Wow! CAP orders 36 New Airplanes

[etodd]

Page 8 of today's Volunteer. Nice article:

https://www.cap.news/volunteer-spring-2023/

2021 the AF sponsored research into CAP's needs and this year approved 36 new planes.

21 - 172
9 - 182T
4 - T182T
2 - T206

Excited about the 172s, as they are best as a Primary Trainer. Maybe more CAP CFIs will step up and help start training Cadets in their squadrons.

[heliodoc]

Being a former 1970s cadet who had to buy his tickets on the economy AKA FBOs after solo encampment 1975...we might want to consider more seriously,  buying some more CFIs in Wings that are sorely in need gor them. The new CAP might want to assist those in CAP who desire their CFI tickets a more streamlined operation in gaining that. There was a survey a year ago withe question "would i become a CFI if CAP was initiate a program?" I'm more worried about the CFIs and the about to retire CDIs in CAP....it would benefit BOTH cadets and SMs. CAP may want to cater to both worlds and assess those Wings with staffing issues. CAP cadets don't become pilots without adult CAPers

[etodd]

.... CAP might want to assist those in CAP who desire their CFI tickets a more streamlined operation in gaining that.....

That was me about 5 years ago, a CAP private pilot. Lucky enough to be in a great squadron with 3 CFIs. Renting the CAP 172S/G1000, and free instruction, I ripped through IFR, Commercial, CFI, and CFII in about 3 years time, all in the same 172. It can be done.  And very economical, by comparision.

Now its payback time. I started teaching a Cadet in our squadron last year, and this month he passed his private checkride.

Its a very rewarding feeling to pass it along. I hope we have more and more  CFIs that will as well.

[HandsomeWalt_USMC]

One of the things Gen Phelka spoke of during conference this weekend was a plan to pay for pilots to get their CFI in order to instruct cadets, with the expectation that they'll donate their time for two flight academies to repay the training. Very cool idea. He also specifically indicated that those new 172s are being purchased with flight training in mind.

[heliodoc]

Haven't heard much about this as of late. Has there been any movement?

It s a good to great idea.....Phelka probably gets it, prior NHQ CCs?

[Fubar]

Moving to 172s seems to suggest CAP is giving up on the "emergency services" type flight hours. A 172 is a great training platform, but they won't have direction finding equipment in them and they generally can't carry three average sized aircrew members for SAR and photo missions. They work OK for o-flights.

That's a lot of money to spend just so we can compete with flight schools.

[etodd]

Moving to 172s seems to suggest CAP is giving up on the "emergency services" type flight hours. A 172 is a great training platform, but they won't have direction finding equipment in them and they generally can't carry three average sized aircrew members for SAR and photo missions. They work OK for o-flights.

That's a lot of money to spend just so we can compete with flight schools.

My squadron has done quite a bit of SAR and photo missions in our 172 with three onboard. But ... our members are a bit slimmer than the average CAP senior member.   IOW ... its not always the airplane.

[etodd]

One of the things Gen Phelka spoke of during conference this weekend was a plan to pay for pilots to get their CFI in order to instruct cadets, with the expectation that they'll donate their time for two flight academies to repay the training. Very cool idea. He also specifically indicated that those new 172s are being purchased with flight training in mind.

Good idea, but, That would have left me out. I could not have taken off work to teach at an academy. I taught our Cadet locally. Lessons on weekdays after school and then some on weekends. Got it done. Hopefully CAP programs will also encourage local teaching. Better scheduling opportunities, and a Cadet can go from start to finish with a CFI.

[heliodoc]

Good Idea, Handsome

But I venture to say:  Most of the cadet flying probably happens AFTER a 7-10 run at an NFA

So to "assign/confine to make a cadet shine" usually happens at the local level after solo encampment!!

