Squadrons with access to GA-8s

[themainmane]

How many GA-8s does CAP have? I'm looking to transfer squadrons, and I was wondering which squadrons have access to the Airvan? I'm a Mission Pilot, and would love to have the opportunity to fly one of them.

[Eclipse]

Mine does - but only because the wing recently got one and we're in reasonable proximity to Wing HQ.

16 as of 2014.  I believe at one time there were 18 in the fleet.

[FW]

GA-8 aircraft were purchased for the Archer program. One aircraft per region plus one for NHQ was authorized.  I don't think any more were bought.  Every CAP pilot should have the opportunity to fly one... It will make you appreciate the Cessna

[Eclipse]

2008 Report to Congress, Page 3:
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/2008_4EBF9170D4D9A.pdf

"CAP performs these missions in the air by relying upon 550 general aviation aircraft, the largest fleet of
single-engine aircraft in the nation, 118 of which are equipped with Garmin glass-cockpit technology. In addition,
the fleet's 16 Gippsland Airvans feature airborne real-time cueing hyperspectral imaging reconnaissance
systems (ARCHER). Many also are equipped with digital emergency radio direction finder equipment essential
for search and rescue operations. "

[sardak]

There are still 16 GA-8s in the CAP fleet. If one is interested, they can go into WMIRS to find out where they are.

Mike

[A.Member]

Every CAP pilot should have the opportunity to fly one... It will make you appreciate the Cessna

Strong concur!  The GA-8 pretty much sucks; performance is very lackluster.  We should sell them.  The 182 is significantly better in almost every way.  The only thing the GA-8 can do is haul a couple more people, but since we're not in the transport business that doesn't much matter.

[nomiddlemas]

We might as well invest in a C-17...

[Eclipse]

They can be very effective when training Aircrew or running O-rides.

2 more GIBs or 2 more 99's per sortie if the W&B can be worked.

[A.Member]

They can be very effective when training Aircrew or running O-rides.

The GA-8 is terrible for o-rides unless your goal is to just pile a few kids in the back.  That's a sucky experience.

[Eclipse]

They can be very effective when training Aircrew or running O-rides.

The GA-8 is terrible for o-rides unless your goal is to just pile a few kids in the back.  That's a sucky experience.

?

[Spaceman3750]

It shouldn't matter what squadron the plane is assigned to - planes are managed by wing and should be available to any appropriately rated CAP pilot. If you're not rated, work with the wing it's assigned to in order to work out a way to get rated. Since there's an objective usage requirement of 200 hours per year, wings should be heavily invested in getting their planes up as much as possible and not playing the GOB game.

If you are near Illinois and would like to fly one, and are willing to self-fund the training time, let me know and I will try to put you in touch with the right people.

[themainmane]

It shouldn't matter what squadron the plane is assigned to - planes are managed by wing and should be available to any appropriately rated CAP pilot. If you're not rated, work with the wing it's assigned to in order to work out a way to get rated. Since there's an objective usage requirement of 200 hours per year, wings should be heavily invested in getting their planes up as much as possible and not playing the GOB game.

If you are near Illinois and would like to fly one, and are willing to self-fund the training time, let me know and I will try to put you in touch with the right people.

I come down (up?  ) to the Chicago area frequently if you're near there. I would love to get rated on the GA-8, I just haven't had much of an opportunity to get decent stick time in one.

[Spaceman3750]

It shouldn't matter what squadron the plane is assigned to - planes are managed by wing and should be available to any appropriately rated CAP pilot. If you're not rated, work with the wing it's assigned to in order to work out a way to get rated. Since there's an objective usage requirement of 200 hours per year, wings should be heavily invested in getting their planes up as much as possible and not playing the GOB game.

If you are near Illinois and would like to fly one, and are willing to self-fund the training time, let me know and I will try to put you in touch with the right people.

I come down (up?  ) to the Chicago area frequently if you're near there. I would love to get rated on the GA-8, I just haven't had much of an opportunity to get decent stick time in one.

