The CA Highway Patrol and San Bernardino County Sheriff has selected the GA8 Airvan as their new platform of to replace their T206H's. I wonder if whoever decided this actually spent 4-6hrs a day in one. Just so many other airframes out there..... Father forgive them for they know not what they do. I guess for that they are going to use them for... its not to bad though. They were looking at Quest Kodiaks but that was going to be an unbelievable purchase price. Should look good with the CHP paint scheme. The CHP is putting the MX15 on their airplanes with AeroComputers and they are slowly starting to replace their helicopters for patrol and are using the planes for patrol functions more now, leaving the helicopters for EMS and SAR missions.
http://www.8viation.com/en/oem/all/others/1301-mahindra-aerospace-s-ga8-airvan-wins-california-highway-patrol-competitive-bid (http://www.8viation.com/en/oem/all/others/1301-mahindra-aerospace-s-ga8-airvan-wins-california-highway-patrol-competitive-bid)
We should sell ours to them. Seriously.
At least one of us would end up a winner in the deal. Mahindra Aerospace/Gipps Aero must have some killer sales guys.
I bet there will be new seats on those birds in short order.
"Outstanding High and Hot performance"???? They're not talking about the version CAP got.
Oh look, they even use CAP in their sales pitch:
"Successfully flying ISR missions internationally since 2003, the Airvan is in daily service in the United States with 16 flown by the USAF Auxiliary Civil Air Patrol."
I love the GA-8 as a platform for photography, I think its the best we have. That being said, I have never ridden in the front seats.
Every Airvan ad I have read, I think mentions CAP. They just fail to mention that CAP doesn't really use them for anything.
Quote from: A.Member on July 01, 2014, 02:59:39 PM
We should sell ours to them. Seriously.
At least one of us would end up a winner in the deal. Mahindra Aerospace/Gipps Aero must have some killer sales guys.
No! We should put the MX-15 on ours and get them out into the field doing Missions for America!
Go with the MX10
Quote from: lordmonar on July 01, 2014, 04:15:09 PM
Quote from: A.Member on July 01, 2014, 02:59:39 PM
We should sell ours to them. Seriously.
At least one of us would end up a winner in the deal. Mahindra Aerospace/Gipps Aero must have some killer sales guys.
No! We should put the MX-15 on ours and get them out into the field doing Missions for America!
We don't need them. Sell the GA-8s and we can use the proceeds to actually by a MX-15 (or MX-10) and have them installed on 172/182 that actually get flown.
BTW, this would actually be my choice of an IR/camera gimball for CAP use: TASE200 (http://www.cloudcaptech.com/gimbal_tase150-200.shtm)
It's much more cost effective and provides more than enough performance with ease of use for our purposes, not to mention they have an easy, non-structual strut mount. At the price point we could afford to equip many more airframes with useable and accepted technology.
If you had a ball on the GA-8 it would get flown.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 01, 2014, 04:55:38 PM
If you had a ball on the GA-8 it would get flown.
It's performance is lackluster (no better than a 172). It's not a "familiar" airframe. It requires two crew. Per hour cost is high. Etc. It's a poor aircraft choice for us.
Our value proposition is ease of use and cost effective. That's the Cessna airframe. K.I.S.S. should be the unwritten rule of our organization.
Quote from: A.Member on July 01, 2014, 04:46:53 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 01, 2014, 04:15:09 PM
Quote from: A.Member on July 01, 2014, 02:59:39 PM
We should sell ours to them. Seriously.
At least one of us would end up a winner in the deal. Mahindra Aerospace/Gipps Aero must have some killer sales guys.
No! We should put the MX-15 on ours and get them out into the field doing Missions for America!
We don't need them. Sell them and we can use the proceeds to actually by a MX-15 (or MX-10) and have them installed on 172/182 that actually get flown.
BTW, this would actually be my choice for CAP use: TASE200 (http://www.cloudcaptech.com/gimbal_tase150-200.shtm)
It's much more cost effective and provides more than enough performance with ease of use for our purposes, not to mention they have an easy, non-structual strut mount. At the price point we could afford to equip many more airframes with useable and accepted technology.
Quite honestly man.... that stuff is junk. CAP would be better served staying out of the IR business vs buying that stuff. Ive operationally used the MX15, MX10 pretty much all models of the FLIR..8000, 8500, Ultra9HD, Safire, StarFire and even the new 380HD, Wescam models. Those low budget gimbals are like doing a surveillance with a $15 set of Walmart Binos.
Quote from: Flying Pig on July 01, 2014, 05:01:21 PM
Quote from: A.Member on July 01, 2014, 04:46:53 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 01, 2014, 04:15:09 PM
Quote from: A.Member on July 01, 2014, 02:59:39 PM
We should sell ours to them. Seriously.