[coudano]

Moving to 172s seems to suggest CAP is giving up on the "emergency services" type flight hours. A 172 is a great training platform, but they won't have direction finding equipment in them and they generally can't carry three average sized aircrew members for SAR and photo missions. They work OK for o-flights.

That's a lot of money to spend just so we can compete with flight schools.

I'm not sure i've ever flown or crewed a CAP C172 that wasn't DF equipped.
Infact I can't remember the last time I saw one that wasn't becker equipped, with my own eyes (at least a decade?)

I have definitely been in C172's that were capable of 3 'average sized' CAP members (and by that, I mean I just ran w&b in foreflight at 240, 220, and 200).   On the other hand that particular airplane isn't a G1000 equipped airplane, and doesn't have some of the heavier hardware that is probably standard these days.  I don't know what sort of package CAP would order for a crapton of 172's, but one would think that useful load would be a fairly precient concern.

[PHall]

Moving to 172s seems to suggest CAP is giving up on the "emergency services" type flight hours. A 172 is a great training platform, but they won't have direction finding equipment in them and they generally can't carry three average sized aircrew members for SAR and photo missions. They work OK for o-flights.

That's a lot of money to spend just so we can compete with flight schools.

You assume you need three on board for an AP mission, why?
A MP in the left seat and the AP in the right seat works just fine.

[Fubar]

You assume you need three on board for an AP mission, why?
A MP in the left seat and the AP in the right seat works just fine.

The photo window typically is in the back, plus less obstructions for taking photos. I dunno if this should be a factor or not, but there's also member retention - the more people who get to be involved the better.

[PHall]

You do know the primary mission of the 172's is supposed to be for flight training, right?
ES is a secondary mission for these aircraft. CAP's flying mission is changing and the fleet is changing to support the flying we do today.

[etodd]

The photo window typically is in the back, plus less obstructions for taking photos.

Never liked shooting out the small photo window. I open the right front window, wind keeps it up, and is much easier to shoot.

[etodd]

I don't know what sort of package CAP would order for a crapton of 172's, but one would think that useful load would be a fairly precient concern.

Our 2015 172s/G1000 with 40 gallons of fuel, gives us about 550 lbs for people. Three normal size people easy.

We always refuel just to 40 gallons for this reason. Which is plenty. Fly for 3 hours and land with an hour reserve. (My bladder limits is 3 hours as well. LOL)

[Larry Mangum]

C172's work fine east of the Rockies, but not so much to the west. Most wings out west are heavy on C-182 variants and C-206's when they can get them. C-172's were few and far between and only used for cadet training.

[NIN]

One of the things Gen Phelka spoke of during conference this weekend was a plan to pay for pilots to get their CFI in order to instruct cadets, with the expectation that they'll donate their time for two flight academies to repay the training. Very cool idea. He also specifically indicated that those new 172s are being purchased with flight training in mind.

This^^ (HandsomeWalt & I were at the same conference, heard the same words out of the General's mouth).

The only concern about fleet mix that I have is that 172s are, by and large, not super great platforms for other missions (ie. photography) besides training or cadet orientation flights. If we're committing to Cadet Wings/RPP and other "produce pilots" programs, those 172s should largely be a slight increase to our fleet, not a net-negative by taking mission-capable airframes out of the mix and replacing them with "training-specific" airframes.  (Example: in my wing, we have 2 172s, one of which is about to be sold in the next 5 months or so. For our mission mix, replacing the departing 172 with another 172 doesn't make sense: we're not doing so much flight training that we're even taxing either of the 172s we have now, let alone both. But we're always short on planes during our missions due to mx and such)

[PHall]

One of the things Gen Phelka spoke of during conference this weekend was a plan to pay for pilots to get their CFI in order to instruct cadets, with the expectation that they'll donate their time for two flight academies to repay the training. Very cool idea. He also specifically indicated that those new 172s are being purchased with flight training in mind.

This^^ (HandsomeWalt & I were at the same conference, heard the same words out of the General's mouth).

