Interesting story courtesy of the AFA:
http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2019/April%202019/Civil-Air-Patrol-Mulling-Future-of-Cessna-Fleet.aspx
Very interesting story, however I don't see a domestic manufacturer that competes with Cessna for our mission purposes.
Not to mention a pilot pool.
There's also the very real possibility a study like this
results in reduced airframes or more unmanned.
(Relax etodd).
Quote from: Eclipse on April 24, 2019, 01:36:01 PM
(Relax etodd).
;D ;D ;D ;D
We really enjoy our aircraft, as you can tell by my FB replies to that article. Our 2015 172/G1000 is perfect for Cadet training (we have two working on PPL now). I completed IFR in it last year, and currently working on Commercial. Goal is to get CFI/II in a year so I can train Cadets. We're happy to keep it. Our Squadron was offered a new 182 last year but turned it down to keep our 172 for training.
CAP operates Cessna caravans, right?
Quote from: etodd on April 24, 2019, 03:12:02 PM
We really enjoy our aircraft, as you can tell by my FB replies to that article. Our 2015 172/G1000 is perfect for Cadet training (we have two working on PPL now). I completed IFR in it last year, and currently working on Commercial. Goal is to get CFI/II in a year so I can train Cadets. We're happy to keep it. Our Squadron was offered a new 182 last year but turned it down to keep our 172 for training.
This is a very real issue in some parts of the country.
Some wings have no Cessna 172s at all. Sure, you *can* do primary training in a 182, but is it optimal? In many cases no.
Some of the more mountainous states have T182s, too. Thats likely an even
less appropriate platform for primary.
Quote from: Color Guard Rifleman on April 24, 2019, 03:27:55 PM
CAP operates Cessna caravans, right?
negative. No turbine-engined aircraft.
Quote from: NIN on April 24, 2019, 03:30:59 PM
This is a very real issue in some parts of the country.
Some wings have no Cessna 172s at all. Sure, you *can* do primary training in a 182, but is it optimal? In many cases no.
It wasn't a simple decision for us. We discussed it at length. On the one hand having a spacious 182 with the ability to carry 3 "larger" Senior members on missions is certainly desirable, we are fortunate enough that our aircrew members are smaller that average, so W&B works. LOL
So it was easier for us to consider the advantages to keeping the 172 for training, and "making do" with the tighter back seat fit for actual missions.
IOW .... we prioritized Cadets ... and sacrificed comfort as Seniors. Makes me even more proud of the Squadron I belong to. :)
Quote from: NIN on April 24, 2019, 03:30:59 PM
Some of the more mountainous states have T182s, too. Thats likely an even less appropriate platform for primary.
Nevada has 182s, 206s and a GA8. And it is going to be even more of a problem soon as we have a cadet who is going through the JROTC flight training this summer and should graduate with his PPL. Then he is supposed to join CAP (not needed in this case) and fly an hour a month.
Quote from: Color Guard Rifleman on April 24, 2019, 03:42:03 PM
So it is just C-172/182/152's?
Cessna 172s, 182s and 206s
We have no 152s.
I'm not even sure Cessna makes them anymore. EDIT: Cessna doesn't even manufacture that airplane anymore.
Quote from: NIN on April 24, 2019, 03:31:21 PM
Quote from: Color Guard Rifleman on April 24, 2019, 03:27:55 PM
CAP operates Cessna caravans, right?
negative. No turbine-engined aircraft.
Also they cost in excess of a Million dollars! :o
I have been informed that our 206s are turbo.
Quote from: GaryVC on April 24, 2019, 05:32:18 PM
I have been informed that our 206s are turbo.
Some of the newer 206's are turbo. But that's turbo as in turbocharged.
The turbo he was referring to in the Cessna Caravan question is a Turboprop.
Totally different and much, much more expensive!
For those interested in the details, the solicitation, posted on April 19 with response required by April 26, is here: https://www.fbo.gov/notices/91fd0ac4fea78cbf0a401e4a49d6083a
THIS IS A SOURCES SOUGHT ANNOUNCEMENT ONLY. THIS IS NOT A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL.
The purpose of this announcement is to conduct market research to determine the availability and capability of businesses to provide fleet modernization consultation at Tyndall AFB, Florida.
Some of the items in the Performance Work Statement - Civil Air Patrol (CAP) Fleet Mix, Mission, and Modernization Study
> because CAP is comprised of pilots who have a wide range of experience levels, the contractor shall also consider how "forgiving" an aircraft is as well as how rugged it is if a pilot commits error.