At least one of us would end up a winner in the deal. Mahindra Aerospace/Gipps Aero must have some killer sales guys.
No! We should put the MX-15 on ours and get them out into the field doing Missions for America!
We don't need them. Sell them and we can use the proceeds to actually by a MX-15 (or MX-10) and have them installed on 172/182 that actually get flown.
BTW, this would actually be my choice for CAP use: TASE200 (http://www.cloudcaptech.com/gimbal_tase150-200.shtm)
It's much more cost effective and provides more than enough performance with ease of use for our purposes, not to mention they have an easy, non-structual strut mount. At the price point we could afford to equip many more airframes with useable and accepted technology.
Quite honestly man.... that stuff is junk. CAP would be better served staying out of the IR business vs buying that stuff. Ive operationally used the MX15, MX10 pretty much all models of the FLIR..8000, 8500, Ultra9HD, Safire, StarFire and even the new 380HD, Wescam models. Those low budget gimbals are like doing a surveillance with a $15 set of Walmart Binos.
Can you expand on that?
I've seen their demos and their performance seems more than adequate for our use. Remember, we're not LEOs using this stuff on a daily basis.
Video example (on par with what I've seen):
TASE200 Gimbal - Daylight Camera - Scene Steering - Truck Fire (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oaMZ7Pji-4#)
The three CAP planes I'm aware of (WYWG 182 and 206, NDWG 182) are all equipped with the FLIR 8500. The planes are modified by Paravion in Fort Collins, CO, which also does the SP ball mods for CAP, and is the company GippAero/Mahindra uses for their ISR mods.
Mike
If CAP is going to go out and perform "Missions for America" they need to use the proper equipment. If CAP cant find the funding for the equipment needed, CAP needs to stay out of that mission. Not attempt to provide the Dollar Store solution to real world problems. Ive flown with the exact system you mentioned. Again..... the IR feature is pretty lacking. The color camera is what it is. More airplanes with lower grade low budget technology or few planes with mission equipment performance that customers expect? Id go with quality not quantity.
The funding for the systems on all three CAP planes came from their states. The wings just installed what their customers bought.
Mike
Quote from: Flying Pig on July 01, 2014, 05:22:00 PM
If CAP is going to go out and perform "Missions for America" they need to use the proper equipment. If CAP cant find the funding for the equipment needed, CAP needs to stay out of that mission. Not attempt to provide the Dollar Store solution to real world problems. Ive flown with the exact system you mentioned. Again..... the IR feature is pretty lacking. The color camera is what it is. More airplanes with lower grade low budget technology or few planes with mission equipment performance that customers expect? Id go with quality not quantity.
I don't disagree but there is a balance between cost and quality (and price does not necessarily equal quality; that doesn't mean a lower cost solution is "Dollar Store" either).
Our mission requirements are not necessrily the same as those of LEOs or military. We don't need enough detail to determine what someone is holding. We plow along at 90kts, 1000' ft AGL. We just need to identify that a potential target exists (usually person size or larger). If so, we send a ground team to investigate further. As a result, we don't need a Raytheon AN/AAS-52. Nonetheless, some agencies clearly have found some of the lower priced options to be acceptable at some level. Ex:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_fPBb6IHOE&feature=player_embedded# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_fPBb6IHOE&feature=player_embedded#)
TASE400 Gimbal - MWIR and Daylight Camera - Zoom in Residential Area (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgOIeC49Jf8#)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KQSJ4Gq0Y9Q# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KQSJ4Gq0Y9Q#)
The question is where that crossroad of diminishing returns lies? What is the best bang for our buck? It's a discussion worth having.
Is the TASE200 the best solution? If not, maybe the TASE400 is? Either way, I strongly believe we do not need to spend $400+K per unit to have an effective solution (now if you find me donors, I'll take them but I don't exactly see a line of those).
Quote from: sardak on July 01, 2014, 05:31:29 PM
The funding for the systems on all three CAP planes came from their states. The wings just installed what their customers bought.
Mike
Concur. They also did it a time when states were looking to blow money on virtually anything with HLS tied to it.
Now, if we could get all the remaining states to do the same...multiple times over (not likely).
I'll volunteer to shoot photos out of the GA-8 from the open door.
I'll even supply the parachute.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 01, 2014, 04:55:38 PM
If you had a ball on the GA-8 it would get flown.
Really?
And where do the pilots come from?
Adding an ASP to an airplane doesn't grow pilots.
Why the crap would the highway need a airvan to fly? What are they going to do? give aerial tours to prisoners? They shouldnt have airvans. Fools.
You have no concept what the CHP uses their fixed wing aircraft for, do you?
