Drones doing domestic duty

[RiverAux]

I've said for a while that drones will be replacing CAP for aerial recon following natural disasters and that trend is really starting to pick up. 

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/12/nation/la-na-domestic-drones-20110912

The only way I see CAP remaining relevant to this particular mission is if we outfit at least one aircraft in each wing with the full motion video system similar to the surrogate predator program.  We have to be able to "compete" with the drones and right now they are superior to CAP in every way for this mission except for the fact that we have many more planes than anyone has drones and can cover more area (though even that may be arguable given that it would take several CAP sorties to be able to cover the same ground as a single drone sortie). 

Well, drones are so much more expensive than CAP you might say.  True, but keep in mind that most disasters that are big enough to get CAP involved are probably going to be Presidentially declared and in those situations the state (who would generally be asking for CAP) is planning on being reimbursed for expenses by the feds.  Therefore, they don't really care about the cost. 

Folks, unless we radically change, I predict that the minute your National Guard has these sorts of drones CAP will stop getting calls for aerial recon after disasters. 

[Eclipse]

I agree the trend is not encouraging, but we do a lot of recon that never goes presidential, the local stuff would not be
covered by a drone.

We need to form those local partnerships.

[Flying Pig]

Expense has nothing to do with them being used.  I doubt its much more expensive to send a drone somewhere than a C206. Heck, the Air Guard uses C-26's all over the US to support local LE on dime bag weed cases.  And the military is only adding more all the time and increasing their effectiveness.
As soon as the FAA sorts out the drone issue, its over.  I hate to break it to you.  We did a tour at March ARB a while back and those guys are chomping at the bit to fly all over the US doing narc surveillance all over the US, especially the western US, for any agency who wants it.  Hence, doing what I do for a living and at no cost to the agency.  (Hmmmm, funny, thats the argument CAP uses and now it being used against us.)  The guard has been doing surveillance for LE for years.  Any LE agency can call up the Air Guard and request the use of their C-26 and it will come free of charge and stay all day. 

They already have a plan laid out.  There were a ton of LE agencies there just ooooooo'ing and ahhhhhh'ing.  Now the one saving grace is that many of my missions are when the detective calls and says we need to launch NOW!  It would take some time for a UAV to launch, motor its way to its target, etc etc.  The deal would be long since over by the time it got on station. 
But I assure you, CAP will never be able to keep up.  We get out money from the Air Force.  Our budget would have to increase an unbelievable amount to even try to keep up.  You may see an occasional FLIR 8000 on a 182, but I doubt youll see many more planes flying around with the MX15 set up.  As far as local partnerships, again, when the word is out that you can call up the Guard and get a drone over head, CAP is going to fall by the wayside.  Heck......so am I!

Just knowing cops like I do, if they have the chance to use a UAV over a plane load of volunteers, theyll chose the UAV.

[lordmonar]

And?

Listen.....I would love for CAP ES to become redundant redundant.

If they ever get RPA's to pick up the inland SAR mission and do what ever the LE and DR guys need....then great.
More time for me to focus on the CP mission.

If CAP completely folds.....then I'll go volunteer with the local SAR group, or the volunteer fire department, or the boy scouts.

CAP formed back in '41 because it was needed.....if it is no longer needed then it goes away.

Until then....I will be working hard at CAP's mission.

[blackrain]

The face of aviation is changing.

As I've said before the only big limitation I see will be bandwidth. The relatively small number of UAVs can be handled now but what happens when the numbers swell to several hundred and higher. Any experts want to weigh in?

Loss of the signal link (equipment failure, weather etc.) in general could be a problem even for a "smart" UAV. Again the numbers flying now are too small to draw general conclusions.

Fortunately or unfortunately depending on your point of view manned crews will never compete with the loiter time provided by a UAV. 24 hours of persistent stare by a UAV is just plain beyond practical human endurance. 

As Flying Pig pointed out, at least for now, rapid response time is the saving grace for manned crews and sometimes there's just no substitute for the Mark One Eyeball when avoiding changing weather and dealing with turbulence.

From CAPs perspective we'll have to get at least some FLIR capability or similar to just keep up with what's coming.

My 2 cents

[RiverAux]

To some extent I agree with lordmonar -- if there is an asset that can do the job better and cheaper than we can, then that should be what is used.

But, right now, its all about empire building and budget justifications.  We're spending untold millions or billions on drone technology that has to be justified by using it wherever possible.  The military and the ever increasing local, state, and federal law enforcement juggernaut have to justify hiring more people and spending more money by finding whatever missions they can even if they might not be the best asset for it.  The DHS "Air Wings" will begin to replace CAP for all domestic aerial ES work within the near future as well, not because they're better, just because they're there. 

So, even though CAP may be able to do some missions better and every mission cheaper than with drones , I foresee us being pushed aside by these other agencies.  That sticks in my craw, but it is going to happen since as Eclipse and I agree -- no one really cares about the cost of the drones.  They're just the neatest new thing in the tool box and as long as the feds don't care, they're going to begin to be requested first. 

I agree the trend is not encouraging, but we do a lot of recon that never goes presidential, the local stuff would not be
covered by a drone.

This probably varies a bit by state.  Any significant missions are going to go federal.  But, CAP is not going to be able to get by on being called out by a county or two every year for single-sortie missions.

[Spaceman3750]

How much can't be seen from the sky whether you're in a C172 or a Predator? Lots, depending on where you're at.

Either we or someone else are still going to have to put boots on the ground.

[RiverAux]

How much can't be seen from the sky whether you're in a C172 or a Predator? Lots, depending on where you're at.

Either we or someone else are still going to have to put boots on the ground.

Well, this thread is pointed at aerial work. 

