Re: Coast guard hits a boat....
Looking up a particular section of CFR, and understanding why it was put in place and how it is applied, are two different things.
One of the primary reasons for treating the CG Aux as part of the CG, while on specific orders, is liability. When on official orders, CG Aux members can not be personally sued for their actions on that mission. Given the difficulty that the USCG would have in attracting people to join the CG Aux, if not for this provision, allowing this safety net makes sense.
Another reason, is that the USCG feels that the Aux members need to have a certain amount of authority, within the limits of the specific duties that they have been assigned. This does not mean that an Aux unit, which is participating in a SAR, is permitted to conduct all of the activities that the regular CG is involved in.
The fact of the matter, is that the CG Aux is not the same thing as the USCG. It has no law enforcement authorization (which is why they can't cite a boat with safety violations) and it can not be assigned combat duty. The CG Aux is also not utilized in high risk rescue scenarios. They don't operate surf boats, conduct rescues in extreme weather, or find themselves hanging off of a steel cable below a helicopter, while conducting a rescue hoist. They didn't operate landing craft at D-Day, operate small boats or ships during Operation Market Time in Vietnam, or provide Port Security in Kuwait or Iraq.
The CG Aux vessels are also not permitted to be marked as the regular CG boats are, and the Aux members may not wear the same uniforms. CG Aux vessels and aircraft are not referred to in the same way as regular USCG vessels and aircraft - they are specifically referred to as "facilities," and that designation is only used while on a specifically assigned mission. If on a mission that involved a CG helo and an Aux unit, I would refer to the helo as "Rescue ####" and the Aux unit as "Facility #####." This is done for the specific purpose of differentiating between the two.
The key here is the range of authority given to Aux members when assigned to duties similar to regular CG personnel. Since the duties assigned to the Aux members are very limited, so is the authority - and it isn't anywhere close to the full range of what the USCG does.
In the case that we are discussing, the boat operator (probably boat owner) will be off the hook in terms of any liability claims made by the guys he hit. If he was trying to head them off, however, he clearly exceeded his authority. because as I mentioned before, he has no LEO authority. The guy made a very dumb mistake and it is unfortunate that most people don't understand the difference between CG Aux and the USCG.
PS: One thing I neglected to mention, is that CG Aux members also receive benefits in regard to injuries or damage to their boats, while on an assigned mission. If they are injured, they receive healthcare benefits, and if their boats are damaged, they can submit repair bills for reimbursement. Both of these benefits are very important because private insurance would not be likely to cover either, while on an assigned mission for a military service.