We have a GA-8 based in DuPage, a 'burb. PM me your info and I can make introductions. No promises but if you're in the area and funding your flying, and there's an instructor available, someone should be willing to lend you a hand.

[NIN]

GA-8 aircraft were purchased for the Archer program. One aircraft per region plus one for NHQ was authorized.  I don't think any more were bought.  Every CAP pilot should have the opportunity to fly one... It will make you appreciate the Cessna

Thats funny, cuz at the FAA Aviation Safety Expo this past weekend, one of our pilots was expounding on how its a great plane to fly and that he always gets great landings and he really likes flying it when there is a "customer flight" so he can give them a nice smooth ride and good landings.

[FW]

Darin, they are a breeze to fly, and handle great, however the seats will make any Chiropractor smile if you fly longer than an hour.  The avionics are also not up to Cessna Standards as well; no autopilot, and the GNS-80 is not that user friendly.  YMMV though.  It definitely makes the testosterone level go up when you take control of one...

[A.Member]

Thats funny, cuz at the FAA Aviation Safety Expo this past weekend, one of our pilots was expounding on how its a great plane to fly and that he always gets great landings and he really likes flying it when there is a "customer flight" so he can give them a nice smooth ride and good landings.

And he can't do that in a 182?!!!    

BTW, what "customer" rides would we be talking about exactly?

Like FW, says, the seats are a pilot's nightmare...or a chiropractor's dream.  You might as well just be sitting on the chair frame.  As for o-flights, access to a glass cockpit is much more engaging to aspiring pilots.  Hourly rate on the Cessna's is much better.  There are no real compelling arguments for a GA-8.

[Spaceman3750]

BTW, what "customer" rides would we be talking about exactly?

Counter drug, flights for the ANG (around here we do GIIEP training with them annually and we fly), teacher orientation flights, Angel Flight, disaster assessment with an agency observer, etc.

[themainmane]

How many guys here have been on counter drug flights? It's not really available in my area, but what does it entail? How much agency control is there?

[Eclipse]

Agreed, the seats are terrible - I was frankly a little shocked the first time I saw them.  The whole interior looks
a lot more mil-spec then a 182, but with ~1000 lbs more take off weight, there are more options for the typical
CAP-scaled aircrew to fly, or more of them, or not having to make a decision between a second pen and a bottle of
water vs. enough fuel for the mission.

[Eclipse]

How many guys here have been on counter drug flights? It's not really available in my area, but what does it entail? How much agency control is there?

The activity varies by wing.  Beyond that, while it's not a secret, those discussions are best left for private conversations.

[A.Member]

BTW, what "customer" rides would we be talking about exactly?

Counter drug, flights for the ANG (around here we do GIIEP training with them annually and we fly), teacher orientation flights, Angel Flight, disaster assessment with an agency observer, etc.

I know what "potential" customer flights are available.  I was curious as to what his specific one's were in thinking the GA-8 was a better option.  I don't know anyone that's flown the GA-8 and one of our glass airplanes that would make that argument; and the glass are more readily available than a GA-8.  I would prefer our steam gauged aircraft over it as well.

Aside: You guys are still training with GIIEP?  Learning yesterday's technology today? Have you ever had a mission that really required it?  We quit wasting our time with it.

[themainmane]

How many guys here have been on counter drug flights? It's not really available in my area, but what does it entail? How much agency control is there?

The activity varies by wing.  Beyond that, while it's not a secret, those discussions are best left for private conversations.

Roger that.

[Spaceman3750]

Aside: You guys are still training with GIIEP?  Learning yesterday's technology today? Have you ever had a mission that really required it?  We quit wasting our time with it.

Until someone gives us something better, yes. It has its issues but it works, and is better than any other agency in the state has for real time airborne imaging. Sure, some agencies are messing with drones, but I have yet to meet a drone that can photograph every bridge for 100 miles or survey the path of a tornado in one shot.