But, if you're suggesting that CAP is going to stop being the non-entity that it is now in ground-based disaster relief, we've got some threads on that. 

[coudano]

Yah we are probably still cheaper...



However CAP's primary problem in any ES use is that our product just isn't that impressive, to our would-be customers.

Our secondary problem is that we are difficult to employ, and we come with a lot of strings attached.

If we were fast, easy, reliable, and had something that emergency managers (or LE) NEEDED, we'd have more work than we could handle.  You want to see more opstempo, figure out how to fix those 4 things.

[RiverAux]

Our secondary problem is that we are difficult to employ, and we come with a lot of strings attached.

One email to NOC and you've got us.  No big deal.  I'd say we're probably the easiest "federal" resource that you can ask for. 

[Flying Pig]

Federal resource?  I dont know that I would call CAP a federal resource by any means.

It may be easy to "call up" CAP, but what do they bring?  A few little airplanes and 5 grossly overweight radio operators and some Observers who havnt used a Technisonic radio in 6 months all who have to to work on Monday morning?  And before you try and shut me down, remember I spent 20 yrs in CAP.

I can make one phone call and have a National Guard C26, a Pave Hawk and a CBP Blackhawk and an AStar here in no time with full time, paid crews who have no issues staying as long as I need them to in a couple of hours.  For anyone who has the need/ability to call up a "federal" resource they can do it to.  CAP has its place, most definitely. CAP CD Ops were crucial during some large ops in CA over the past couple of years.  CAP needs to expand.  Do something with those GA-8s. Get that hyper-super-dupper whatchamacallit out of them and put REAL equipment in them.  Instal the Technisonic TDFM 7300's a FLIR and an Aero Computer mapping system on a couple aircraft within each region would be a start. Looking at about about $450K per plane.  But you got to start somewhere.  You dont need the MX15 that is on the Surrogate Predator plane.  That is WAAAAAAY overkill.  That ball is needed for a reason.  We as CAP do not need that.  A small FLIR 8500FW would be great, coupled with an Aero Computers mapping system, high quality radios!  You can outfit several planes with the guts, wiring, etc, but then set up the equipment so it can be quick released and moved to another plane in the span of about 2 hours as one package.  Geeeeeeesh......I almost sound like Ive done this before.

[SARDOC]

This is where the GIIEP system is supposed to be coming into play.  It has the capability to relay FMV at a fraction of the cost of a predator.  Civil Air Patrols operating cost for a C182 are still significantly lower than that of the predator.   While GIIEP does have some serious limitations it would suit our emergency services mission.   GIIEP is currently being upgraded everyday and it doesn't cost Civil Air Patrol at all.

[peter rabbit]

This is where the GIIEP system is supposed to be coming into play.  It has the capability to relay FMV at a fraction of the cost of a predator.  Civil Air Patrols operating cost for a C182 are still significantly lower than that of the predator.   While GIIEP does have some serious limitations it would suit our emergency services mission.   GIIEP is currently being upgraded everyday and it doesn't cost Civil Air Patrol at all.

Reliability of the connection is one limitation. Quality of the video is another. Program management could also be improved - I know several people who were trained earlier this year and still don't have a userid/password or materials so they can train others. I hope they do improve it.

[Hardshell Clam]

I think we need to accept that the CAP will be mostly about cadets in a few years. Since when does the government care about saving a few bucks? That arguement won't hold water.

Other govt departments and the military/guard want the homeland security missions for themselves and they will lobby to push us out. Trust me, the CAP phone will stop ringing.

[SARDOC]

Reliability of the connection is one limitation. Quality of the video is another. Program management could also be improved - I know several people who were trained earlier this year and still don't have a userid/password or materials so they can train others. I hope they do improve it.

I think the reliability of the connection is the major issue.  As far as the quality of the video it is still better then you get from a predator and is in the process of continuously being improved.  As far as training is concerned that is a hurdle.  NHQ has custody of five units that belong to the First Air Force and they will ship them for missions.  Your wing may have to pay to have the systems fedex'd if you are doing training.  The other option is that the National Guard in your state has two units but it's up to you to see if they will loan them to you and you'd probably have to drive to wherever it is they are being stored...Good luck with that option.

[blackrain]

I think we need to accept that the CAP will be mostly about cadets in a few years. Since when does the government care about saving a few bucks? That arguement won't hold water.

Other govt departments and the military/guard want the homeland security missions for themselves and they will lobby to push us out. Trust me, the CAP phone will stop ringing.

Turf wars have been around as long as I can remember.

That said the cost cutting measures that I see being imposed government wide is positively draconian so I'll be very interested to see how various organizations make their case fiscally given the current realities.

Also we all  see a reality as it exists in our region or state so I'm sure the day to day working relationship between agencies along with available equipment varies accordingly.

Bottom line will end up being the bottom line.

[coudano]

Our secondary problem is that we are difficult to employ, and we come with a lot of strings attached.

One email to NOC and you've got us.  No big deal.  I'd say we're probably the easiest "federal" resource that you can ask for.

Yeah, of course CAP isn't always federal, right...

and I wonder in how many cases have you seen CAP employed with a quick and easy call or mail to NOC?
i've seen it go...   not so smoothly.

ultimately, somebody has to pay, and if we aren't going in 'federal' status, that can create some serious sticking points.



also, to say that you can "just call up the guard and have a bunch of free assets" is pretty misleading,
at a level which you may not see, those beans are being counted, and unless your state is just pouring money out of the ears, or struggling to fill up the programmed budgeted hours and days, those resources are probably limited.  the LE guys may never get a bill, but I guarantee you that someone somewhere is sweating the hours and days.  That money always has to come from somewhere...  And the military option is NOT the cheap option on the table (quite the contrary, the military is big, fat, slow, and expensive).  I've seen people have the hammer dropped on them for (for example) spending training funds on actual operations.  And I've seen operations killed (at the TAG/Governor level) for exceeding costs, and not producing 'worthwhile' effects.  Just depends on the political and economic climate in your state (which tends to change every 3 or 4 years meh)

[Buzz]

I think a cost effectiveness study will show that, by and large, CAP is the better choice.  Drones are EXPENSIVE to fly, compared to us.

