Anyone else having pilots quiting over the FEMA courses?

[AlaskanCFI]

The 700 course in particular seem to really be steaming the shorts of many of our senior mission & instructor pilots.  Just wondering how it is going with folks in the Lower 48... Maybe it is just an Alaskan thing. 

[heliodoc]

BITD when the I courses came on line.................. we in a Midwestern EMA had to make the plug necessary for all the VFD's and paid fire, LE, SO's and whatnot

We had a lot of nonbelievers that thought it never had to be done.......well that got them pretty far

I do not know the history in the lower 48 but in my State, it has taken 6 months plus to get the folks done and there are still stragglers today.

Steaming??  Are they threatening to quit?  Do they need to talk to a former EMA type?
I work the forestry and wildland side of things and I have had to explain it to more than one audience

I thought the same before and I had a slow realization while I was working that EMA that it was just a awareness function for support folks like CAP and a REQUIREMENT for REAL First Response types.  I know I went thru all the iterations with folks.  Some came to realize its just the thing to do with the bend on today's operating environment and since CAP did such a swell job in selling it and having the current problem, this is what is has amounted to........

So all in all, what little I can help your senior pilot and instructors, feel free to PM me, I could TRY to help your folks in understanding........you senior pilots and IP's are great folks and I would sure hate to see 'em depart over 1) an online awareness course and 2) Some of CAP's somewhat lackadaisial deadlines and ability to sell a ES product, or NHQ's (in)abilities to reaaaaaaally explain other than "going back to trainee status" unless this is accomplished.  Wanting missions and actually meeting with the EM community seems to be somewhat scattered from State to State, in my opinion.

Maybe having a face to face with your EM type up there during a Squadron meeting or setting up a meeting during the week with him or her may clear up the "gunk' in getting that accomplished

I am hoping for the best for your folks, up there!!!!

[IceNine]

The 700 course in particular seem to really be steaming the shorts of many of our senior mission & instructor pilots.  Just wondering how it is going with folks in the Lower 48... Maybe it is just an Alaskan thing.

That's an easy one to fix.

"I've gathered you all here today to talk about your use of Corportate aircraft.  Effective immediately the cheap flying you have been doing will be suspended until you have completed ICS 700.  As soon as you have I will re-instate your active pilot status

Thanks for your time, 
signed
Actual

[AlaskanCFI]

I agree. 
However the free flying is not much of an incentive to Alaskans.  Most of the pilots in question are aircraft owners and fly for a living, like myself.  Flying has become a chore like taking out the trash.  We are more of a SAR Wing than a flying club.

That said, experienced commercial grade (volunteer) SAR pilots are something I would rather not see the Wing loose.

Fortunately my home squadron worked through this last year and everyone is onboard.

[es_g0d]

Its a pain, but here in the interior we've worked through it.  Grit your teeth ...

BTW, AlaskanCFI, I enjoyed your booth in Anchorage last weekend (I THINK that was your booth, wasn't it?).  It was my first time to that show, and I was seriously impressed ... I was able to chat with legend Dick Rutan, and I also met Irvin Gleim of the "red books" I like for written tests. 

[wingnut55]

Pilots are quitting and it is again because of the poor attitude of NHQ

DON"T insult an aircraft owner in CAP that we are in this because of the cheap flying, it is by far cheaper to fly your own plane than to spend an extra $1,000  to belong to CAP.

some of you guys don't get it.

CAWG is loosing check pilots because they are tired as one accurately said" I am tired of the  "Non Pilots" in CAP pushing us around during a mission and I am tired of the BS"

in short it is not about the mission it is about the arrogance and disrespectful behavior of those in 'COMMAND" towards the people who are doing the work.

[Spike]

CAWG is loosing check pilots because they are tired as one accurately said" I am tired of the  "Non Pilots" in CAP pushing us around during a mission and I am tired of the BS"

in short it is not about the mission it is about the arrogance and disrespectful behavior of those in 'COMMAND" towards the people who are doing the work.

Hold up there.  Some would turn around and argue that Pilots are arrogant, and disrespectful toward "non-pilots". 

