice of CAP or Air Force buttons, tie bars, etc., was fairly down to member choice.Dyscard (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Cessna NGP
I brought this up over at Talk:Cessna NGP, but I thought people here might also have information on this. At the Civil Air Patrol Northeast Region 2006 conference it was announced by Col. Richard Greenhut that CAP was going to be the launch customer to what he then called "Cessna's Cirrus killer", presumably this aircraft. Does anyone have any documentation or reliable source to support this? I was at the conference, and know that the announcement was made, but as we all know politics and such can change and this may no longer be the case. I'd like to get independent confirmation before adding it to the article. Any help would be appreciated. --OuroborosCobra 08:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Corruption and Abuse of Power
Pineda was clearly removed from office, stripped of his rank and his membership was indeed terminated by the Civil Air Patrol Board of Governors on 2 October 2007.

When these facts (no reference because they are clearly visible facts that everyone can see with their own eyes) are posted to the main page, somebody rips them back off again. Personal attack edited out by -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v )

Now my ip shows that these additional people are threatening with harsh wikaliation (retaliation)? What gives? I fully understand the "source" material, but if you see a rat that had been run over on the side of the road, it is still dead. No matter how many of your fiends and neighbors you call over, all must agree, the flat rat is indeed dead. Personal attack edited out by -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v )

The fact is that Pineda was a corrupt "leader" in the Civil Air Patrol, he got caught and he got busted. He was stripped of his rank and he had his membership terminated... is there really anyone out there in the real world who can deny this?

I thought not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.190.9 (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm no fan of the man and am very happy that he is gone...I think Courter will be a refreshing change from the past several Commanders. We also aren't "denying" that he was stripped of rank and terminated.  But one of the basic principles of Wikipedia is that material presented in articles must be backed up with verifiable and reliable sources.  News articles, academic journals, reliable press releases, etc; but not blogs, forums, personal websites, and similar.  The whole point of this needless exercise is that you need to provide such a source...it isn't acceptable for those statements to simply be taken as fact.  The page Verifiability is an official policy, and read its first sentence: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."  Many people bitterly dislike this idea, but that is what we have to work with. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 02:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks removed from above. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 02:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Falcon Virgo Exercises, CAP involvement
No mention is made anywhere in this article about CAP aircraft routinely flying nightime "intruder" missions into restricted airspace over Washington DC and other major cities every few weeks, for the purpose of letting the Air Force practice tracking and intercepting them. The CAP planes on these missions are tracked with ground-to-air missiles, and intercepted by Coast Guard helos or US Air Force F-16 fighters. These CAP missions were originally classified by the Air Force when they first began after 9/11 but they were later declassified and the Washington Post ran a feature article earlier this year. This is arguably one of the most interesting, dangerous, and important missions currently performed by CAP, directly contributing to US Air Force combat readiness with respect to defense of Washington DC. Since the page is blocked for edits, would one of the editors please add the relevent info? Here is the link to the Washington Post article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/16/AR2007011601755.html

CNN Primetime video feature on same thing:

http://capblog.typepad.com/capblog/files/CAP.CNN.web.mov

68.98.151.209 03:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not anymore; I almost forgot that I had to unprotect it if no talking was forthcoming. Add it in. -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 23:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Contested move request
''The following request to move a page has been added to Requested moves as an uncontroversial move, but this has been contested by one or more people. Any discussion on the issue should continue here. If a full request is not lodged within five days of this request being contested, the request will be removed from WP:RM.'' —Dekimasu よ!  00:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Civil Air Patrol → United States Air Force Auxiliary Civil Air Patrol - This is the official U.S. Air Force title for it's civil air patrol (CAP) United States Air Force Auxiliary Civil Air Patrol. Neovu79 (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "United States Air Force Auxiliary" is a title of the organisation, not part of its actual name. Even the CAP website does not use this.  Further, Wikipedia naming policy asks that common names be used over formal names, if that common name is more widely recognised.  In this case, Civil Air Patrol is the more common.  In other words, this is a controversial move. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 05:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The US Air Force doesn't seem to call CAP "United States Air Force Auxiliary Civil Air Patrol" either, nowhere is it stated on their page . --OuroborosCobra (talk) 07:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are many civilian air patrols in the world. United States Air Force Auxiliary Civil Air Patrol is a more specific name. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * oppose The name of the organization is simply: Civil Air Patrol. There are no other notable organizations in with the same name.  --rogerd (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Civil Air Patrol" to a USA citizen means first some USA organization. But I am not American but British, and there are many civil air patrols under various names in the world. Same as "The Guards" can mean many things according to where you say it and who you say it to. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You just contradicted yourself, you said "various names". If you know of another notable organization called "Civil Air Patrol" then, write an article about it and we will make a disambiguation page. There may be other organizations with similar names, but unless there is a notable one with the same name, then this is a moot point.  I just googled "Civil Air Patrol" and found no hits on the first 10 pages that were related to any other organization with the same name.  --rogerd (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * oppose The name of the organization is indeed "Civil Air Patrol". See Administrative Order 9. I also agree with Rogerd above. Merenta (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The only reason to move this article to a new name would be for disambiguation purposes. Thus, if there are no additional articles pertaining to other CAPs, or rather, equally or better known ones, no move should take place.  Even then, an expansive discussion would have to take place.  If in the future a move became necessary, The most I could support would be "United States Civil Air Patrol", but certainly nothing more elaborate. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 15:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Or better yet, "Civil Air Patrol (United States)", since it leaves the name of the organization the same while disambiging (ooh, I made up a silly word), but as most of us have said, there is NO reason to do this right now. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NAME and above comments Erudy (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose CAP is a more common name. Chris!  c t 02:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OPPOSE - This is a silly question. Civil Air Patrol is the name of the organization. If there were to be an article on these supposed "many civilian air patrols in the world" it would be Civil air patrol, a different article. Renaming this article in this fashion would be like renaming New England Patriots to Foxborough Patriots. Not only pointless and ridiculous, but plain incorrect and inaccurate. VigilancePrime (talk) 05:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)