The only concern about fleet mix that I have is that 172s are, by and large, not super great platforms for other missions (ie. photography) besides training or cadet orientation flights. If we're committing to Cadet Wings/RPP and other "produce pilots" programs, those 172s should largely be a slight increase to our fleet, not a net-negative by taking mission-capable airframes out of the mix and replacing them with "training-specific" airframes.  (Example: in my wing, we have 2 172s, one of which is about to be sold in the next 5 months or so. For our mission mix, replacing the departing 172 with another 172 doesn't make sense: we're not doing so much flight training that we're even taxing either of the 172s we have now, let alone both. But we're always short on planes during our missions due to mx and such)

Actually we need to take a hard look at our current aircraft fleet. Many of those airframes were acquired back when we were flying lot and lots of ELT searches which isn't the case today.
We need to first figure out what is our current flying mission today is and then we can shape the fleet to meet those needs.

[Shuman 14]

Maybe we should order some AT-802's. Then we can help train future USAF SPEC-OPS pilots. 

[Fubar]

Actually we need to take a hard look at our current aircraft fleet. Many of those airframes were acquired back when we were flying lot and lots of ELT searches which isn't the case today.

We need to first figure out what is our current flying mission today is and then we can shape the fleet to meet those needs.

Hopefully that's what the Air Force study did (I haven't seen it and I don't know if it's been published). That's why I find it interesting that the order is so focused on flight training, it's almost as if the study thinks we don't have missions to fly anymore and should focus on training kids to fly for the Air Force.

[etodd]

..... should focus on training kids to fly for the Air Force.

Or elsewhere. The Cadet I just finished training for his PPL has been accepted to the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis this Fall. 

[jeders]

One of the things Gen Phelka spoke of during conference this weekend was a plan to pay for pilots to get their CFI in order to instruct cadets, with the expectation that they'll donate their time for two flight academies to repay the training. Very cool idea. He also specifically indicated that those new 172s are being purchased with flight training in mind.

This^^ (HandsomeWalt & I were at the same conference, heard the same words out of the General's mouth).

The only concern about fleet mix that I have is that 172s are, by and large, not super great platforms for other missions...

Yes and no, it all depends on what part of the country you're in. In the northeast and out on the west coast and in the Rockies, absolutely agree, the high/hot makes it difficult to maneuver safely. But for most of the rest of the country, 172s are great platforms for any number of missions (photo/DA, intercept training, fire watch, route surveys, SAR, etc.) even with 600+ pounds of crew on a 100+ degree day.

[PHall]

..... should focus on training kids to fly for the Air Force.

Or elsewhere. The Cadet I just finished training for his PPL has been accepted to the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis this Fall. 

I've had three cadets in the last three years get their PPL via $10,000 scholarships from the EAA.
Working their monthly Young Eagles flights pays off!

[NIN]

Yes and no, it all depends on what part of the country you're in. In the northeast and out on the west coast and in the Rockies, absolutely agree, the high/hot makes it difficult to maneuver safely. But for most of the rest of the country, 172s are great platforms for any number of missions (photo/DA, intercept training, fire watch, route surveys, SAR, etc.) even with 600+ pounds of crew on a 100+ degree day.

We're not exactly "high/hot" here. I'm 30 miles from the ocean and the local airpatch sits at 231' MSL.  Our biggest mountain is 6,288' MSL and we have plenty of time to climb if we need to fly directly over it for some reason. Highest airport is just shy of 1100' MSL.

We could probably stand to not put much gas in the plane. Its not like we ever fly needing that much endurance.  The state is pretty small

But when the plane doesn't come equipped from the factory with a DF unit, or a camera window (we had to have that added), the utility is still lacking.

[etodd]

But when the plane doesn't come equipped from the factory with a DF unit....

Are we making assumptions here, or have they said these 36 new planes will not have DFs?