HOWEVER, imagine SARSAT getting a hit in the middle of the night, then a drone is launched over the area with IR, and spots still-warm engine and the people around it.  This would be a time when the drone is the better choice.

I predict that we will be seeing mixed-platform SAR missions in the very near future, where drones go in first for a quick look while we get our response going, then we follow up with air and ground for in-depth search.

[lordmonar]

RPAs (Remote Piloted Aircraft) are still a ways off.

First....the military is very busy using all their RPAs for real world missions....there are not a lot available in the states for anything else.

Second....the FAA still has a lot of heart burn about RPAs.....while there is some positive motion on this front....it is still a ways (1-2 years) in the future before they will get the green light to fly in VFR airspace.

Third....there is still a lot of technilogical hurtles that still need to be jumped.....again there is a lot of forward motion on this front....but right now satellite bandwidth is very expensive.

RPA's will one day make CAP obsolete........but that day is still a decade or more away.

[Flying Pig]

This is where the GIIEP system is supposed to be coming into play.  It has the capability to relay FMV at a fraction of the cost of a predator.  Civil Air Patrols operating cost for a C182 are still significantly lower than that of the predator.   While GIIEP does have some serious limitations it would suit our emergency services mission.   GIIEP is currently being upgraded everyday and it doesn't cost Civil Air Patrol at all.

Ive tried many of these low cost systems.  They dont work.  The only one I saw that was actually pretty nice ( wasnt low cost, but was at least lower cost) was SkyIMD.  They brought their 182 G1000 down from the Bay Area and we flew around sending photos to my IPhone that I had left on my desk at the hangar.  Talk about putting their money where their mouth is.  I expressed some doubt to them over the phone because of my past dealings with other companies. They guy showed up with a fully equipped C182 G1000 wit the whole package and said, "Get in, lets go do a surveillace".  It worked just like he said it would. 
I got back and had about 20 photos waiting for me.  I didnt do the streaming video because we would have had to set up my desk top at work and IT wasnt available to allow them to "unlock" my privileges to watch the video.  It comes with a mapping system all contained in a shoe box sized CPU and a Panasonic Toughbook.  Cost was about $90Kish.  It was a really neat system.  The system also came with a small, 7lb FLIR and Color camera mounted on the wing strut.  That system was totally inter-changable between planes in about 10 minutes.  There was NOTHING actually installed in the plane except for a couple of cannon plugs in the side wall. 
Does anyone in CAP who makes decisions actually know anything about this stuff?  Because I never saw anyone.   You think you would tap members who actually do this stuff for a living.  But I can speak from experience, CAP doesnt.   Can we just all please admit that the Hyper Spectral stuff is lame and just get on with our (your) lives?

I just get very  when I think about what I could do with one of those GA8's if CAP gave me $100K.

[DakRadz]

Guess what?

The Surrogate Predator program was implemented to avoid using real drones for training, am I correct?

And until CAP stepped up, they were about to pay contractors to do the program.

How do I know? My dad was the one about to close the deal. Apparently, that contract "could have paid your tuition through college! And CAP did it?!?!?"
(By the way, the USAF contact who dealt with the contractors said it was done "in house")

Basically, CAP saves a lot of money via not using drones, helping train drone pilots without using drones, and not spending huge amounts to pay contractors. Why would we suddenly die out during a phase of "ooo, shiny Predator!"

Question- for those who were around back in the 70s: Did the cadet program take a hit when JROTCs became mandated for each service?
Just an example I could think of. SSDD- New program is the best or being pushed really hard by higher-ups, CAP is on the block.

And if CAP Talk existed back then, there would have been a thread about the danger CP were in.

[Flying Pig]

Guess what?

The Surrogate Predator program was implemented to avoid using real drones for training, am I correct?

And until CAP stepped up, they were about to pay contractors to do the program.

How do I know? My dad was the one about to close the deal. Apparently, that contract "could have paid your tuition through college! And CAP did it?!?!?"
(By the way, the USAF contact who dealt with the contractors said it was done "in house")

Basically, CAP saves a lot of money via not using drones, helping train drone pilots without using drones, and not spending huge amounts to pay contractors. Why would we suddenly die out during a phase of "ooo, shiny Predator!"

Question- for those who were around back in the 70s: Did the cadet program take a hit when JROTCs became mandated for each service?
Just an example I could think of. SSDD- New program is the best or being pushed really hard by higher-ups, CAP is on the block.

And if CAP Talk existed back then, there would have been a thread about the danger CP were in.

Not even apples and oranges.  More like, Vocanic lava and a snow flake type comparison.   Yes, CAP stepped up.  Personally I still dont know why the AF didnt buy their own C206's and just let military pilots fly them. What we are talking about is that as time and technology progress, which it is at lightening speed, UAVs are going to start doing a lot of what CAP does. The Guard is already very willing to come and do all of the hundreds of hours of LE surveillance as well.  Once the FAA sorts out the airspace issues and the bandwidth issues (which will be dealt with by technology) it will open the flood gates.  Just like when only rich people had cell phones.  The CHP has an MX15 on several of their C206's.  They go up to about 10,000ft, loiter around and with the camera and mapping systems can  handle calls in multiple cities with only minor adjustments (if any) to their gigantic orbit.  Thats exactly what the UAVs will do.  I have seen them call out running suspect from 6-7 miles away and tell you the streets and the address of the apartment the guy just ran into.  They are doing exactly what a UAV will do. The capabilities of this technology are astounding and sometimes inconceivable until youve seen it at work.