Those are opinions fella, not facts.  Lets stick with facts and get to the real reason why (if we truly are) loosing pilots.  You may lose 2 pilots, but in my area we have an influx.

[Nolan Teel]

Thats one thing im sad I missed out on... Flying in Alaska... Im only 26 but sadly I cant pay the bills off what some of the companies pay in Alaska...

[AlaskanCFI]

BTW, AlaskanCFI, I enjoyed your booth in Anchorage last weekend (I THINK that was your booth, wasn't it?). 

Nope not me. I sold my booth to somebody else at a loss.
This year I had to attend Commanders Call on that weekend.  So I missed any income I may have generated for my business.  Last years was about $3K from the trade show.  My donation to the CAP.
But what do I know, I'm just a pilot.

[♠SARKID♠]

I just can't wrap my head around how anyone can have a problem with taking those courses.  If you watch the web-course they aren't hard and they don't take much time (IS-700 should take 2 hours for the online class max, and however long it takes to finish the test).  What is it that they are mad about?

[Climbnsink]

The courses are easy.   Still I can see pilots quitting, it isn't that these new tests are hard it is just the new straw that broke that pilot's back.  I'll fly glider O rides, that is my main contribution to CAP, but I've given up on CAP power flying both C-17 and MP training.  Too much hassle.     

[Larry Mangum]

The courses are easy.   Still I can see pilots quitting, it isn't that these new tests are hard it is just the new straw that broke that pilot's back.  I'll fly glider O rides, that is my main contribution to CAP, but I've given up on CAP power flying both C-17 and MP training.  Too much hassle.    

Can you clarify for us just what the hassle is?

[sparks]

One of the problems with on-line courses concerns members without high speed connections. My squadron only has dial up so even squadron work is slow. Taking a course with dial up sin't fun at all.
I took all of them but can't say I feel better off for the effort.

Some members patience may have snapped from the bommerang impact of terrible implementation of e-services and MIMS plus removal of a National Commander etc. It isn't just one thing that is impacting their decision to stay or go. The ICS course requirement might be the tipping point. Of course the economic downturn and gas prices doesn't help. Just MHO, we really don't know the facts unless NHQ shares nonrenewal surveys with us. Do they even do those any more?

[FW]

The courses are easy.   Still I can see pilots quitting, it isn't that these new tests are hard it is just the new straw that broke that pilot's back.  I'll fly glider O rides, that is my main contribution to CAP, but I've given up on CAP power flying both C-17 and MP training.  Too much hassle.   

I agree.  I spent 4 Sunday mornings completing ICS 100, 200, 700 & 800.  I don't see the problem with doing them however, I understand the frustration some MPs may have with all the requirements they must meet to be current.

While Wingnut's rant is a bit over the top, (ICS courses are a govt. requirement for continued funding; not a command decision)  I agree there may be just a bit much to do before getting into the cockpit. 
Fortunately, NHQ is working on making the process easier without compromising requirements.

[es_g0d]

Honestly, I'm more upset at the mandated recurring "Aircraft Handling" video training.  If you watch it once, you've got it (although you probably "had it" before!).  Watching it AGAIN is simply painful.

The basic level ICS courses aren't that great either, but they're really not bad.  As someone else said, they ARE mandatory by presidential directive, NOT a CAP decision. 

If we tailor the rest of our training to avoid duplication, we'll keep our membership.

[Climbnsink]

The courses are easy.   Still I can see pilots quitting, it isn't that these new tests are hard it is just the new straw that broke that pilot's back.  I'll fly glider O rides, that is my main contribution to CAP, but I've given up on CAP power flying both C-17 and MP training.  Too much hassle.     

Can you clarify for us just what the hassle is?

Form 5's are OK, the world works that way and its a good idea to be checked out.  The hassle is wmirs, calling a fro, we had two logsheets iirc, fuel slip had to go somewhere, calling the fro again, wmirs again.  Funded flights are horrible, all that plus 4 or 5 forms.  As someone else mentioned there is the yearly ground handling video.  I realize the more you do it the faster you can get through everything, but imo and others apparently it is too much hassle for cheaper/free flying.   I guess some folks don't mind all the little things and for some of us all the little things add up to too much bother.