If not, maybe the big 2021 Air Force study concluded that since 95% of the saves are the cell phone forenics team, maybe its time to cut back airborne DF? Let the ground crews get the few remaining beacons in the hangars. IDK?

Anyone seen the AF 2021 report?

[NIN]

Are we making assumptions here, or have they said these 36 new planes will not have DFs?

If not, maybe the big 2021 Air Force study concluded that since 95% of the saves are the cell phone forenics team, maybe its time to cut back airborne DF? Let the ground crews get the few remaining beacons in the hangars. IDK?

Anyone seen the AF 2021 report?

I have seen the AF 2021 report.  No matter what that report says, ELTs, EPIRBs and PLBs require a DF, not Cell Phone Forensics.

And I have a "new" Cessna 172 G1000Nxi that came w/o a DF and camera window from the factory.

[heliodoc]

WOW!

Got a link to that AF 2021 report?

[etodd]

No matter what that report says, ELTs, EPIRBs and PLBs require a DF, not Cell Phone Forensics.

Of course, but maybe its a numbers and stats issue now. The difference in "finds", an ELT in someone's house going off, and a true "Save" where a person's life was saved. How do all the stats play out now? What are the stats? The new ELTs and PLBs sendout gps coords. First responders go direct almost immediately. Much less need for crews to get dressed head to the airport and be in the air 2 hours later to try and triangulate an area for a ground team to begin working.

What are the stats?  Obviously the AF isn't seeing the need.

[PHall]

No matter what that report says, ELTs, EPIRBs and PLBs require a DF, not Cell Phone Forensics.

Of course, but maybe its a numbers and stats issue now. The difference in "finds", an ELT in someone's house going off, and a true "Save" where a person's life was saved. How do all the stats play out now? What are the stats? The new ELTs and PLBs sendout gps coords. First responders go direct almost immediately. Much less need for crews to get dressed head to the airport and be in the air 2 hours later to try and triangulate an area for a ground team to begin working.

What are the stats?  Obviously the AF isn't seeing the need.

Well, when was the last time you actually used the DF in the airplane? And how many times in the past year have you used it? Live missions only, not training missions please.

[etodd]

Well, when was the last time you actually used the DF in the airplane? And how many times in the past year have you used it? Live missions only, not training missions please.

Once about three years ago to find an ELT from a boat, nowhere near the water, in a salvage yard. Surprised the battery worked. LOLOLOL

Agree with the AF. New planes don't need DF.

[NIN]

Well, when was the last time you actually used the DF in the airplane? And how many times in the past year have you used it? Live missions only, not training missions please.

I know for sure we used a DF for a live PLB mission about 3 years ago. Wait, its 2023. It was longer than that. So no, we haven't had an airborne DF actual mission in the last year.

CAP has a number of core competencies, one of which is airbone electronic search. We do have a need for that sort of capability. ELTs, EPIRBs and PLBs on 406mhz and 121.5.

When we get particularly difficult PLB or EPIRB activations, sometimes its our ability to DF the signal (air or ground) versus the ground folk attempting to use the GPS reporting that is the difference between a save and a recovery.

We had a PLB activation here in 2017 that was particular challenging: the satellite-reported GPS positions were spread over an appx 15 square mile mountainous area. Unfortunately, due to the weather conditions our crew was unable to get down in the weeds to DF that signal (100kt winds in the target area, 6,200ft mountains, plus undercast and snow). We were able to give some locations that were narrowed down to one side of the mountain versus the other, so even reducing the potential search areas by half can be helpful to volunteer SAR teams getting blown off the mountain.

The question is not "do we still do it?" The question is "do we wish to maintain the capability?"  From where I sit, that capability is something we bring to the table as a key differnetiator from other orgs. If we stop doing it, and its still needed, SomeoneElse™ will pick up that ball and there's yet another potential mission set we've lost.

Its like the USAF: Just because they haven't had to deliver a nuclear weapon in the last 78 years doesn't mean that don't need to maintain the capability to do so.