[lordmonar]

Money.

The USAF does not have to pay us to fly the SP aircraft.

The DoD WAS paying a contractor to fly the SP for Green Flag East.........at a tune of somewhere around $2M/year.....and they were only getting about 20 hours of "Vol Time" out of them!

For the USAF to buy and fly their own SP they would have to dedicate USAF pilots, dedicate a standard support structure, and maintenance stucture.

The going rate for an average USAF member these days is calculated at around $100K/year when you factor pay/housing/medical/benifits/etc.    So standing up a SP squadorn...would take around 8-10 pilots, 6-8 sensor operators, 3-4 mission base personnel, 1 logistics (supply) guy, 2-4 maintainers, a first Sergeant, 2 ARMS people, 1 Plans guy, 1 commander.

Times this by two as we have two seperate operations (east and west).

Add to this the fact that USAF is trying to reduce manning to meet congressional mandated force levels at the same time they are expanding the number of RPA CAPs, expanding the RPA capabilites and bringing two new weapons systems on line (F-22/F-35).

And for the record....the SP program is not to train RPA pilots or crews.....it is to help train the ground pounders who have to work with the RPA's.

CAP's nitch core function is the aerial SAR function.  We have 500 planes ready to go and look for downed aircraft and missing people.  When more PRA's are stationed stateside at USAF bases, and state/local law enforment agencies get their own RPA's, and the FAA opens up the airspace.....then CAP will become less necessairy. 

When the Mark One eyeball flying at 1000' for max 4 hours on station is all that we can offer....even at bargain prices.....then eventually our potential customers will go for the more expensive but more capable option.

This is still a long ways off....but when it does.....I will be happy to step down and go my merry way.

As a side note to all this........even if RPA's become the platform of choice for Air SAR........there is no real reason why CAP could not be the operators behind those controls.   

[N Harmon]

I remember joining and hearing members talk about how CAP would not exist in a couple of years. It made me think twice about whether I really wanted to join. That was in 1995. Since then every new change in requirements has come with people saying such-and-such is going to put us out of business forever. Recently it was the 406MHz ELTs. Now apparently it is UAVs.

[coudano]

I have seen them call out running suspect from 6-7 miles away and tell you the streets and the address of the apartment the guy just ran into.

Of course that never has been, and never will be anywhere near CAP's function.
Granted those functions can be turned just as well to do what we do instead,

Although i'd point out that ELT hunting, and finding targets on the ground isn't exactly a 'hard science'
it does require a good bit of intuition that really might not be technically feasible just now.
still the point stands, if/when there is already a (LE) platform on station,
CAP will probably never get the call since there is already a responder closer and faster.

[Flying Pig]

Money.

The USAF does not have to pay us to fly the SP aircraft.

The DoD WAS paying a contractor to fly the SP for Green Flag East.........at a tune of somewhere around $2M/year.....and they were only getting about 20 hours of "Vol Time" out of them!

For the USAF to buy and fly their own SP they would have to dedicate USAF pilots, dedicate a standard support structure, and maintenance stucture.

The going rate for an average USAF member these days is calculated at around $100K/year when you factor pay/housing/medical/benifits/etc.    So standing up a SP squadorn...would take around 8-10 pilots, 6-8 sensor operators, 3-4 mission base personnel, 1 logistics (supply) guy, 2-4 maintainers, a first Sergeant, 2 ARMS people, 1 Plans guy, 1 commander.

Times this by two as we have two seperate operations (east and west).

Add to this the fact that USAF is trying to reduce manning to meet congressional mandated force levels at the same time they are expanding the number of RPA CAPs, expanding the RPA capabilites and bringing two new weapons systems on line (F-22/F-35).

And for the record....the SP program is not to train RPA pilots or crews.....it is to help train the ground pounders who have to work with the RPA's.

CAP's nitch core function is the aerial SAR function.  We have 500 planes ready to go and look for downed aircraft and missing people.  When more PRA's are stationed stateside at USAF bases, and state/local law enforment agencies get their own RPA's, and the FAA opens up the airspace.....then CAP will become less necessairy. 

When the Mark One eyeball flying at 1000' for max 4 hours on station is all that we can offer....even at bargain prices.....then eventually our potential customers will go for the more expensive but more capable option.

This is still a long ways off....but when it does.....I will be happy to step down and go my merry way.

As a side note to all this........even if RPA's become the platform of choice for Air SAR........there is no real reason why CAP could not be the operators behind those controls.   

OK  Thanks for the clarification on how it would need to be supported.  So Basically, with CAP, we show up, play, and go away. The AF guys can make it to the O-Club by 6 without a care in the world regarding that little red white and blue "drone" they got to play with all day basically for the price of gas and a couple hotel rooms.  Makes sense.

[coudano]

OK  Thanks for the clarification on how it would need to be supported.  So Basically, with CAP, we show up, play, and go away. The AF guys can make it to the O-Club by 6 without a care in the world regarding that little red white and blue "drone" they got to play with all day basically for the price of gas and a couple hotel rooms.  Makes sense.

Although we're training sensor operators, they're probably heading to the E-club... heh

[Flying Pig]

I have seen them call out running suspect from 6-7 miles away and tell you the streets and the address of the apartment the guy just ran into.