[Spike]

^ Nothing is free, and you should not be coming into CAP expecting to just fly cheap and NOTHING else. 

We all contribute to the level we are comfortable with.  If you or other pilots feel that there is too much "busy work" that takes time away from something more productive, the door is always open.

I have to say that is a standard feeling amongst pilots.  This is not the local flying club, come here to work, and enjoy doing what you do.  If you don't enjoy it, please find something else. 

[Rotorhead]

CAWG is loosing check pilots because they are tired as one accurately said" I am tired of the  "Non Pilots" in CAP pushing us around during a mission and I am tired of the BS"

in short it is not about the mission it is about the arrogance and disrespectful behavior of those in 'COMMAND" towards the people who are doing the work.

Trust me, pilots are not the only ones in CAP "doing the work."

[WT]

As a Deputy Commander for Seniors of a fairly large flying squadron, I think the real problem is frustration.  There are not sufficient communications of the requirements, nor is there a roadmap of what needs to be done for specific tasks.  One major problem is that for ES ratings, sine the SQTRs have not been updated, the SQTRs that people complete do not match the ADDITIONAL requirements.  So, someone prints an SQTR and completes all tasks on an SQTR, then finds out there are additional requirements not listed on the SQTR.  That causes frustration.  For pilots, where there is a "quick start", there is not anything printed that contains all tasks to complete.  And, in talking to different people, they get different opinions on what needs to be completed for specific tasks.  Once they think they have completed the requirements for specific tasks, they then find out about additional requirements they didn't know about.  That also causes frustration.  Also, there is a mindset that pilots get all kinds of "free flying".  That also causes frustration.

[Climbnsink]

^ Nothing is free, and you should not be coming into CAP expecting to just fly cheap and NOTHING else. 

We all contribute to the level we are comfortable with.  If you or other pilots feel that there is too much "busy work" that takes time away from something more productive, the door is always open.

I have to say that is a standard feeling amongst pilots.  This is not the local flying club, come here to work, and enjoy doing what you do.  If you don't enjoy it, please find something else.

I'm not asking for free.  I think you are justifying all the bureaucratic stuff as non-fun CAP work, I disagree.  Washing stuff is non-fun CAP work.  Bureaucratic hoop jumping is bureaucratic hoop jumping and some of us don't have much tolerance for it.  As you rightly point out the door is open and contribute what you can, that is what I do.  Contribute to the Cadet program doing what I know best.  The OP started this asking about losing pilots due to more bureaucratic nonsense and I was responding that I understand and agree with the pilots that have quit.  Make all the requirements you want and someday no one will show up to contribute. 

[Larry Mangum]

Please stop attacking the posters.  I ask people to explain their frustrations and then when they do, they get attacked.  That is counter productive and prevents feedback that might be useful.

[MIGCAP]

For the sake of truth:
"(ICS courses are a govt. requirement for continued funding; not a command decision)" is simply not true. ICS 700 is the only requirement for our folks, and that's not even firm. We tend to make statements in CAP that Mother Air Force, Aunt FEMA, or Uncle US Gov't said, we had to do something when it really isn't true. We simply do this to ourselves since we cannot decide what we really want to be. And most of the things we want to be are not possible in the wildest dreams of anyone.
If we wanna be the IC of a major disaster then we have lots of requirements for our mission base staff, but nobody is ever going to ask us to do that. We are simply going to be asked to bring rather specialized search assetts to the ball game under very limited circumstances. We have delusions of greatness.
We also do not communnicate requirements and explanations for those requirements well to the worker bees (pilots and non-pilots). Therefore stuff shows up as "Surprise!" you're not current anymore. The only answer to the why question is "cause National said so" that is why a lot of very good people have not renewed or are contemplating non-renewal. I believe the reason for that is, in most cases, there really isn't an explanation for the requirements other than "it will make us look more important and  cool."