> contractor must have expertise in the following: A thorough understanding of large volunteer organizations and Federal Aviation Regulations
> an understanding of operational employment by the USAF and by CAP on a corporate level
> a working knowledge of Air Force Missions sets, Air Force Regulations and Customs, and Air Force Air Tasking Order process
> a full understanding of CAP missions conducted on behalf of the Air Force, Federal and State Agencies
> an understanding of "corporate" and other CAP missions that could further national objectives
> a thorough knowledge of CAP is highly desired
>The contractor shall provide a resume of each person that would perform work in the execution/fulfillment of the SOW. CAP volunteers, paid CAP employees, or CAP Board of Governors members are prohibited from being awarded this contract and may not receive compensation from the awardee in the development of this study.
It's one of those proposals written with someone in mind, similar to someone who recently retired.
Mike
There has been some discussion of obtaining Caravans for the Green Flag program, as the 182's just don't have the legs for the desired sortie length. Also with all of the gear that is carried, many potential crew members are not eligible to participate in the program. Ideally, to not exceed the weight limit crew members currently need to weight less than 180 lbs.
Quote from: Larry Mangum on April 24, 2019, 06:56:15 PM
There has been some discussion of obtaining Caravans for the Green Flag program, as the 182's just don't have the legs for the desired sortie length. Also with all of the gear that is carried, many potential crew members are not eligible to participate in the program. Ideally, to not exceed the weight limit crew members currently need to weight less than 180 lbs.
That would make sense because they also usually have a longer service life and would allow SAR aircrews to stay in the air longer during a mission
Quote from: Larry Mangum on April 24, 2019, 06:56:15 PM
Ideally, to not exceed the weight limit crew members currently need to weight less than 180 lbs.
Might be a good idea to implement for aircrews CAP wide. That would sure give me the incentive to knock off 10 pounds in no time flat. ;)
Quote from: etodd on April 24, 2019, 07:02:11 PM
Quote from: Larry Mangum on April 24, 2019, 06:56:15 PM
Ideally, to not exceed the weight limit crew members currently need to weight less than 180 lbs.
Might be a good idea to implement for aircrews CAP wide. That would sure give me the incentive to knock off 10 pounds in no time flat. ;)
That or yout New Years resolution if you haven't already stopped working on that. ;)
Quote from: NIN on April 24, 2019, 04:12:14 PM
Quote from: Color Guard Rifleman on April 24, 2019, 03:42:03 PM
So it is just C-172/182/152's?
Cessna 172s, 182s and 206s
We have no 152s. I'm not even sure Cessna makes them anymore. EDIT: Cessna doesn't even manufacture that airplane anymore.
Doesn't AKWG have some odd aircraft too? I thought they still had some Mauls and various float planes out there.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 24, 2019, 07:09:58 PM
Quote from: NIN on April 24, 2019, 04:12:14 PM
Quote from: Color Guard Rifleman on April 24, 2019, 03:42:03 PM
So it is just C-172/182/152's?
Cessna 172s, 182s and 206s
We have no 152s. I'm not even sure Cessna makes them anymore. EDIT: Cessna doesn't even manufacture that airplane anymore.
Doesn't AKWG have some odd aircraft too? I thought they still had some Mauls and various float planes out there.
Some are still able to have them reattached if they are not permanently attached but they don't use them for O-Flights, only sorties or SAR aircrew missions is what I have heard
Quote from: lordmonar on April 24, 2019, 07:09:58 PM
Doesn't AKWG have some odd aircraft too? I thought they still had some Mauls and various float planes out there.
There are a number of Maules I believe. I know of at least one here in the Southeast. Got checked out in it last summer.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 24, 2019, 07:09:58 PM
Quote from: NIN on April 24, 2019, 04:12:14 PM
Quote from: Color Guard Rifleman on April 24, 2019, 03:42:03 PM
So it is just C-172/182/152's?
Cessna 172s, 182s and 206s
We have no 152s. I'm not even sure Cessna makes them anymore. EDIT: Cessna doesn't even manufacture that airplane anymore.
Doesn't AKWG have some odd aircraft too? I thought they still had some Mauls and various float planes out there.
They used to, like Beavers and 180s.
But the "one offs" have been whittled down over the years due to maintenance and supportability. Costs a lot to keep a 50 year old Beaver with a radial (that isn't used by other fleet aircraft) flying. Even in Alaska.