[SarDragon]

Once about three years to find an ELT from a boat, nowhere near the water, in a salvage yard. Surprised the battery worked. LOLOLOL

Agree with the AF. New planes don't need DF.

I've done two of those, many moons ago. The batteries are pretty sturdy physically, and the unit gets turned on when it gets jostled around, so it doesn't transmit all that long.

[NIN]

BTW, appropos of the DF question: I believe the  new 182 still come with a Rho-Theta, so this capability discussion is a moot point, really.

But in our case: current 1/3 of my fleet are 172s. Counting aircraft down for mx, etc, you might come to a mission and there's 2 182s and 2 172s on the ramp. And one of those 172s is not DF equipped, so now thats an "AP or high-bird only" sortie.

Unless and until I have a larger contingent of CFIs willing to do cadet flight training, 172s have a much lesser degree of utility for us than 182s.

[etodd]

Unless and until I have a larger contingent of CFIs willing to do cadet flight training ....

"Had a successful pilot career? Help us train the next generation!"

Need the big marketing push.

[Larry Mangum]

I can tell you, that a mission that I am a project officer for, has been requested by our client, to fly the fastest aircraft CAP can field. C-182 and non-turbo C-206 are no longer sufficient for the mission objective. They still want us with our C-182 and C-206s but would prefer we provide a faster aircraft. I could not tell you what that should be, but the need is there.

[PHall]

I can tell you, that a mission that I am a project officer for, has been requested by our client, to fly the fastest aircraft CAP can field. C-182 and non-turbo C-206 are no longer sufficient for the mission objective. They still want us with our C-182 and C-206s but would prefer we provide a faster aircraft. I could not tell you what that should be, but the need is there.

I wonder if there's still some O-2's in the boneyard?

[coudano]

The new ELTs and PLBs sendout gps coords.

Meh...

If they are hooked up to do so, they will give the last good fix that the unit received.
Yep in those cases it's probably unlikely that CAP gets the callout in the first place.
The last good fix may or may not be "near" the final crash site, for lots of reasons.

So logically, we're going to get the ones that aren't hooked up for that, or those hookups aren't working correctly.  Which is rarer, but not zero.

Also if it's registered, the registered owner is likely to get a phone call when their beacon starts going off.  When pilot joe picks up the phone and finds out his beacon is going off he just goes and shuts it off.  That's a lot of callouts that CAP used to go on that we don't do anymore.  However, not all of them get registered, nor is the registration data always current/correct.

So logically if we are going on a search, there's a good chance it's for one that fits this description.


The number of these things we do since back when I started has definitely gone way down.  But it's not zero.


I'm just old fashioned enough and slightly suspicious of high availability technology enough, that I wouldn't drop the skillset just yet.

There's always tuning it on the NavComm and using wing null.  Not as sensitive of a receiver, and not as precise of a bearing, but you can get the job done with it.   I'd say that the number of wing null 'proficient' pilots is much smaller than the number of becker proficient pilots, though.

[blackrain]

Unless and until I have a larger contingent of CFIs willing to do cadet flight training ....

"Had a successful pilot career? Help us train the next generation!"

Need the big marketing push.

Been a minute since I last logged on CAPTALK (Great to see you FLYING PIG!) but we're having this very conversation in our wing. Definitely agree the long pole will be the number of CFIs which at the moment looks decent here in our little corner but can really fluctuate over time no matter how many 172s we buy. Also if the perception is the overwhelming focus is on instruction, then the unspoken message is "Only CFI's need apply" Don't underestimate the ES mission's ability to allow time building/seasoning as pilots look beyond initial training. Falcon Virgo is a prime example of the need for 182s for the mission. I would say if the government really wants consistent training for cadets they should just fund slots with the local FBO IMHO.