[desertengineer1]

As a Deputy Commander for Seniors of a fairly large flying squadron, I think the real problem is frustration.  There are not sufficient communications of the requirements, nor is there a roadmap of what needs to be done for specific tasks.  One major problem is that for ES ratings, sine the SQTRs have not been updated, the SQTRs that people complete do not match the ADDITIONAL requirements.  So, someone prints an SQTR and completes all tasks on an SQTR, then finds out there are additional requirements not listed on the SQTR.  That causes frustration.  For pilots, where there is a "quick start", there is not anything printed that contains all tasks to complete.  And, in talking to different people, they get different opinions on what needs to be completed for specific tasks.  Once they think they have completed the requirements for specific tasks, they then find out about additional requirements they didn't know about.  That also causes frustration.  Also, there is a mindset that pilots get all kinds of "free flying".  That also causes frustration.

WT, these are great words that IMHO capture a common thought among those in command positions.  While most of our members understand that the ways of doing things will always change, I share your concern about the method they are handed down.  I get the feeling not enough follow-through is put into these regarding actual implementation.  The list can go on and on (Ground Handling, OPSEC, Narrowband Transition, etc..)

The only thing within our power is to make sure we communicate it up the chain.  I would so wish a better, more explained process.  Your citation of the updated SQTR's are on target.  All relevant paperwork in the process should be updated immediately upon such mandates.  But alas, I'm not the person in charge, and can only work at my level to reduce the pain.

With respect to the IS-700, I don't understand the gripe.  It took me a few minutes to do them, and MP's should be thankful they are all online.  The classroom only IS courses are a royal pain to find and schedule!

For the "Free flying" concept, yeah, I got a problem with that.  Whoever is going around spreading that rumor should be a test subject for waterboarding.

[wingnut55]

Please don't assume that my 400 hours of mission time over the last 3 years consisted of me sleeping in the back seat. I have been on many high profile  Missions, CD, Archer, DFing and taken off weeks from work. I have earned the right to ask who is in charge and why are some of the decisions being made counter productive to us who are doing the missions. You see my biggest concern is that these are questions being asked by members I have recruited not just the rants of  the village idiot. Civil Air Patrols problems are in the public limelight every time we have a major profile mission and the crash we spent hundreds of hours of flight time on is found by some other agency working out of the Box we have put our self into.

[Short Field]

CAWG is loosing check pilots because they are tired as one accurately said" I am tired of the  "Non Pilots" in CAP pushing us around during a mission and I am tired of the BS"
in short it is not about the mission it is about the arrogance and disrespectful behavior of those in 'COMMAND" towards the people who are doing the work.

Easy solution - get some mission base ops quals and start planning and running the missions.  Complete the AFRCC Inland SAR Planner's Course.  Become an IC. 

[wingnut55]

I attended the Sar course 3 years ago, and do those tasks like making copies, debrief. You don't take a course a start running missions!! are you just joking.

we have plenty of ICs 40 of them, most refuse to take a DF mission, most are never seen. IT IS A CLICK. . .

Oh am I yelling?

[Short Field]

You Sir are gripping about NON-PILOTS: 

CAWG is loosing check pilots because they are tired as one accurately said" I am tired of the  "Non Pilots" in CAP pushing us around during a mission and I am tired of the BS"
in short it is not about the mission it is about the arrogance and disrespectful behavior of those in 'COMMAND" towards the people who are doing the work.

The solution is having Pilots qualified to do the mission base jobs - that should stop the non-pilots pushing the pilots around.  What are your Ops Quals?  Just TWO of mine are listed below.  I also worked more than 60 hrs as IC last week on a SAR.  If you don't like how it is done, get qualified and do it yourself.  Then you can lead by example.

No, you don't take a course and start running missions  - you work your way up to IC by gaining experience working as a AOBD, PSC, and OSC.  Making copies and debrief?? Sounds like a MSA. 

[CadetProgramGuy]

Let me interject for a second......

The ICS Classes are mandated so CAP can be NIMS compliant, as directed by FEMA and HLSEM.

If you want to become mission management, (GBD, AOBD or higher) you must attend ICS 300 and 400.  To get to these classes you must take 100, 200, 700, 800.