Maules are still around in places as tow aircraft.
Quote from: NIN on April 24, 2019, 09:04:25 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 24, 2019, 07:09:58 PM
Quote from: NIN on April 24, 2019, 04:12:14 PM
Quote from: Color Guard Rifleman on April 24, 2019, 03:42:03 PM
So it is just C-172/182/152's?
Cessna 172s, 182s and 206s
We have no 152s. I'm not even sure Cessna makes them anymore. EDIT: Cessna doesn't even manufacture that airplane anymore.
Doesn't AKWG have some odd aircraft too? I thought they still had some Mauls and various float planes out there.
They used to, like Beavers and 180s.
But the "one offs" have been whittled down over the years due to maintenance and supportability. Costs a lot to keep a 50 year old Beaver with a radial (that isn't used by other fleet aircraft) flying. Even in Alaska.
Maules are still around in places as tow aircraft.
Which is what they were brought for, glider tow planes.
Quote from: PHall on April 24, 2019, 11:17:40 PM
Quote from: NIN on April 24, 2019, 09:04:25 PM
Maules are still around in places as tow aircraft.
Which is what they were brought for, glider tow planes.
Really, Phil? I thought it was for their dashing looks and witty after-dinner repartee..
I'm surprised there's concern about having longer air sorties. Most the pilots I know refuse to stay in the air for much more than an hour because of the biological need for a break :D
Quote from: Fubar on April 25, 2019, 03:02:30 AM
I'm surprised there's concern about having longer air sorties. Most the pilots I know refuse to stay in the air for much more than an hour because of the biological need for a break :D
You must fly with some real wimps. Out here in the west 2.5 hours is pretty much the norm.
We aim for an hour in grid plus travel time to the grid and back.
Quote from: PHall on April 25, 2019, 03:13:01 AM
Quote from: Fubar on April 25, 2019, 03:02:30 AM
I'm surprised there's concern about having longer air sorties. Most the pilots I know refuse to stay in the air for much more than an hour because of the biological need for a break :D
You must fly with some real wimps. Out here in the west 2.5 hours is pretty much the norm.
We aim for an hour in grid plus travel time to the grid and back.
With these I can outlast the fuel tanks. ;D ;D ;D
(https://www.sportys.com/media/catalog/product/cache/2/image/300x/602f0fa2c1f0d1ba5e241f914e856ff9/1/3/13090_3.jpg)
Quote from: etodd on April 25, 2019, 03:31:56 AM
Quote from: PHall on April 25, 2019, 03:13:01 AM
Quote from: Fubar on April 25, 2019, 03:02:30 AM
I'm surprised there's concern about having longer air sorties. Most the pilots I know refuse to stay in the air for much more than an hour because of the biological need for a break :D
You must fly with some real wimps. Out here in the west 2.5 hours is pretty much the norm.
We aim for an hour in grid plus travel time to the grid and back.
With these I can outlast the fuel tanks. ;D ;D ;D
(https://www.sportys.com/media/catalog/product/cache/2/image/300x/602f0fa2c1f0d1ba5e241f914e856ff9/1/3/13090_3.jpg)
Do a search for "Brief Relief".
There are currently five Maules - two in NER, and three in SER. The DHC-2 Beavers are all gone. There are 16 GA-8s - four in AK, and the remainder scattered around. Alaska has three A185F Skywagons. The remainder of the fleet is all Cessna - 172, 182, and 206.
I believe that NYWG and CTWG have been sharing one of the GA-8's... FWIW
I just took the info out of WMIRS, which says that they are assigned to the respective regions, not any individual wing.
It seems that the 206s, GA-8s and MT-7s wind up being "region floaters" where they get based in a particular wing for a particular purpose or mission, and they do sometimes "move around" .
We had one of the NER 206s up here a few years ago, long enough to get some folks checked out. The problem is, its hard to stay current because it moves. You get checked out, then the plane goes away.
I know at least one of the NER Maules gets used at Springfield, VT for glider tow at the glider academy and for summer glider ops. Not sure if the other one comes up here, or if its flying gliders further south.
The Devil in the Details, and the Seat Rails...
http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/N95KW-Cessna-Seat-Rails-1989.htm
And this pertains to fleet diversification in what way?
Quote from: PHall on April 25, 2019, 04:57:50 AM
Do a search for "Brief Relief".
The travel johns are the same thing, but cheaper. :)