[NIN]

Interestingly, one of my wing's pilots was selected over the summer to attend CAP's USAF-funded CFI training program.   I didn't know this, but basically if you're a CAP pilot with a commercial certificate and an instrument rating, you're on the "potential candidate" list for this program. (new one on me, I was [today] years old when I read that this morning)

King CFI course materials, online ground school, then three weeks at an academy in Texas where you get 25-30-ish hrs and your checkride.

In return, you agree to give CAP your newly obtained CFI skillz for 6 events or activities (flight academies, basically) or 40hrs of flight instruction for cadets in the next five years. Senior flight instruction, orientation flights and "out of category" flight academies don't count. So if you got an Airplane CFI in addition to your CFI-G, teaching at a glider academy doens't count toward that 6.

Seem like a great deal if you qualify and have the time.

[blackrain]

Interestingly, one of my wing's pilots was selected over the summer to attend CAP's USAF-funded CFI training program.  I didn't know this, but basically if you're a CAP pilot with a commercial certificate and an instrument rating, you're on the "potential candidate" list for this program. (new one on me, I was [today] years old when I read that this morning)

King CFI course materials, online ground school, then three weeks at an academy in Texas where you get 25-30-ish hrs and your checkride.

In return, you agree to give CAP your newly obtained CFI skillz for 6 events or activities (flight academies, basically) or 40hrs of flight instruction for cadets in the next five years. Senior flight instruction, orientation flights and "out of category" flight academies don't count. So if you got an Airplane CFI in addition to your CFI-G, teaching at a glider academy doens't count toward that 6.

Seem like a great deal if you qualify and have the time.

I agree if it works for you (collective you lol) it can help the overall mission. I saw a survey on this some time ago asking if I was interested but my understanding was in reality the focus was on minorities becoming CFIs. Of course, that is a political hot potato I personally try hard to avoid. I would venture most CFIs out there are doing it to build the time to move on to bigger and better things and once they get to where they want instructing drops way down the list. On another note, if you are near an AFB or otherwise have a contingent of former Air Force pilots their IP time in the military means they're 90 percent to a civilian CFI. Based on what they did in the military some have to get the single engine add-on.

[NIN]

I agree if it works for you (collective you lol) it can help the overall mission. I saw a survey on this some time ago asking if I was interested but my understanding was in reality the focus was on minorities becoming CFIs. Of course, that is a political hot potato I personally try hard to avoid. I would venture most CFIs out there are doing it to build the time to move on to bigger and better things and once they get to where they want instructing drops way down the list. On another note, if you are near an AFB or otherwise have a contingent of former Air Force pilots their IP time in the military means they're 90 percent to a civilian CFI. Based on what they did in the military some have to get the single engine add-on.

I'm sure there's some diversity component (its AF money, and the AF is looking to improve the diversity of the pilot corps overall, both military and civilian, so you do what Big Momma Blue asks), but in the case of our pilot, he's a late 30s-early 40s Kiwi software engineer with kids who has no airline aspriations. He just wants to do cool things and introduce cadets to aviation.

[heliodoc]

I took that survey,too. I have no airline aspirations and more like aerial survey, if that

So where is CAP on the helping of us with Commercial ASEL,AMEL,Instrument types with getting our CFI/ CFII?

Word needs to get to us where CAP could "donate" its resources so we can "donate" our resources to the cause.....

[SARDOC]

Well, when was the last time you actually used the DF in the airplane? And how many times in the past year have you used it? Live missions only, not training missions please.

About 3 years ago.  Located an EPIRB floating in the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay

[PHall]

Well, when was the last time you actually used the DF in the airplane? And how many times in the past year have you used it? Live missions only, not training missions please.

About 3 years ago.  Located an EPIRB floating in the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay

Kinda makes you wonder if it's worth the cost and weight penalty anymore.