In the end this will come down to federal funding to both CAP and to the wing.

[wuzafuzz]

I think the bottom line is NIMS and ICS are useful for all kinds of things, not just responding to major terrorist or wildfire events.  Using ICS does not mean CAP is living delusions of grandeur.  It's simply the direction our organization has chosen to take.  Could it be communicated better?  Sure.

As an aside, even this video about a bear loose in a neighborhood mentions the responders using ICS:
http://gallery.venturacountystar.com/video.cfm?VideoID=844
Apparently they are living and breathing ICS.

[RiverAux]

As I've kept track of in another thread, there has been a decline in the number of mission pilots associated with these new requirements, but not a horrendous one.  Alaska was one of those that evidently didn't really take them seriously until Jan 1 as you had 0 mission pilots for a while so I'm not surprised that there is some grumbling up there. 

[Smithsonia]

Some things are simply true. "You can do more if everybody works together" is one of the simple truths. Six thousand years of written human history have accounted for this truth. We need a system to work on larger scales. WHY?

In Colorado we will burn. Wild land fires of Biblical proportion are coming soon due to extensive beetle kill. SEE HERE: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12325843

When that happens it will be our Katrina. It is certain. We best get ready. We might as well work together. ICS is the system. SO get over it, several thousand feet over it. Get with the program.

[AlaskanCFI]

I was hoping the answer to my original question would have been more of a yes , no, or I don't know

[Spike]

I was hoping the answer to my original question would have been more of a yes , no, or I don't know

Original Post......

The 700 course in particular seem to really be steaming the shorts of many of our senior mission & instructor pilots.  Just wondering how it is going with folks in the Lower 48... Maybe it is just an Alaskan thing.

Break it down for ya....

The 700 course in particular seem to really be steaming the shorts of many of our senior mission & instructor pilots.

YES.

Just wondering how it is going with folks in the Lower 48...

NO.

Maybe it is just an Alaskan thing

I don't Know.


THERE you go.  Post answered with the answers you were looking for.   

[dbaran]

I don't know of any MP who has quit over the FEMA courses.   I thought 300 was great - due to an excellent instructor. 100/200/700/800 were awful, but bearable because they're over so quickly.

We have plenty of MPs that have let their rating/participation lapse; the reasons include:

a) Financial concerns - "Everyone else is getting laid off at work - I have to concentrate on my job to keep it," CFI suffering during economic downturn means they have to put in more hours for less money, layoffs of others at work resulted in an increased workload for you, etc.

b) Hassle factor too high (WMU online flight releases, changes in CAP uniform requirements for those with the now outlawed light blue flight suit, no instructor/check pilot available for the plane, large number of hours required for G1000, aircraft grounded for MX for extended period of time/scheduling unreliability)

c) Too little flying in CAP to financially justify the F5/F91 process.   

d) When there is CAP flying, I never get to do it because I'm working base staff as an AOBD, PSC, OSC, etc.

e) The new CAP [and this may just be my wing] focus on ONLY flying CAP airplanes.  Almost all of the lapsed MPs that I know own an airplane, so they spend their time flying that instead of staying proficient in a CAP plane.   The hassle factor is a big one here for proficiency - you can hop in your plane and shoot approaches if you feel like it.  Not the case with doing it in a CAP plane any more.

Most  former CAP pilots have at least two of the above reasons for not flying for CAP.

The lack of mission pilots is a big concern to me; I spent a lot of time scrounging for them for missing airplane missions and large CD activities.   At the Group level, we care about it, and I know other Groups are having the same trouble - but Wing has other issues that they prefer to deal with at the moment.

[Short Field]

I was hoping the answer to my original question would have been more of a yes , no, or I don't know

Most got it finished within the first month of not being able to fly - the majority within a couple of days.  The few (2 or 4) who did not were not really active CAP flyers anymore and decided now was a good time to just stop flying for CAP.  We lost more when we stopped funding a lot of the privately owned aircraft on missions.

