Use of member-owned aircraft on missions

[RiverAux]

Are any wings regularly using member-owned aircraft on missions these days?  If so, in what roles?  How are communications handled?

When CAP was founded all we had was member-owned aircraft and from what I understand they were still an important part of mission responses up until the last few decades.  The regulations still makes some allowances for such use, but I don't think my wing has used one for anything other than transporting people to SAREXs for over 15 years (and even that transport use seems to have mostly gone away). 

[a2capt]

Use? Hah! You'd think member-owned aircraft were the like Satan trying to get into the Vatican. They throw up so many hoops and hurdles it's basically become the units with the aircraft, and the favorite crew that does it all.

...until they really need them, and can't get them because they ran everyone off.

Communications is a rather simple thing. For every aircraft with CAP communications, that can handle as many as communications distances can be maintained. Put a CAP aircraft at 10,000 ft., and you have a high bird platform.

So if you have a choice of launching just two aircraft, or launching up to 10 in that critical first few hours, you could launch one on a route search, while member owned assets report on station, when you're ready to send several out to grids that are not within communications distance of the base, place the second CAP aircraft above them all.

Oh, but you have no AM base radio? Well, if you have a base at an airport, or near one that it's intention is to operate aircraft, you can get a radio. Cheap, and an antenna. That should be part of every such facility.

Take CA for example, bringing all those aircraft from all over to the Fossett search base, with impending timeouts on the aircraft due to 100 hour inspections, transit time on the average utilization accounts for as much as 1/3rd of the hours when you figure 2-3 hours to get on scene, and double that to return to home base, if the aircraft is brought in and used on 3-4 typical sorties, out of a total of 20 hours of flight, as many as 6 are blown on transport.

Now, you have 15 aircraft from your wing all on scene, throttle to the firewall for 3 days, as logic would have it, your centralized maintenance facility is about to get slammed with a bunch of aircraft that have run into their 50 and 100 hour time outs.

But with the last several years spent on driving out member-owned assets with hoops, hurdles, FUD and GOB Fear, you're screwed now.

[Eclipse]

My wing does not utilize them and has no need for them.

Saying we used them "up until the last few decades" doesn't mean much considering the changes that CAP and the rest of the world has endured during the last 20-30 years.

[Short Field]

Not true a2capt.  We had CAP airplanes sitting on the ramp during the Fosset search because we didn't have enough CAP pilots.  Flying your private airplane in CAP is easily done.  It is just that CAP has no interest in paying you to fly your own airplane when CAP airplanes are sitting on the ramp not flying due to no available MPs.  We had a lot of MPs quit because they were being required to get a Fm 5 in a CAP airplane and to fly a CAP airplane on missions.  They were only in CAP to get funding for flying their own airplanes - and tended to show up with half full fuel tanks and leave with full fuel tanks. 

How can CAP justify the airplanes we have now if we don't fly them and just fund member-owned airplanes?  That is what the Coast Guard Aux does - it is all member-owned.  Guess how many non-owners get to fly as MPs?  Is that what you want for CAP?   

I was asked twice in the last year to fly my C182 on O'rides due to CAP planes being down for maintenance.   That is ALL privately owned airplanes are to CAP - fillers for when there are NOT enough CAP airplanes for the mission.  And there is nothing wrong with that.

[a2capt]

Call it what you want, having been at the receiving end of it, I see it differently. Several times, and over the years it just got to the point of deciding that other parts of the program were just more interesting.

Coupled with trying to fly a local units aircraft, several pilot types in my local unit just lost interest over the years. When you come in and are stymied at every inch of the game with an answer or "policy" (read: Made up rule in someones head) that states "our airfield is unique" "you can't get onto the field after hours" "you need to call and meet someone with the keys if you want to fly it" (and they are only available 20 miles from the airport), or the IC uses the paging system to call on a particular air crew that is 100 miles away, instead of asking for *an available air crew*.

Don't lump everyone in with the half tank fly and go home full offenders. I never did that, I don't know anyone else that did that, of 4 or so of us. Hell, sometimes I didn't even turn in a 108 for it. If you suspected something, say something. Make a note of it, submit it for an investigation.

