Use of member-owned aircraft

[Eclipse]

Over the last few days several posters have asserted that allowing members to use their own aircraft would increase retention, and in general just be "better".

The insinuation, generally, is that use of Member-Owned Aircraft (MOA) is prohibited.

Far from it, as is indicated below.

Any member who can make the case that there is a need for their MOA, can get authorization for its use and flight funding.

The reality is that generally there is no need.  Most states have more than enough aircraft based on the number of active pilots, and the vast majority of MOA's are not equipped with CAP radios, DF gear, SDIS power and antenna connections, etc.

"I don't like the glass cockpit / S-model / not having wheel skirts / the plane's manager / where its hangered, etc.", are not legitimate excuses for using your own plane.  Resources, vehicles, facilities, etc., in CAP are limited and planted where the most people can make the best use of them in someone's subjective opinion.  Everyone else has to "get to them". Why should pilots be any different?

Most of us have to drive a ground vehicle everywhere we go, on our own nickel.  GA pilots know going in they are sacrificing expense for convenience.  Nothing says you can't fly your own airplane to mission base to save the cost of a hotel.  In a lot of cases its a wash vs. driving and staying overnight and you get your weekend back.

Further, those people making the assertions omit or ignore the fact that the majority of pilots in CAP do not own their own aircraft, and many that do would be precluded from using them (for CAP) due to insurance restrictions or joint-ownership agreements which preclude the use of an MOA for government or business use.

The pilots that I know personally who have left CAP over these types of disagreements have little issue with using an MOA, and more about the Form 5's, 91's, and other currency requirements that would be required in any case.

Member owned aircraft may be used, when authorized by the region or wing commander, in furtherance of Air Force assigned missions, including proficiency and training, only when corporate aircraft are not suitable, not available for the mission, are less economical, or when member owned aircraft are needed to transport aircrews to corporate aircraft or the mission base. The wing commander may issue a longer-term approval (instead of each time) as long as the criteria above are satisfied for every mission.

John A. Salvador
Director of Operations, HQ CAP
Voice: (334) 953-4223
Fax: (800) 555-7902

Attachment 1 – Aircraft Flying Hour Minor Maintenance Payment Rates

2. Use of single-engine member-owned or member-furnished aircraft must be approved in advance for all missions.
a. Use in Air Force assigned missions requires approval by the appropriate Air Force approval authority. It also requires the member to complete an Air Force hold harmless agreement.
b. Use in corporate missions requires approval by the wing/region commander or director of operations/director of emergency services.
c. Single-engine member-owned or member-furnished aircraft models that have been approved in accordance with this note but are not listed in the table above will be reimbursed at the "Basic Hourly Rate."

3. The use of all twin-engine aircraft for any mission requires prior approval through the wing/region and the appropriate Air Force approval authority (through the National Operations Center.) It also requires the member to complete an Air Force hold harmless agreement. (See Attachment 1 for additional information)

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]

I think it is a potential resource that we have only limited access to because of decisions that we have made ourselves.  I agree that they shouldn't be our first choice, but they should be something that we can make use of without having to make a federal case out of it. 

As I proposed in another thread, for the price of 2-3 new C-182s we could increase our available fleet size by about 25% by outfitting MOAs with loaned CAP radios.  This would be a great resource on major search missions.  Unless you're in a big state, aircraft can be a limiting factor.  Sure, we can call in resources from other states, but that ain't easy to do and costs a lot of money. 

Theres no way to prove how the increasing focus on use of CAP aircraft has impacted pilot retention, but I'm sure that it doesn't help us keep pilots with their own aircraft any. 

[Short Field]

When we have AFAMs to fly and need additional aircraft, we have had ZERO problems getting a member-owned airplane authorized for the mission.  Last time this happened was this last weekend.

[sparks]

Obviously there is a wide variety of experiences that conflict. My example is no experience with a member owned aircraft being authorized for a CAP flight. The mantra had been that training funds are for corporate aircraft so they can get the mandated 200 hours of flight time. Paying for personal aircraft takes that money and hours away from the fleet. It makes sense but also restricts some operations. Specifically, "O" flights don't happen at squadrons without an airplane. Sure, there is a formula for ferry time and "O" flights that is available but it isn't the same as having the flexibility of an aircraft near the squadron.

Given the lack of ELT trackers and CAP radios member aircraft may not do well in the actual search mode. IMHO

This might be resolved if CAP adjusts the mission to meet changing customer needs. CGAUX can use member aircraft we should  too.

[RiverAux]

Given the lack of ELT trackers

I don't see that as a problem.  They can still use their aircraft radio and wing null techniques to find ELTs if they absolutely have to as part of an actual missing aircraft search.  At worst they would be flying their grid, hear an ELT but not be able to pin it down exactly -- so, RTB them and send in a CAP aircraft.  Thats a good tradeoff in my book if we can use MOAs to get more grids searched -- especially in those searches where you have almost no clues and half a state to search.