Of course that never has been, and never will be anywhere near CAP's function.
Granted those functions can be turned just as well to do what we do instead,

Although i'd point out that ELT hunting, and finding targets on the ground isn't exactly a 'hard science'
it does require a good bit of intuition that really might not be technically feasible just now.
still the point stands, if/when there is already a (LE) platform on station,
CAP will probably never get the call since there is already a responder closer and faster.

No, but it demonstrates the abilities of the equipment in a search mode.  We would do the same thing on a SAR.  Just orbit over head and search.  No need to fly down in that canyon or across that ridge line.  Just sit up high and slow and search your grid squares in color, thermal and NVG if you want.  Set up the mapping system to breadcrumb your search patters so you know where youve been.  Down link your video and your mapping pages real time to the IC.  You can search 24/7.  In actuallity, it would be easier to search at night in many cases with thermal.  Ive done it.  Thats the point I am trying to convey.  With a UAV, your getting the same service, but with out live bodies in the air, and you now have the ability to stay on station for 18-20hrs and just search.

[arajca]

While everyone keeps downplaying the cost issue, it IS a consideration. I recently took a class with one of the DSCA staff members. They had a request for support that the staff recommend CAP for, but the general decided to use AFRES resources for instead. CAP's cost would have been ~$2000. AFRES was over $30,000. At the time, the staff was trying to find the money to pay for the AFRES since their budget wouldn't cover it, and the most appropriate resource wasn't used.

[Thom]

To someone else's point earlier, in these challenging economic times, even those Federal beans are being counted.

During the recent Mississippi River Flooding Mission we (Louisiana Wing) were tasked as the primary airborne asset within LA for FEMA, ARNG, GOHSEP (LA EMA), etc. The primary reason we got the job, besides being ready to go on a couple hours notice when it started, was that the entire cost for our 42 day mission was less than halfway to six figures. (I'll refrain from the exact dollar amount out of a sense of OpSec and propriety...)

That same money might have bought a couple of days of one Blackhawk crew's time, or a few hours of big drone time, or MAYBE four or five days of small drone time. Instead, FEMA and the rest of the Feds got an average of 3 aircraft a day for over a month. That's a pretty good value proposition in anybody's book. (And they had Stafford Act money: It was a declared Emergency, so the Fed pocketbook was open...)

Just trying to make the point that, when you call in the ANG or CBP, somebody, in some Federal budget, does eventually pay for that stuff.



Thom

[RiverAux]

RPAs (Remote Piloted Aircraft) are still a ways off.

First....the military is very busy using all their RPAs for real world missions....there are not a lot available in the states for anything else.

Second....the FAA still has a lot of heart burn about RPAs.....while there is some positive motion on this front....it is still a ways (1-2 years) in the future before they will get the green light to fly in VFR airspace.

Third....there is still a lot of technilogical hurtles that still need to be jumped.....again there is a lot of forward motion on this front....but right now satellite bandwidth is very expensive.

RPA's will one day make CAP obsolete........but that day is still a decade or more away.

The article referenced at the beginning of this thread shows how all three of these issues are being addressed much quicker than even I originally expected. 

[lordmonar]

Living and working the RPA world..........I don't see any major changes in the next few years.

[Spaceman3750]

Our secondary problem is that we are difficult to employ, and we come with a lot of strings attached.

One email to NOC and you've got us.  No big deal.  I'd say we're probably the easiest "federal" resource that you can ask for.

Yeah, of course CAP isn't always federal, right...

and I wonder in how many cases have you seen CAP employed with a quick and easy call or mail to NOC?
i've seen it go...   not so smoothly.

ultimately, somebody has to pay, and if we aren't going in 'federal' status, that can create some serious sticking points.



also, to say that you can "just call up the guard and have a bunch of free assets" is pretty misleading,
at a level which you may not see, those beans are being counted, and unless your state is just pouring money out of the ears, or struggling to fill up the programmed budgeted hours and days, those resources are probably limited.  the LE guys may never get a bill, but I guarantee you that someone somewhere is sweating the hours and days.  That money always has to come from somewhere...  And the military option is NOT the cheap option on the table (quite the contrary, the military is big, fat, slow, and expensive).  I've seen people have the hammer dropped on them for (for example) spending training funds on actual operations.  And I've seen operations killed (at the TAG/Governor level) for exceeding costs, and not producing 'worthwhile' effects.  Just depends on the political and economic climate in your state (which tends to change every 3 or 4 years meh)

My town had several tornadoes rip through one night in 2006. A firsthand account by a Red Cross staffer and CAP member says that it was 30 minutes from the ARC call to our NOC to boots on the ground. I would call that pretty atypical but not unrealistic.

[lordmonar]

For SAR/DR work.....AFRCC and the NOC have the authority on site to authorise the mission.  CD/HLS requires more hoops to jump through.  The Reno Air Races mission was done on the NOC's authority as a C911 mission called from a cell phone on the tarmac.

So.....dispite what some may think....getting a mission number and getting the assets rolling is not really that hard of a process.

[jpizzo127]

I remember joining and hearing members talk about how CAP would not exist in a couple of years. It made me think twice about whether I really wanted to join. That was in 1995. Since then every new change in requirements has come with people saying such-and-such is going to put us out of business forever. Recently it was the 406MHz ELTs. Now apparently it is UAVs.

I don't know about you but the 406 mhz took away 90% of our missions. We used to do at least 1 ELT gig a month. Now, we're lucky if we get 2 a year.

[lordmonar]

That is a good thing isn't it?

[Mustang]

Our secondary problem is that we are difficult to employ, and we come with a lot of strings attached.

One email to NOC and you've got us.  No big deal.  I'd say we're probably the easiest "federal" resource that you can ask for.

Unless you want us during normal work hours...for months on end....