The same can be said for re-currency flying and returning to the ramp half empty "because the next pilot wants it  that way" and then suddenly launching on an A mission. You're not going to tell me that the possibility of that aircraft just being topped off after that mission isn't going to happen?

Oh, and I "arrived half full, but left full" - the aircraft came inbound from it's home base full, arrived at the mission base with some air in the tanks. Filled 'em back up again and launched. Flew, landed, filled back up again, flew again, landed, debriefed again, and either RTB or the hotel, to RTB the next day. ...and filled up again before leaving for home base. On that argument, it should refill at home. As all fuel was burned on the F104.

Now, if they arrive at base and take on XX amount of fuel, and then arrive at home the next day and take on a substantially different amount, sure- there's a possible FWA incident there.

[lordmonar]

If you want to fly your aircraft for CAP you can.

You just have to get the wing commander to sign off on it.

If you can't get access to a CAP plane (too far away, not rated for the type, etc) then I thing that is good justification.

If the problem is with the GOB network...then there are three things you can do.

1) Join the network.
2) Take a stand and get the network broken up (i.e. IG complaints, etc).
3) Ignore it.

Short Field was not saying that every member-owned-aircraft fl yer was a "free fuel" geek....but I too saw the 30% membership drop off when National forced us to fly the corporate aircraft more.

Again....there is nothing stopping you and your wing CC from using member owned aircraft for missions, training or O-flights.....except the number of hours being put on the corporate aircraft.

Over the last 4 years or so (and they started pushing this about 4 years ago in NVWG) there have been many times member owned aircraft were used.  It was just a matter of justifying it.

There is no big conspiracy....other then National (and the Air Force) was kicking out large amounts of cash for new airplanes that were being flow less then 100 hour a year while those same wings were flying a lot of member owned aircraft.

[a2capt]

Exactly, there is nothing stopping it, from a NHQ level, but with discretion left up to whomever down lower in the chain, and those lower in the chain say "It's NHQ saying so", and they resort to making up stuff like "National Requires FM, external antennas, a GPS, etc" When it's been demonstrated that these items are not detrimental in carrying out the mission. Sure, wing shadowing may be "harder", but I've done it quite well, with carrier only, too.

http://17500mph.com/photos-3?g2_itemId=1932 "TKM DF'er"

The radio has a crack in the push button, a toothpick holds it in. The sensitivity on that one is even better with the "test" button held down. So.. the method was convenient.

Your option #3 becomes the answer. Count me in that "30%" drop, except I just found other things to participate in, within the program.

That does not, however, mean one can't express their experiences when the subject is breached.

The reason I call BS on the "National HQ" stuff, I have talked to folks in distant wings that still supplement typical operations with member-owned, and last I checked there was only one CAP, one command structure. So that has to be the same National HQ that we are ultimately operating under, and you've just more or less added to the confirmation.

It's semi moot right now, I'm no longer CAP current flight wise. Perhaps when there's more money coming in, I'll look into it again. With the CAP aircraft in the area not being that convenient to get to, since member-owned have been practically shunned off..

[Short Field]

Now, if they arrive at base and take on XX amount of fuel, and then arrive at home the next day and take on a substantially different amount, sure- there's a possible FWA incident there.

So it is clear - arrived meant signed in for use by CAP with a half tank - having taxied from their spot on the airport to the CAP parking area.  Or how about 2 hours flying for CAP with a fuel burn of 34 gals an hour for a C182 (based on hobbs time and fuel receipt)... 

 

[Short Field]

Exactly, there is nothing stopping it, from a NHQ level, but with discretion left up to whomever down lower in the chain, and those lower in the chain say "It's NHQ saying so", and they resort to making up stuff like "National Requires FM, external antennas, a GPS, etc"

Then they lied to you because they didn't have the gumption to tell the truth - "Your privately owned airplane is not needed to accomplish the mission today because the CAP airplanes are using all the money budgeted for the exercise".   