Plus we like working with the Guard so I'm sure as long as they keep asking for the training we'll keep delivering it.

[Eclipse]

Aside: You guys are still training with GIIEP?  Learning yesterday's technology today? Have you ever had a mission that really required it?  We quit wasting our time with it.

The majority of our photo missions could be fully accomplished with a decent cell phone (or even an iPhone), beyond that it's all gravy.

If nothing else, GIIEP provides a mechanism for legitimate aircrew-base coordination, which in and of itself has value, as many times our esteemed
pilots forget the mission is more then "Wheels up / wheels down".

When it works, it is very effective.  When it doesn't, time to learn.  Nothing's perfect, nor free.

[JeffDG]

Aside: You guys are still training with GIIEP?  Learning yesterday's technology today? Have you ever had a mission that really required it?  We quit wasting our time with it.

You know they just released GIIEP 2, right?

[A.Member]

Aside: You guys are still training with GIIEP?  Learning yesterday's technology today? Have you ever had a mission that really required it?  We quit wasting our time with it.

You know they just released GIIEP 2, right?

No, but rather than hijack this thread or revisit past conversations on the topic, I'll just simply refer to my comments here; they haven't changed:
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=12167.msg222980#msg222980  (page 4 and 5)

Bottom line:  I have yet to have any partner truly require real time (they may ask but after consulting with them, they realize they truly don't and/or can't handle it) and the Guard doesn't use GIIEP, at least ours doesn't.  I'd call it a rejected technology; it died circa 2012.  I'm willing to be proven wrong but if there is actually a Guard unit using it, they're an anomaly.

[Eclipse]

I'm willing to be proven wrong but if there is actually a Guard unit using it, they're an anomaly.

Call ours that then - cooperative GIIEP training this weekend in my wing.

Perhaps we should all be thankful that the need for real-time imagery in an incident of Katrina scale hasn't occurred yet.
Sandy could have been that but it wasn't.  If there are people on rooftops waving, or evolving destruction that
real-time decisions could help, I'd prefer to know how to turn things on, instead of rummaging around
in the supply closet under the CPR dummies and having to tell the Guard (or whoever), that "this will take a bit
since we haven't used it for years..."

The same thing happened to SDIS.  A fairly simple, coherent system was hoarded by people for whom email
is an "activity" (seriously, 1/4" of paper to explain how to send an email from Outlook), the packages got
broken up with the sat phones sitting in Wing CC's homes and the cameras going to the PAOs, until finally
the empty box wound up in someone's trunk and the capability was lost.

CAP needs to achieve organizational proficiency with a technology before it can allow members to cast it off as "obsolete". 

This is why we can't have nice things.

[A.Member]

When it doesn't, time to learn.  Nothing's perfect, nor free.

Agreed.  Our long time learning is this:  Don't waste members time with overly complex technologies and process that don't add value.

[SarDragon]

They can be very effective when training Aircrew or running O-rides.

The GA-8 is terrible for o-rides unless your goal is to just pile a few kids in the back.  That's a sucky experience.

?

Ever ride in one? It's frequently puke city for the folks in the back. That's for the adults, too.

[lordmonar]

Aside: You guys are still training with GIIEP?  Learning yesterday's technology today? Have you ever had a mission that really required it?  We quit wasting our time with it.

You know they just released GIIEP 2, right?

No, but rather than hijack this thread or revisit past conversations on the topic, I'll just simply refer to my comments here; they haven't changed:
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=12167.msg222980#msg222980  (page 4 and 5)

Bottom line:  I have yet to have any partner truly require real time (they may ask but after consulting with them, they realize they truly don't and/or can't handle it) and the Guard doesn't use GIIEP, at least ours doesn't.  I'd call it a rejected technology; it died circa 2012.  I'm willing to be proven wrong but if there is actually a Guard unit using it, they're an anomaly.

https://www.giiep.us/