[SARDOC]

About 3 years ago.  Located an EPIRB floating in the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay

Kinda makes you wonder if it's worth the cost and weight penalty anymore.
[/quote]

I guess that really depends on how much money is it worth to save a life.  I've had a couple of distress finds (That weren't known to be in distress, in the last 5 years)

[PHall]

About 3 years ago.  Located an EPIRB floating in the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay

Kinda makes you wonder if it's worth the cost and weight penalty anymore.

I guess that really depends on how much money is it worth to save a life.  I've had a couple of distress finds (That weren't known to be in distress, in the last 5 years)
[/quote]


We were finding ELT's with aircraft long before The L'Per and the Becker came along. Wing shadowing works.

[NIN]

Kinda makes you wonder if it's worth the cost and weight penalty anymore.

The cost and weight penalty are miniscule compared to the loss of capability. Especially a "core competency" capability.

Look, man, the Air Force hasn't lobbed a nuclear weapon against an adversary since, what, 1945?  But yet: its still considered a major part of what they might be called on to do, so the aircraft are equipped for it, and the crews train for it.

[Fubar]

Look, man, the Air Force hasn't lobbed a nuclear weapon against an adversary since, what, 1945?  But yet: its still considered a major part of what they might be called on to do, so the aircraft are equipped for it, and the crews train for it.

Definitely true, but consider the context of an all-volunteer force training for something that never happens. I don't know if you saw anything nationally in the area of retention, but I've seen a number of people who leave CAP or stop participating in ES because they got tired of practicing something over and over that was never put into practice. I'd argue learning and then mastering a new skill is rewarding, but that's not enough for a lot of people.

I've also seen this in the fire service. We call it the "fire service" and your agency the "fire department" and you personally a "fire fighter" and you drive lights and siren in a "fire truck" where you then spend 99.9% of your time providing medical services. But man, when you're needed for that .1% of the time, you're really needed, but it's hard keeping people engaged.

One answer of course for retaining volunteers in either scenario is appropriately setting up expectations from the start. When people stop volunteering because of those correctly communicated expectations is when the real problem begins.

[NIN]

I said that for years as a ground team leader (my wing is not invited to the Ground SAR party by the state's SAR agency): You can only train for the "big game" so much and never get the phone call before you say "Why do I bother?"  Thats the reason I let my ground team leader qual lapse in the mid-2000s.

There was a pie-chart breakdown of our flying hours a couple years back at a command council meeting where I think it showed something around 1% of our flying was spent on actual Air SAR. (it was not a super great chart, graphically, and my photo of the screen displaying the chart was horrible, so I'd be lying if I said that I was SURE it said that... It did look that way)

That said, we still practice things like creeping line searches, grid searches, to at least have crew profiency in the task.  But are they the majority of our training?  No. Thats angled primarily toward aerial photography.

[PHall]

I said that for years as a ground team leader (my wing is not invited to the Ground SAR party by the state's SAR agency): You can only train for the "big game" so much and never get the phone call before you say "Why do I bother?"  Thats the reason I let my ground team leader qual lapse in the mid-2000s.

There was a pie-chart breakdown of our flying hours a couple years back at a command council meeting where I think it showed something around 1% of our flying was spent on actual Air SAR. (it was not a super great chart, graphically, and my photo of the screen displaying the chart was horrible, so I'd be lying if I said that I was SURE it said that... It did look that way)

That said, we still practice things like creeping line searches, grid searches, to at least have crew profiency in the task.  But are they the majority of our training?  No. Thats angled primarily toward aerial photography.

Because that's the mission we do these days.

[Paul Creed III]

The CAP Geospatial Program builds upon the photography mission in a big way.

https://gis.cap.gov/

[Fubar]

Because that's the mission we do these days.

Which returns to the original question, is the expense of the DF gear and the training required to be proficient in operating the DF gear worth it?

The answer likely varies by wing (we get no ELTs anymore vs. we get only 4-5 ELTs a year), but there's likely value in matching equipment to the mission parameters of a state.