[biomed441]

My squadron has several pilots, and an observer or two if I'm not mistaken. None of them have vocalized an issue with the FEMA courses.  They are all active in flying and don't seem to be bothered. It comes down to why are you in CAP? Not trying to slam pilots, as if I wasn't colorblind, I would be flying for CAP as well.

As an emergency response agency, first responder or not, we all need to be current with federal regulations.  If there are pilots who simple don't want to keep current, then thats unfortunate, but what can you do.  Try and encourage more seniors to get MO ratings that are willing to do what is necessary to serve in a capacity that warrents the priviledge to fly CAP aircraft.

On a personal note, I actually find the FEMA courses interesting. Somewhat tedious, but useful information none the less.

[LittleIronPilot]

I don't know of any MP who has quit over the FEMA courses.   I thought 300 was great - due to an excellent instructor. 100/200/700/800 were awful, but bearable because they're over so quickly.

We have plenty of MPs that have let their rating/participation lapse; the reasons include:

a) Financial concerns - "Everyone else is getting laid off at work - I have to concentrate on my job to keep it," CFI suffering during economic downturn means they have to put in more hours for less money, layoffs of others at work resulted in an increased workload for you, etc.

b) Hassle factor too high (WMU online flight releases, changes in CAP uniform requirements for those with the now outlawed light blue flight suit, no instructor/check pilot available for the plane, large number of hours required for G1000, aircraft grounded for MX for extended period of time/scheduling unreliability)

c) Too little flying in CAP to financially justify the F5/F91 process.   

d) When there is CAP flying, I never get to do it because I'm working base staff as an AOBD, PSC, OSC, etc.

e) The new CAP [and this may just be my wing] focus on ONLY flying CAP airplanes.  Almost all of the lapsed MPs that I know own an airplane, so they spend their time flying that instead of staying proficient in a CAP plane.   The hassle factor is a big one here for proficiency - you can hop in your plane and shoot approaches if you feel like it.  Not the case with doing it in a CAP plane any more.

Most  former CAP pilots have at least two of the above reasons for not flying for CAP.

The lack of mission pilots is a big concern to me; I spent a lot of time scrounging for them for missing airplane missions and large CD activities.   At the Group level, we care about it, and I know other Groups are having the same trouble - but Wing has other issues that they prefer to deal with at the moment.

Wow....I think you just described me!

I own my own aircraft and it is all I can do to keep it flying. I have a busy life and so I can just get home, roll the plane out of the hangar, do my pre-flight and I am flying.

With CAP? Not so easy...actually quite a pain in the arse. Plus any money I spend flying THEIR plane is money not spent flying MY plane.

[arajca]

A comment on flying CAP planes instead of member owned planes...

How many member-owned a/c have DF equipment? Have CAP radios? How many pilots are willing to let someone else fly their plane? Let the AOBD dictate who they take with them on a flight?

These issues are directly related to the insistance on using CAP aircraft. As a cadet, I remember helping pilots jury-rig L'pers to use in their aircraft for missions and training. I have seen pilots refuse to take personnel assigned to the sortie because they weren't the pilot's buddies.

I also remember, as a cadet, doing 25+ ofights in a member owned a/c because the few CAP a/c weren't within 100 miles and the 'approved' pilots refused to fly cadets because the a/c had to be ready for a 'real' mission on a moments notice. I remember, as a cadet officer, 'supervising' the cadets at the airport who were waiting for their oflights. We usually had three or four pilots and a/c with about 12-15 cadets each oflight day.

Today, we have pilots who want to fly cadets for oflights in CAP a/c, but we have problems getting cadets who want to fly oflights.

Crews are assigned based (generally) on ability, not being the pilots buddy. Pilots who decide they don't like the crew, don't fly.

If the pilot throws a tantrum, they are told to leave, but the a/c remains available for the mission.

Aircraft are generally equipped with the same DF equipment, properly mounted. Training for aircrew is basically standardized, with most of the focus on operating the equipment, not compensating for improper installation, or figuring out how to jury rig the equipment in the a/c.

[dbaran]

In my 19 years in CAP, I have not had an experience with childish behavior like you've outlined below.  I've found the pilots are very willing to share, have offered to let other people fly their own airplane if it will help, and do all sorts of other really helpful things to support the missions. 