[wingnut55]

Last year we flew over 40 hours using member owned ACFT, depends on the situation, sure is cheaper for the USAF, besides have you wondered why CAP has lost so many pilots.

It was a huge mistake to go to Govt purchased Aircraft, we lost the foundation CAP was built on.

with that said We have two members with their own DF equipment in their acft. and antenna for the CAP radio

[lordmonar]

I don't understand the problem?

Last I heard we are still not flying our CAP aircraft up to the standards NHQ wants us to.

If people out there were saying "We can't fly because the CAP plane is too busy" I would agree with you.  But that is not the case.

[a2capt]

Then they lied to you because they didn't have the gumption to tell the truth - "Your privately owned airplane is not needed to accomplish the mission today because the CAP airplanes are using all the money budgeted for the exercise".   

Exactly, hence the opening comment, comparing to Satan entering the Vatican.

The difference is, I can see it's a bunch of hooey and is not back-up-able with paper, so I know that they are just making it unfriendly and to say "screw it" and move on. Not worth the headache, hassle, etc.  When, as I also said, I have talked to many others who tell me no such shenanigans are happening within their respective wings'.

Yes, considering CAP was founded on volunteerism, and used to sell effin' airplane parts even. Imagine that.

If someone taxied over from their hangar on the field and reported to the mission half full, in that they launched, came back from a 3 hour flight needing to practically fill an entire C182, I'd  call shenanigans on that right there on the spot. If that aircraft is doing that poorly on gas, it's a hazard in the sky. There's something wrong. It's running so rich it's got to have fouled plugs.

When I said "arrived" I meant departed from another airport. My typical inbounds were usually 1-1.5 hours, anything less and I usually never bothered getting "on" the mission until I arrived. If I had to fly out of the county to a base, I would get a flight release, thus effectively signing in to the mission.

It's a load of bunk, hoops and hurdles, put up by the deeply entrenched GOBs to "keep" all the flying for their buddies and themselves by running off anyone who dares show an interest and the threat of actually participating.

It's interesting to observe when certain IC's put out pages, you can pretty much guess who is going to be in the closing traffic, and thats *if* they put out a page at all. Sometimes they just call the aircrew directly. But when every other IC puts out a page, the closing traffic is all kinds of varied on participants and acknowledgements.

I configured a VX-150 to clip onto the Cessna ashtray, with a wire that ran over to and disappeared into the panel, into the Comm 3 position on the Cessna crappy old 70's ARC intercom. When I select 3, I can transmit via the inbuilt intercom on that radio, and I hear the radio in the intercom. Adding TSO'ed antennas to the bottom with the cable stashed under the edge of the rug of right rear seat, and a Little L-Per could be used on the scanner or observer's knee board.

Using the optional needle accessory with clip on the glare shield, gave us needles like the panel mounted one. An AirMap 1000 unit set to display lat/long grids at a specific scale just happens to match CAP SAR grids, so programming the lower corner LAT/LONG as a way point would take you direct to the grid entry point that you chose. Once you establish grid boundaries, the crumb trail on the GPS can be used as the boundaries and zooming in further can be done and you still have a reference.

Whats missing? We have FM, virtually indistinguishable from the "real" thing, in fact, I never once got told "your radio isn't working" Was pretty funny when another pilot saw that clipped there and was very surprised, with how we were able to communicate so clearly after realizing the radio was an HT with a little whip antenna.

[Short Field]

When I said "arrived" I meant departed from another airport. My typical inbounds were usually 1-1.5 hours, anything less and I usually never bothered getting "on" the mission until I arrived.

You should be on the mission and have a flight release before you ever take off unless you are just using your airplane for personal transportation - same as if you drove your car.  In our wing, CAP pays for the fuel to drive to and from the base (seems like mileage would be a lot cheaper but...).  If your wing pays for vehicles to drive to and from the base, then you have a good case to get paid for your fuel if you fly. However, if it is a CAP relocation mission, then it should be flight released on a mission sortie. 