Katrina and the Fossett search exhausted a number of wings of aircrews, and highlighted that we are not prepared for large-scale, long-term taskings. I've also had a rather difficult time finding crews during the work week for the Army support project I've been working on the past 2 yrs.  CAP is a fair-weather, part-time, mostly weekends force, which renders us useless for most serious LE work.

[Flying Pig]

Army project? You mean the Predator Program or something else?

[SarDragon]

I remember joining and hearing members talk about how CAP would not exist in a couple of years. It made me think twice about whether I really wanted to join. That was in 1995. Since then every new change in requirements has come with people saying such-and-such is going to put us out of business forever. Recently it was the 406MHz ELTs. Now apparently it is UAVs.

I don't know about you but the 406 mhz took away 90% of our missions. We used to do at least 1 ELT gig a month. Now, we're lucky if we get 2 a year.

One a month? CAWG was averaging one a day. Now we're down to maybe 5 or 6 a month.

[lordmonar]

Our secondary problem is that we are difficult to employ, and we come with a lot of strings attached.

One email to NOC and you've got us.  No big deal.  I'd say we're probably the easiest "federal" resource that you can ask for.

Unless you want us during normal work hours...for months on end....


Katrina and the Fossett search exhausted a number of wings of aircrews, and highlighted that we are not prepared for large-scale, long-term taskings. I've also had a rather difficult time finding crews during the work week for the Army support project I've been working on the past 2 yrs.  CAP is a fair-weather, part-time, mostly weekends force, which renders us useless for most serious LE work.

That is true.....but CAP has never really said that THAT was our niche competancy.  Bottom line we are volunteers....and unless some one is going to pay me aroudn $40/hour I am going to have to go home an make my mortgage payment.

In truth we should never been involved in Katrina after the first few days.  Fosset was mostly a communications error.....no one bothered to call people out and find out if they were available....no one was trying to schedule anyone.

I was all ready to go.....then they said....don't come unless we call....then two weeks later they said we need people tommorrow for 5 days......I can't get 5 day off in a row on less then 24 hour notice....sorry doesn't work like that.

But let's also be honest....Shuttle Searches, Fosset and Katrina only come around every few years.

[N Harmon]

I don't know about you but the 406 mhz took away 90% of our missions. We used to do at least 1 ELT gig a month. Now, we're lucky if we get 2 a year.

The point is that 406MHz did not kill Civil Air Patrol, and neither will UAVs.

And I may be in the minority here, but I am happy there are fewer bogus ELT missions. The reduction in those has made it possible for me to be able to commit to those mid-week longer duration missions, because they are rare.

[RiverAux]

I don't know about you but the 406 mhz took away 90% of our missions. We used to do at least 1 ELT gig a month. Now, we're lucky if we get 2 a year.

The point is that 406MHz did not kill Civil Air Patrol, and neither will UAVs.

Never said it would kill CAP, just push us out of one of the few ES missions that CAP is really suited to perform. 

I've also had a rather difficult time finding crews during the work week for the Army support project I've been working on the past 2 yrs.  CAP is a fair-weather, part-time, mostly weekends force, which renders us useless for most serious LE work.

People forget that 2% or fewer of CAP members participated in anti-sub and other "active service" missions during WWII and that such long-term full-time missions have never been what we specialize in.  Sure, we can pull off some month-long missions every now and again, but we are part-time volunteers and that isn't going to change.  Now, if we had 100,000 adult members we probably would have enough that we could essentially provide full-time volunteer support of one kind or another, but that isn't likely.

[Buzz]

Personally I still dont know why the AF didnt buy their own C206's and just let military pilots fly them

Because we are a fraction of the cost, and there aren't enough military pilots to do the job.  We fly for operating cost, they fly for operating cost plus pay, benefits, housing, personal safety equipment, etc.

[jpizzo127]

I remember joining and hearing members talk about how CAP would not exist in a couple of years. It made me think twice about whether I really wanted to join. That was in 1995. Since then every new change in requirements has come with people saying such-and-such is going to put us out of business forever. Recently it was the 406MHz ELTs. Now apparently it is UAVs.

I don't know about you but the 406 mhz took away 90% of our missions. We used to do at least 1 ELT gig a month. Now, we're lucky if we get 2 a year.

One a month? CAWG was averaging one a day. Now we're down to maybe 5 or 6 a month.

You're talking the entire California wing. I'm talking about a single squadron. Either way, your numbers are down 84% too.

[jpizzo127]

That is a good thing isn't it?

No, absolutely not. That's a terrible thing. It's eroded our operational readiness. Even though non-emergency ELTs were what we were looking, it allowed our aircrews and ground teams to get real world practice, and maintain proficiency with the costs absorbed by the AF. It was also a huge morale booster.

So in short, no the loss of the 121.5 mission was a terrible one in my opinion

[jpizzo127]

I don't know about you but the 406 mhz took away 90% of our missions. We used to do at least 1 ELT gig a month. Now, we're lucky if we get 2 a year.

The point is that 406MHz did not kill Civil Air Patrol, and neither will UAVs.

And I may be in the minority here, but I am happy there are fewer bogus ELT missions. The reduction in those has made it possible for me to be able to commit to those mid-week longer duration missions, because they are rare.

The 406 may not have killed CAP but it's another nail in the coffin. There's no way in my opinion to spin the loss the ELT mission to anything but a negative.

In my experience as a squadron commander, the 4-8hour ELT hunt had no effect on us being able to man a longer term mission, so I'm forced to disagree with your second point as well. As a single squadron, we never got more than 2 ELT hunts in a single week, so perhaps that the reason we never suffered from crew exhaustion.

[lordmonar]

That is a good thing isn't it?