I cannot think of the last time that we had a surplus of crews for O-rides or real missions or even SAREXes.  If you've got a pilot surplus - I hope you can enjoy it while it lasts.

All that I'm saying is that we have a pretty good understanding of why there is a pilot shortage, and it isn't the FEMA courses.

[RiverAux]

If only 10% of current CAP pilots fitted their planes with CAP radios and have them maintained to CAP standards it would increase our "fleet" by 30-50%.  DFs aren't necessary for them to be useful to CAP since many of our missions are not ELT-related (homeland security, disaster relief, CD, o-rides, fly-a-teacher, and even many SAR missions). 

Unfortunately CAP and the Air Force have come up with this target for flight hours and everyone feels obligated to meet it by doing everything possible to exclude member-owned aircraft. 

[Short Field]

Member-owned airplanes are not excluded - but CAP wants to see CAP airplanes beomg fully utilized before before paying a member to fly their personnal airplane.  The few who quit around here did so because CAP stopped funding the operation of their personnal aircraft.   I was surprised the first time I flew my airplane at how well I was reimbursed. 

[Trung Si Ma]

If only 10% of current CAP pilots fitted their planes with CAP radios and have them maintained to CAP standards ...

This is the narrow band radio issue again.  I have ham radio gear that I can use from my aircraft, but the $10k+ for a Teksonic puts it farther down the wishlist.

Since I do not use my aircraft for commercial purposes, I don't get the 100 hour inspections, but that would be easier to justify than the radio.

I do have an Aircraft Information File paterned after the CAP one since it was a minor expansion of what I was already carrying.

I also have to agree with LittleIron Pilot that there just isn't enough time available to fly mine and the CAP birds.  With the mods to mine, it doesn't fly like the CAP 172's.  Besides, mine likes off airport landings better 

[RiverAux]

I wouldn't have a problem with CAP buying and installing our radios on private planes provided we had ironclad contracts to get them back if neeeded.  This would be a very cheap way to quickly increase our capabilities.  At 10K each you could double or triple most wing's fleets for less than the cost of a new 182. 

[isuhawkeye]

The coast guard Auxiliary requires that a marine band radio be installed before a private aircraft can be used to support the Coat Guard

[Trung Si Ma]

The coast guard Auxiliary requires that a marine band radio be installed before a private aircraft can be used to support the Coat Guard

Which are not narrow band compliant and are readily and cheaply available due to the large numbers of boaters out there.

There are also several out there that are TSO compliant for aircraft usage with the right impedance for aircraft radio systems.

[LittleIronPilot]

A comment on flying CAP planes instead of member owned planes...

How many member-owned a/c have DF equipment? Have CAP radios? How many pilots are willing to let someone else fly their plane? Let the AOBD dictate who they take with them on a flight?

These issues are directly related to the insistance on using CAP aircraft. As a cadet, I remember helping pilots jury-rig L'pers to use in their aircraft for missions and training. I have seen pilots refuse to take personnel assigned to the sortie because they weren't the pilot's buddies.

I also remember, as a cadet, doing 25+ ofights in a member owned a/c because the few CAP a/c weren't within 100 miles and the 'approved' pilots refused to fly cadets because the a/c had to be ready for a 'real' mission on a moments notice. I remember, as a cadet officer, 'supervising' the cadets at the airport who were waiting for their oflights. We usually had three or four pilots and a/c with about 12-15 cadets each oflight day.

Today, we have pilots who want to fly cadets for oflights in CAP a/c, but we have problems getting cadets who want to fly oflights.

Crews are assigned based (generally) on ability, not being the pilots buddy. Pilots who decide they don't like the crew, don't fly.

If the pilot throws a tantrum, they are told to leave, but the a/c remains available for the mission.

Aircraft are generally equipped with the same DF equipment, properly mounted. Training for aircrew is basically standardized, with most of the focus on operating the equipment, not compensating for improper installation, or figuring out how to jury rig the equipment in the a/c.