[Kojack]

This one is easy, and having read the replys I can truly appreciate what Short Field has said. 
There is no rule against using Member Owned aircraft, but you have to have it properly approved.  We do NOT use them as a rule and work hard to use only corporate aircraft.  Those planes need the hours, and don't get them.  Why should anyone approve payment for a provate aircraft if a corporate one is sitting ont he ground not being flown. 

Are there times when they are used?  Yep, I've approved them several times.  But ONLY if there were no corporate aircraft available to perform the mission.  I had a lot to do with the Fossett search for some time.  Even had one pilot state that if he could not fly his airplane he wasn't flying.  Guess what?  He didn't fly.  In fact, he's not in CAP anymore. 

As for the good old boys club, you mean to say if you don't get called to fly a CAP plane you just jump into your own and show up?  Not at my mission base.......

[DG]

I know a Mission Pilot who flew his C-182R 200 hours last year on government paid missions.

In the USCG Aux.

[Eclipse]

^ Awesome - he also paid for the oil changes, 2-100 hour inspections, insurance, tie down fees, etc.

[isuhawkeye]

he was also funded an hourly rate for his airframe

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg3/cg3pcx/publications/comdtnote/COMDTNOTE_16798.pdf

Looks like about

$8,600 worth

[Al Sayre]

Looks like they reimburse at the same rates as CAP gets + an oil allowance, since prices have dropped some since 2006, it was probably a bit less.  I'm also reasonably sure that he had a commensurate raise in his insurance rates if he told his company what he was doing...

[Short Field]

Unless you have a friend that will let you fly his airplane and add you to his insurance, if you want to fly in the USCG Aux, you need to own a airplane.

[DG]

Unless you have a friend that will let you fly his airplane and add you to his insurance, if you want to fly in the USCG Aux, you need to own a airplane.

Isn't that what we are discussing here?

Member owned.

[Short Field]

Yes it is.  But trying to compare the USCG Aux air program with CAP is like comparing apples and oranges. 

CAP furnishes airplanes for members to use during missions and allocates funds to support that.  You don't have to own your own airplane to be a active mission pilot in CAP.  The USCG Aux relies on member-owned aircraft to conduct their missions and allocates their funds to support that. 

What some aircraft owners are really advocating is to routinely take funding from corporate aircraft and the people who fly them and give that money to the aircraft owners so they can fly their own airplanes.  If a mission needs exists to use member-owned aircraft, fine.  But just to make them happy so they stay members? 

[RiverAux]

What some aircraft owners are really advocating is to routinely take funding from corporate aircraft and the people who fly them and give that money to the aircraft owners so they can fly their own airplanes.  If a mission needs exists to use member-owned aircraft, fine.  But just to make them happy so they stay members?

Since I was the one who brought the issue up, I'd like to point out that I am neither a pilot or an aircraft owner -- just someone that wants to maximize the number of resources that CAP can bring to bear on missions of any type. 

[Short Field]

I have never seen a problem with getting member-owned aircraft authorized when needed on a operational mission.  I have more problems getting full crews for the next day's sorties than getting airframes.

[JoeTomasone]

Again....there is nothing stopping you and your wing CC from using member owned aircraft for missions, training or O-flights.....except the number of hours being put on the corporate aircraft.

3.6.2.10. Use of Member Owned or Furnished Aircraft. CAP Corporate aircraft will be the
resource of choice for AFAMs. Member-owned or furnished aircraft may be utilized with the consent
of the owner when specific mission requirements preclude using a CAP aircraft or a CAP aircraft
is unavailable. The approval authority that assigned Air Force mission status will approve
routine use of a member owned or furnished aircraft in coordination with the authority's legal
staff. Under emergency or imminently serious conditions, member owned or furnished aircraft
may be used without coordination only if required to accomplish the mission. Except in exceptional
circumstances, before use of member owned or furnished aircraft member owned aircraft is
approved, the owner of the aircraft must execute a "hold harmless agreement" waiving any claims
for property damage against the United States arising from the use of the aircraft. The approval
authority will ensure that the aircraft has a current flight worthiness certificate.

[RiverAux]

In other words, "you can ask, but we probably will say no".