No, absolutely not. That's a terrible thing. It's eroded our operational readiness. Even though non-emergency ELTs were what we were looking, it allowed our aircrews and ground teams to get real world practice, and maintain proficiency with the costs absorbed by the AF. It was also a huge morale booster.

So in short, no the loss of the 121.5 mission was a terrible one in my opinion

There is no such thing as "real world" practice.

You don't use false alarms and Non-emergency call outs as training.

[Spaceman3750]

That is a good thing isn't it?

No, absolutely not. That's a terrible thing. It's eroded our operational readiness. Even though non-emergency ELTs were what we were looking, it allowed our aircrews and ground teams to get real world practice, and maintain proficiency with the costs absorbed by the AF. It was also a huge morale booster.

So in short, no the loss of the 121.5 mission was a terrible one in my opinion

The 406 transition is absolutely a good thing - better coordinates for actuals and fewer false activations. Anybody who says that the 406 transition was a bad thing has lost sight of the point of distress beacons.

[ammotrucker]

 
[/quote]


Unless you want us during normal work hours...for months on end....


Katrina and the Fossett search exhausted a number of wings of aircrews, and highlighted that we are not prepared for large-scale, long-term taskings. I've also had a rather difficult time finding crews during the work week for the Army support project I've been working on the past 2 yrs.  CAP is a fair-weather, part-time, mostly weekends force, which renders us useless for most serious LE work.
[/quote]

I disagree from at least my Wings standpoint.  I had over 125 members working over a 3 month time-frame on Deepwater.  There was NO lack of manpower thgoughout the event.  So maybe your Wing might have aproblem, but not all Wings do.

[Spaceman3750]

Unless you want us during normal work hours...for months on end....


Katrina and the Fossett search exhausted a number of wings of aircrews, and highlighted that we are not prepared for large-scale, long-term taskings. I've also had a rather difficult time finding crews during the work week for the Army support project I've been working on the past 2 yrs.  CAP is a fair-weather, part-time, mostly weekends force, which renders us useless for most serious LE work.

I disagree from at least my Wings standpoint.  I had over 125 members working over a 3 month time-frame on Deepwater.  There was NO lack of manpower thgoughout the event.  So maybe your Wing might have aproblem, but not all Wings do.

That's where the silver hair patrol side of the house comes in - how many pilots, observers, ICs, mission staff, etc in the southern tier of the US are retirees and therefore have no problem volunteering during normal hours - I doubt in my wing we would be capable of such an extended operation, simply because it's too cold here for the young at heart .

Besides, things on the magnitutde of DWH, Katrina, Fossett, etc tend to draw resources from around the country - you can bring in whole ground teams or aircrews on a GA8, buy them a ticket on Southwest, or reimburse the fuel for a caravan of vehicles.

[JeffDG]

Unless you want us during normal work hours...for months on end....


Katrina and the Fossett search exhausted a number of wings of aircrews, and highlighted that we are not prepared for large-scale, long-term taskings. I've also had a rather difficult time finding crews during the work week for the Army support project I've been working on the past 2 yrs.  CAP is a fair-weather, part-time, mostly weekends force, which renders us useless for most serious LE work.

I disagree from at least my Wings standpoint.  I had over 125 members working over a 3 month time-frame on Deepwater.  There was NO lack of manpower thgoughout the event.  So maybe your Wing might have aproblem, but not all Wings do.

That's where the silver hair patrol side of the house comes in - how many pilots, observers, ICs, mission staff, etc in the southern tier of the US are retirees and therefore have no problem volunteering during normal hours - I doubt in my wing we would be capable of such an extended operation, simply because it's too cold here for the young at heart .

Besides, things on the magnitutde of DWH, Katrina, Fossett, etc tend to draw resources from around the country - you can bring in whole ground teams or aircrews on a GA8, buy them a ticket on Southwest, or reimburse the fuel for a caravan of vehicles.

Right there, I think we need to split response int phases.

Phase I:  Initial response.  Every warm body that's available in the group or wing gets a call, and they cobble together a response for a week-ish
Phase II:  Sustaining.  Grab resources across the region and nation.  Establish a rotation of people in and out of the incident.  Need to start thinking of this as soon as the incident goes beyond the standard 1-2 day ELT search, and start putting out the call for help.

One advantage of having standardized training standards is that we can pull in people from other wings/regions and put them to work.  Is it seamless?  Hell, no.  Is it possible?  Definitely.  I think we proved the fact that we could rotate people in and out on DWH.  Maybe we need to exercise multi-wing more often, maybe we need to exercise changes of command and general staff once in a while.

[arajca]

Maybe we need to exercise multi-wing more often, maybe we need to exercise changes of command and general staff once in a while.

Blasphemer! Heretic! How DARE you suggest that our ICs can't run a mission for weeks on end without relief?! or that one wing can do everything?

Actually, that's been brought up by several people multiple times, only to be shot down by the very ICs who need would benefit from it.

[N Harmon]

In my experience as a squadron commander, the 4-8hour ELT hunt had no effect on us being able to man a longer term mission, so I'm forced to disagree with your second point as well. As a single squadron, we never got more than 2 ELT hunts in a single week, so perhaps that the reason we never suffered from crew exhaustion.

I am glad to hear that. Personally, I get a limit amount of paid time off from my employer. Through their good graces they have allowed me to take some of that time on as short of notice as needed when called up by CAP. Many people have similar arrangements, and prior to the 406 cut-over those ELT missions really cut into that time. Time I would rather spend helping people actually in distress.

[jpizzo127]

That is a good thing isn't it?

No, absolutely not. That's a terrible thing. It's eroded our operational readiness. Even though non-emergency ELTs were what we were looking, it allowed our aircrews and ground teams to get real world practice, and maintain proficiency with the costs absorbed by the AF. It was also a huge morale booster.