Just a point of order...I was NOT suggesting using my aircraft for CAP missions. No way, no how.

What I was trying to say was that as an aircraft owner in these tough times, what free time/money I have is better spent on MY aircraft, not the CAP's.

I know of several aircraft owners that feel the same way.

[a2capt]

..and another ironic twist, it seems that CAWG is trying to utilize member owned aircraft for CD missions as they "don't have the money" for the maintenance that the CD mission funding doesn't seem to cover, so lump that over to .. the member?

After they have spent the last few years basically running off member owned aircraft suddenly they need them, for this - and for O-rides at encampment.

Yeah, when you need them.. just wait until they throw up more bureaucracy to run them off - again. It is seemingly impossible to get checkrides in member owned aircraft too, as you have to bust through the vail of the clique to schedule an airplane at a unit that has one if yours does not.

..and then you do all this, and since you are not *the* aircrew that is the "favorite" of the particular IC, since you are not the one that "*always*" responds, you will get the run around and harsh treatment anyway. "Your radio is broken, RTB" "You don't know how to operate your radio" ..

It makes AE and Cadet programs look sooo much more interesting.

So, for all this, you wanna bust your arse and deal with a FEMA 300 course?

As for DF equipment, I can wing shadow just fine, and we have also demonstrated  the use of a handheld L-Per from within the aircraft works just fine.

For the Comm radio, a hand held works AMAZINGLY well from the air. It's basically line of sight, for all intents, with any repeater nearby. A simple cable into the audio in on the intercom, and pick up the radio to speak into it works great.

As for who comes onboard my aircraft? Well, me, personally, if I am flying for CAP, I understand that the AOBD and/or IC are going to be directing my flight, who comes on board, etc. Fine. As long as W&B and safety of flight are not breached, I'm there.

After all, I am flying for CAP, right?

Now the one line to cross is.. while yes it is an asset available to the mission, so are you, it's pilot. No one else can fly that one, but.. again, you are there. So, assign you to that airplane and put a crew in it. If that pilot pisses a fit about who's in it, don't use 'em. Period. Simple.

[Rotorhead]

..and another ironic twist, it seems that CAWG is trying to utilize member owned aircraft for CD missions as they "don't have the money" for the maintenance that the CD mission funding doesn't seem to cover, so lump that over to .. the member?

Forgive me, but this is a pet peeve of mine.

"CAWG" or any other Wing is not a monolithic, secret agency with a hidden HQ.

It's a bunch of CAP members, just like you and me.

If you have a problem with what's being done, call them up and tell them.

[a2capt]

Well, the opposite of that pet peeve is.. you get folks who say "not in our wing" .. so, I only have experience with whats going on here, so .. I can only say "CAWG".

Not CAP at large, and as much I have heard no real evidence of this being pushed by any higher headquarters .. so .. maybe it happens elsewhere ..

When people name a specific wing, keep in mind not everyone is at the region level and not everyone has moved around to 10 different wings.

[Short Field]

[If you have a problem with what's being done, call them up and tell them.

Have you heard the phrase "like water off a duck's back".   If you complain, you get minimized.  It would be nice to think the Wing/CC and his staff want to fix the problems - but too often they just want the problem to go away.   

[Always Ready]

Well, the opposite of that pet peeve is.. you get folks who say "not in our wing" .. so, I only have experience with whats going on here, so .. I can only say "CAWG".

Not CAP at large, and as much I have heard no real evidence of this being pushed by any higher headquarters .. so .. maybe it happens elsewhere ..

When people name a specific wing, keep in mind not everyone is at the region level and not everyone has moved around to 10 different wings.

^+1
Each wing is different anyways. Yeah we all are supposed to be following the same regs, but each Region, Wing, Group, Squadron, and Flight have their own SOPs which may or may not be the same as everyone else's.

On topic: We haven't had any pilots flat out quit, but we have had pilots stop being active. Most of the SMs in my squadron are pilots. I noticed the Pilot meetings...err umm...Senior meetings have gone from about 15 people to about 7 people. We already have issues keeping pilots active, mostly because of MP training issues, but the FEMA courses didn't help our cause.