As to lack of CAP radios in the plane.  Don't forget that we can use several different aviation frequencies for communications if necessary.  123.1 MHz for example is the SAR frequency.   Not a perfect substitute for CAP radios, but it can be made to work.

My only reservation about MOAs is maintenance issues.  Can someone enlighten me about the differences between what is required for privately-owned aircraft and what CAP does?         

[Eclipse]

My only reservation about MOAs is maintenance issues.  Can someone enlighten me about the differences between what is required for privately-owned aircraft and what CAP does?

There isn't any, other than with CAP we can have a fairly high confidence level that its done on time with no fudging and by somebody with their name on the door.

[wingnut55]

well opinions are a dime a dozen but from a state that has "0" money for maintenance

WE are the things to come, and MEMBER OWNED AIRCRAFT are what 30% 40%50% cheaper to operate. You do the math.  CAPs history was founded on the use of MOA and we are being begged to use them now.

Declining Pilot membership??? ask why CAP cannot support the current mission now in many locations. And you want to ask for more. We as an organization will be embarrassed And it had much to do with the misuse of CAP owned aircraft, and to make it worse the Aircraft bought and payed for by the United States Tax Payer. BELONGS TO THEM>>> That is how people with common sense look at it. Corporation my butt.

CAP is Chartered by the U.S. Congress we should offer our services in an Efficient and the less costly way. Not have 500 expensive airplanes. we did not need 500 airplanes in 2000  as revealed by DOD investigation & GAO investigation.

and there are 100,000 less General aviation pilots since 1998???

But just wait for the next GAO investigation??

[Eclipse]

WE are the things to come, and MEMBER OWNED AIRCRAFT are what 30% 40%50% cheaper to operate. You do the math. 

First please provide the citation for that assertion, then I'll do the math.
Fuel is fuel.  No gain.

I think you are confusing actual cost with perceived cost.  My ground POV costs CAP exactly zee-ro to operate and they reimburse me for the fuel.  I can assure you its costs considerably more than zee-ro to own and maintain my POV.

...ask why CAP cannot support the current mission now in many locations.

Cite please.

CAPs history was founded on the use of MOA and we are being begged to use them now.

Begged by whom?

The USAF?  No.

General Membership?  No.

[Auxpilot]

well opinions are a dime a dozen but from a state that has "0" money for maintenance

WE are the things to come, and MEMBER OWNED AIRCRAFT are what 30% 40%50% cheaper to operate. You do the math.  CAPs history was founded on the use of MOA and we are being begged to use them now.

Declining Pilot membership??? ask why CAP cannot support the current mission now in many locations. And you want to ask for more. We as an organization will be embarrassed And it had much to do with the misuse of CAP owned aircraft, and to make it worse the Aircraft bought and payed for by the United States Tax Payer. BELONGS TO THEM>>> That is how people with common sense look at it. Corporation my butt.

CAP is Chartered by the U.S. Congress we should offer our services in an Efficient and the less costly way. Not have 500 expensive airplanes. we did not need 500 airplanes in 2000  as revealed by DOD investigation & GAO investigation.

and there are 100,000 less General aviation pilots since 1998???

But just wait for the next GAO investigation??

I may be off but I am under the impression that A) the number of aircraft in 2000 was higher (550?) and was reduced as a result of the audit and B) the number of aircraft hours (utilization rate per plane) has been improving. If I am correct, a GAO inspection should show a positive trend.

Where are we not meeting our mission?

I fail to see how the misuse of CAP aircraft has anything to do with declining pilot membership?? It would appear that several other factors are in play here - the rising cost of primary flight instruction - the skyrocketing cost of fuel - and the overall number of GA pilots in decline.

Flying CAP owned aircraft allows a lot of folks that cannot otherwise afford to fly and own a plane to use the pilot skills that they have for the common good. I would venture to say that there are a lot of units out there with more pilots that do not own vs. those that do.

Take away the CAP planes and watch the membership drop like a rock.

[dbaran]

I don't know where wingnut55 is located, but CAWG has a bunch of its airplanes grounded because we are out of maint. money and can't afford to do all that the airplanes need done.    Last September, National told us that we'd be on consolidated maint early this year - and it still hasn't happened.  As of about a month ago, they hadn't even talked to shops for the initial rate quotes.

Add in the high cost of labor and liability insurance in CA and we have shop rates for labor in excess of $100 in places.  When you get paid a National rate, but pay CA prices, you just can't make ends meet.  The new airplanes aren't the issue - but we have some that have been in service more than 15 years, and they need work.  As an example, we had a 206 where the elevator had to be replaced last year because of corrosion, and most recently - a bunch of cylinder issues on multiple airplanes at the same time. 