So in short, no the loss of the 121.5 mission was a terrible one in my opinion

There is no such thing as "real world" practice.

You don't use false alarms and Non-emergency call outs as training.

So aircrews don't use ELT hunts to practice using the DF, the GPS, filling out paperwork, WMIRS?
Ground teams don't get more proficient at doing their paperwork, learning how ELT signals behave in different environments, practice ELT use?

I'm sorry but I could not disagree with your statement more.

[jpizzo127]

That is a good thing isn't it?

No, absolutely not. That's a terrible thing. It's eroded our operational readiness. Even though non-emergency ELTs were what we were looking, it allowed our aircrews and ground teams to get real world practice, and maintain proficiency with the costs absorbed by the AF. It was also a huge morale booster.

So in short, no the loss of the 121.5 mission was a terrible one in my opinion

The 406 transition is absolutely a good thing - better coordinates for actuals and fewer false activations. Anybody who says that the 406 transition was a bad thing has lost sight of the point of distress beacons.

From the perpective you're using you are absolutely correct. The 406 is better at saving lives and that's what we're all after at the end of the day. I agree 100% the 406 is a giant step forward for those in distress.

The point I'm making is the 406 took away one of our missions and that is detrimental to the survival of CAP. We have lost business. Would I go back to 121 ELTs. Of course not. But no one can deny, CAP's real world utility has been diminished.

[jpizzo127]

In my experience as a squadron commander, the 4-8hour ELT hunt had no effect on us being able to man a longer term mission, so I'm forced to disagree with your second point as well. As a single squadron, we never got more than 2 ELT hunts in a single week, so perhaps that the reason we never suffered from crew exhaustion.

I am glad to hear that. Personally, I get a limit amount of paid time off from my employer. Through their good graces they have allowed me to take some of that time on as short of notice as needed when called up by CAP. Many people have similar arrangements, and prior to the 406 cut-over those ELT missions really cut into that time. Time I would rather spend helping people actually in distress.

I see your point. The reason it worked for my squadron is the fact that we have 40 seniors, all mission qualified. And all we get here is ELT missions. In 7 years, I've only had 1 acutal, so we can rotate our crews, and spread what used to be alot of ELT gigs around.

[lordmonar]

That is a good thing isn't it?

No, absolutely not. That's a terrible thing. It's eroded our operational readiness. Even though non-emergency ELTs were what we were looking, it allowed our aircrews and ground teams to get real world practice, and maintain proficiency with the costs absorbed by the AF. It was also a huge morale booster.

So in short, no the loss of the 121.5 mission was a terrible one in my opinion

There is no such thing as "real world" practice.

You don't use false alarms and Non-emergency call outs as training.

So aircrews don't use ELT hunts to practice using the DF, the GPS, filling out paperwork, WMIRS?
Ground teams don't get more proficient at doing their paperwork, learning how ELT signals behave in different environments, practice ELT use?

I'm sorry but I could not disagree with your statement more.

ES is an emergency.  It is either practice or it is real world.

End of story.

The loss of the 121 hunts only means that when we do get called out we are more likely going to be called out on a real downed aircraft. 

Less BS false alarms means we are not wasteing our people's valuable time.

[jpizzo127]

That is a good thing isn't it?

No, absolutely not. That's a terrible thing. It's eroded our operational readiness. Even though non-emergency ELTs were what we were looking, it allowed our aircrews and ground teams to get real world practice, and maintain proficiency with the costs absorbed by the AF. It was also a huge morale booster.

So in short, no the loss of the 121.5 mission was a terrible one in my opinion

There is no such thing as "real world" practice.

You don't use false alarms and Non-emergency call outs as training.

So aircrews don't use ELT hunts to practice using the DF, the GPS, filling out paperwork, WMIRS?
Ground teams don't get more proficient at doing their paperwork, learning how ELT signals behave in different environments, practice ELT use?

I'm sorry but I could not disagree with your statement more.

ES is an emergency.  It is either practice or it is real world.

End of story.

The loss of the 121 hunts only means that when we do get called out we are more likely going to be called out on a real downed aircraft. 

Less BS false alarms means we are not wasteing our people's valuable time.

Patrick,

I can see we're not going to agree on this, so I'm just going to let it go at that.

You have your opinion and I have mine.

However, remember that just because you decree something, and finish your sentence with "End of story" does not make it so.

All the best-

[lordmonar]

Okay.

My point...which you seemed to have missed....is that readiness is a fucntion of training.  We should not be using real missions for false alarms and non distress ELTs as a way of keeping up our readiness levels.

If the current real work load is not enough to keep up our compentcies in ES skills.....we need to increase our training and make sure that is as close to real world as possible.

Losing all the 121.5 mission missions....simply means when we are called out it is more likely that we are called out because someone is really in trouble.

If you think this basic assumption is wrong....then like you say...we are not going to agree.

[jpizzo127]

Here's an argument against drone usage..

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/virus-hits-drone-fleet/

When CAP planes get a virus, its usually cleared up with a shot of penicillin.

[blackrain]

Interesting article in the LA Times on domestic use of a Predator.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-drone-arrest-20111211,0,324348.story

Probably be a little expensive for routine domestic use.

[RADIOMAN015]

Interesting article in the LA Times on domestic use of a Predator.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-drone-arrest-20111211,0,324348.story

Probably be a little expensive for routine domestic use.

Well the issue for the military of course is the federal law.  HOWEVER, lets face it you have to fly and practice your proficiency anyways; IF you can achieve part of the training while performing an actual mission that will assist another agency, than the "cost effectiveness" leaps forward.   The risk of course, EVERY public agency looks to try to save money by having someone else pick up the tab, so this could get out of hand.
RM