Quote from: PHall on July 02, 2014, 12:41:48 AM
You have no concept what the CHP uses their fixed wing aircraft for, do you?
Nope I dont.
Quote from: nomiddlemas on July 02, 2014, 12:29:25 AM
Why the crap would the highway need a airvan to fly? What are they going to do? give aerial tours to prisoners? They shouldnt have airvans. Fools.
Do you comment regularly on things you know nothing about? Because you made the varsity team with this one.
My idea was that highway patrol would just be using ground forces. Being in the air seems kind of pointless when all you need to catch is on the ground. I never thought that highway patrol would use aircraft for their ops.
Quote from: nomiddlemas on July 02, 2014, 01:52:14 AM
My idea was that highway patrol would just be using ground forces. Being in the air seems kind of pointless when all you need to catch is on the ground. I never thought that highway patrol would use aircraft for their ops.
Not at all. You can see a lot from the air when it comes to pursuit and catching speeders. Directing the ground guys in, etc. Kinda like our air crews do with ground teams... :o
But why use GA-8? they are roomy and all but it seems all you would need is a pilot, copilot and maybe a scanner.
They do it a lot in my state - CAP Wing HQ is even in a shared hangar with the SP, and because I live near a major interchange I see them all the time.
Pretty low-tech, too - in some places there are timing marks on the pavement - start / stop a watch between them, bam - busted.
Radio to a chase car waiting below, ticket city. There's usually a speed trap setup at the interchange before major holidays, etc.
Since the interchange is below a major approach for ORD, the SP planes do a dance with the heavies.
Fun to watch, especially when you throw in the traffic from the little GA airport a few miles down the road on the same approach
and maybe a traffic copter or three.
(http://o.aolcdn.com/os/autos/photos/20120725_speeding-aircraft_612mz.jpg)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-B0s4DRvRwRQ/UJPaOyIkJLI/AAAAAAAAG78/LflG5vyyZ1Y/s400/chips+aircraft.jpg)
I know but wouldnt a Cessna 172 or 182 be fine? Its not like they are carrying around a ton of people to and fro.
You'd have to read the RFP to know what the requirements were. Odds are a transportation
component was included.
Quote from: nomiddlemas on July 02, 2014, 02:08:13 AM
I know but wouldnt a Cessna 172 or 182 be fine? Its not like they are carrying around a ton of people to and fro.
Again we speak of something we know nothing about. Quit while you're ahead.
Not even gonna bother..... So anyway, back to that Airvan.
Quote from: nomiddlemas on July 02, 2014, 01:52:14 AM
My idea was that highway patrol would just be using ground forces. Being in the air seems kind of pointless when all you need to catch is on the ground. I never thought that highway patrol would use aircraft for their ops.
You admit to having no idea why they need them, yet felt that you should call them "fools?"
.
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on July 02, 2014, 04:14:00 AM
Quote from: nomiddlemas on July 02, 2014, 01:52:14 AM
My idea was that highway patrol would just be using ground forces. Being in the air seems kind of pointless when all you need to catch is on the ground. I never thought that highway patrol would use aircraft for their ops.
You admit to having no idea why they need them, yet felt that you should call them "fools?"
Such is the way on CAPTalk.
The plane will definitely meet their needs. The CHP Chief Pilot and Fixed Wing Chief Pilot are very experienced fixed wing and helicopter pilots, ex-military. Ive flown with them personally. (The CHP has one main CP and then has a Helicopter CP and a FW CP separately) If this is what they chose, then those guys put the GA8 through its paces and decided that any deficiencies were manageable. They spend a lot of time in the air and are starting to use their MX15s in a patrol function pretty regular. I watched a video of the Sacramento CHP plane work a foot chase from 5 miles away and at about 5500ft. The optics, combined with the mapping system they "chased" the guy around for 15 minutes. All the officers did was lay back and easily drive to their perimeter locations and then slowly collapsed the perimeter onto the suspect without breaking a sweat. All directed from the comfort of an air conditioned command and control platform. (yes.. their 206's are air conditioned)
Quote from: Eclipse on July 01, 2014, 10:18:13 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 01, 2014, 04:55:38 PM
If you had a ball on the GA-8 it would get flown.
Really?
And where do the pilots come from?
Adding an ASP to an airplane doesn't grow pilots.
As far as flying, it's just a high-performance bird (by the FAA definition anyway) that any pilot can do a Form 5 in with 100h TT. If you are qualified to fly a 182, you're qualified to take a Form 5 in a GA-8.
The 300h PIC is only for ARCHER missions since the last 60-1 revision.
True, but with having generally only one in each region, usually squirreled away for someone's pet project or "private" use,
just getting access to the aircraft can be like pulling teeth, and maintaining proficiency is near impossible.