Wingnut's concern about not being able to support the mission may be true in the future; we have curtailed almost all flying except A missions, and pilots are being actively encouraged to fly their airplanes where appropriate (i.e., AFROTC O-rides).    It does make economic sense - if we know we get $X/hour for flying an AFROTC O-Ride, and the pilot is willing to take it, it ensures that the mission gets done and there is no increased cost for CAP (because most of our older planes do cost more than $X/hour to operate). 

Eclipse - Wingnut's statement about being begged to use MOA is true - the ops people need to keep the missions supported, but can't afford to do it with corporate aircraft.    It is completely in line with CAWG's MOA policy: use the CAP airplane first if you can, but use a MOA if the CAP airplane isn't available.   

The question was asked about maint. differences for CAP corporate aircraft versus MOA's.  One big difference is that MOAs have one annual per year, but CAP corporate aircraft have an "almost an annual" every 100 flight hours (so effectively there is an extra almost annual in the middle).   CAP also requires replacement of certain things on fixed intervals (i.e., prop & gov overhaul every 5 calendar years), while most owners do stuff like that when it needs it.   CAP maintains to a higher standard than owners are required to.

Another big difference is that owners manage for a lower total cost of ownership while CAP manages for high aircraft availability.   The shop where my aircraft is based (international airport) charges $120/hour if you taxi your plane up to the shop and say "fix it today, please."  If you call them and say "Fix it when you've got time," they charge about $80/hour.  CAP fixes it now - us owners park it and fly an airline to get places while the plane is being fixed.    That's a cost of being in the emergency response business - we can't hold off on a search until the maint. is cheap.

[Eclipse]

How does a wing "run out of money" for maintenance, which is a nationally-funded expense?

One wing's "failure to plan" is not an organizational problem, its a local one that needs fixing, as does the consolidated maintenance issue, which I believe is primarily dependent on local coordination, not NHQ.

[dbaran]

When it costs you more to maintain airplanes than you receive to fly them... you will run out of money. 

The way it works (because we are not on consolidated maint) is that Wing has to pay for "minor maintenance" items and we are reimbursed by National/USAF at a particular rate per hour.  Fly enough hours when you are losing money on each hour, and you will eventually run out of money.    What we can charge for airplanes (C mission) hours is set by National - what we get for A mission hours is set by National at one rate for the entire US; what shops charge in CA is set by the market and covers the very high workers' comp, liability, and environmental costs that businesses face here.

The dry rate on a rental 182 here is $113/hour (non profit flying club).  If you take out the engine reserve (major maint - paid by National, even before we are on consolidated maint) and the owner's profit, it works out that CAWG is losing about $30/hour for each hour the 182 flies.  If we could charge more for C mission flying, that would help - but we aren't allowed to make money off of a CAP asset, even if the money goes to support that airplane.  Been there - tried that.

It is not a failure to plan - we were told that we weren't the ones doing the planning, and that we had to follow the National plan.

The issue of "CA costs more" is an obvious one to all of us here.   Two years ago, people started talking to National to help them understand that a 182 annual will not happen in California for $800.  National assured us that all of this would being factored into the plan, and they (correctly) decided to not use a national rate but rather to put the plan out for bid across local shops.

I was at the meeting (wing conf) last fall where National told wing to spend the remaining balance on engine monitors, standby vacuum systems, etc. because we were going on consolidated maint in less than 3 months and we'd just lose the money.    We did a little of that, but figured that we'd better sit on some money in case something went astray.  I came away from that meeting feeling better about consolidated maint, because National told us that a) it saved CAP money b) it provided a higher quality maint. experience by having approved shops c) it provided more flight hours which helps pilot proficiency and d) it had been implemented almost everywhere else without major issues.  They were just late getting to us since we're way over here on the left coast.

The switchover to consolidated maint. is NOT dependent  on local coordination once we give them a list of the shops that we have used and would like them to consider; National sends out the RFIs, collects the bids, and makes the decisions.   This is their choice to ensure that the process is fair to all and represents the best use of the taxpayer's money.

Once the program is in place, only then it becomes something that we can do locally.    We gave them a list of the shops that we use (so they would know where to send the RFIs) last year, but they've been working on other things. 

All of us out here hope that National gets to this soon.

[RiverAux]

Regarding reduction of the CAP fleet...there was a period where we had more planes than we were supposed to because we had bought new ones and hadn't sold the old ones yet.  But, I think I saw in one of the more recent national meetings that they were looking for a small permanent increase in our fleet size.  I could be wrong about that. 

FYI, CA Wing could "charge" more for corporate missions so long as they are are charging at least 1 cent less than the average cost for a similar commercial service.  You aren't restricted to the aircraft cost reimbursement rate table. 

[Eclipse]

I thought they were also going to "zero-out" a bunch of airframes through refurbs...

[RiverAux]

I think that was it -- instead of selling the 172s as we normally would, they were going to refurb them and thereby permanently increase the fleet size.