Wing Aircraft Losses Due To Reassignments

Started by RADIOMAN015, January 24, 2010, 04:04:35 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

DG

#20
Delaware             1,953 square miles         440 members        7 a/c (incl. 5 182 NAV III)

Pennsylvania       46,058 square miles       2400 members       12 a/c (incl. 2 182 NAV III)

So what is more influential, formula or flight hours?

RiverAux

It also depends on if this forumula is first applied to determine how many planes a region needs and then run again to allocate those planes within the region.  Also, we would need to know for sure what the final multiplier is to determine ideal plane allocation. 

This is supposedly only the starting point and flight hours could swing things some either way.  You'd think they'd figure a way to add flight hours/plane into the equation so they could rebalanace each year. 

But, they had to have radically abandoned the official formula if Pennsylvania doesn't have more than twice as many planes as Delaware given that they must totally dominate in comparison across all categories.

lordmonar

Quote from: RiverAux on January 26, 2010, 01:31:00 AM
If that is how they're doing it, I don't see any way smallers states have a realistic chance at increasing their planes no matter how large their membership or number of pilots or observers.  Even at only 10% of the score, geographic area is going to win out most of the time.

In this case, 98% of Nevada's total points was due to its geographic area.

But smaller states do not have as much area they need to cover.

Nevada's AOR consists of six different Aeronautical Charts.  That's a lot of are we have got to cover.   Rhode Island or Delaware just don't have that much airspace they need to cover.

Having said that....they have a whole lot more air traffic in their AOR and need more aircraft to cover factor.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

RiverAux

I didn't say that geography shouldn't be considered, just that to give it that much weight makes the other factors mostly irrelevant. 

Eclipse

That's why its only 10%, and its not like this is a hard/fast B&W gateway.

In my scratch-pad of a couple states, it looks about right.

"That Others May Zoom"

Al Sayre

#25
Quote from: Al Sayre on January 25, 2010, 05:14:51 PM
Quote from: WT on January 25, 2010, 03:00:36 PM
We keep hearing conversations eluding to that, but what exactly are the formulae, or is this "secret squirrel" stuff??

AFAIK it's no secret, It was discussed at the SER Ops conference this weekend,  I think I have it in my notes.  I'll look when I get home tonight.

The slides I received say the same as DG already posted, but to add it also says: "NHQ uses NEC approved formula for the initial allocation" referring to the formula DG posted. 

Later in the package another slide says:

Quote
Region Commanders work with CAP/CC at MAy NEC to distribute aircraft each year
  *  Wing safety record is heavily considered for new aircraft
  *  New requirements formula used instead of "200 Hours per aircraft average"
        * 25% CAP Pilots
        * 25% Land area
        * 50% total flying hours for the past three fiscal years
  *  New Cessna 182T's for 2010 have not been assigned yet... CAP expects to buy 18 aircraft
  *  CFII factory training available with each aircraft
Lt Col Al Sayre
MS Wing Staff Dude
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
GRW #2787

Gunner C

Quote from: RiverAux on January 26, 2010, 01:31:00 AM
If that is how they're doing it, I don't see any way smallers states have a realistic chance at increasing their planes no matter how large their membership or number of pilots or observers.  Even at only 10% of the score, geographic area is going to win out most of the time.

In this case, 98% of Nevada's total points was due to its geographic area.
But, the region will look at the aircraft utilization each year.  If a wing isn't making the hours, region will move that a/c to another wing that is flying the paint off of them.  If the wings region wide aren't making their hours, then NHQ will move the aircraft to another region.  Each region CC and wing CC will do their best to protect an aircraft.  But if the hours aren't there, the result is inevitable.

RiverAux

Based on the quote in Al's post, the old formula is out. 

The new formula is a little self-reinforcing since the flying hours is now such a big part of it.  Hard to get a lot of flying hours if you don't have a lot of planes to start with. 

But, I'm not worried about it enough to put together a spreadsheet to figure out what the best strategies are to game the system (all the data you need is available from the annual reports or the homeland security resources page). 

Eclipse

The formula quoted was for new aircraft issue and deployment, not retention.

Retention is based primarily on flight hours per aircraft, and again, its actual, not average.

"That Others May Zoom"

Al Sayre

Quote

Region Commanders work with CAP/CC at May NEC to distribute aircraft each year
  *  Wing safety record is heavily considered for new aircraft
  *  New requirements formula used instead of "200 Hours per aircraft average"
        * 25% CAP Pilots
        * 25% Land area
        * 50% total flying hours for the past three fiscal years
Lt Col Al Sayre
MS Wing Staff Dude
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
GRW #2787

Eclipse

I read that as new, not current, but K-SARAH-SARAH

"That Others May Zoom"

RiverAux

Well, at some point you're going to have to look at the overall balance to see if you're getting what you want for all aircraft. 

Personally, I don't think it makes much sense to use overall flying hours as a basis for putting out new aircraft or for initial assignments.  Don't get me wrong, flying time definetely should be a factor, but it needs to be broken down into what type of flying it is. 

We don't have aircraft to put flying time on them, we have aircraft to perform missions.  So, it should be flying time devoted to all our various missions that should be the deciding factor.  Proficiency and administrative flying time shouldn't factor in at all. 

I know it looks great if all the pilots in the unit are paying up to do proficiency flying as it ups your total flying hours, but I'd rather have that aircraft in a unit that is more likely to have to do some missions even if overall flying time is less. 

The incentives should be on "rewarding" units racking up the most mission hours.  And, I am including cadet o-rides, teacher flights, etc. as mission hours.  That might help encourage people to go out and work with the locals to get CAP more involved in local SAR/DR missions. 

RogueLeader

Then what about those areas that do not have a big ops tempo?  They still need to be trained and proficient for when the call does come.
WYWG DP

GRW 3340

RiverAux

If there ES-mission tempo is so low that it would negatively affect their total "mission flying hours", then they need to get on the stick and do develop more non-ES mission flying to make up the difference. 

And when it gets right down to it, if they happen to lose a couple of planes due to low ES ops tempo, if they do have a mission we can call in planes from other states for that mission.  No wing is an island (except HI and PR) and other resources are available if needed. 

lordmonar

Quote from: RogueLeader on January 29, 2010, 04:17:04 PM
Then what about those areas that do not have a big ops tempo?  They still need to be trained and proficient for when the call does come.
Hence the big land mass factor in the inital allocation formula.

As I said before....National and Regional does look at actual flying hours....but they do grant variances due to geographical considerations.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Eclipse

Quote from: RiverAux on January 29, 2010, 04:27:47 PM
And when it gets right down to it, if they happen to lose a couple of planes due to low ES ops tempo, if they do have a mission we can call in planes from other states for that mission.  No wing is an island (except HI and PR) and other resources are available if needed.

Not asking for help or passing a mission to another wing is constantly cited as a finding during evals.

"That Others May Zoom"

RiverAux

Quote from: Eclipse on January 29, 2010, 06:41:55 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on January 29, 2010, 04:27:47 PM
And when it gets right down to it, if they happen to lose a couple of planes due to low ES ops tempo, if they do have a mission we can call in planes from other states for that mission.  No wing is an island (except HI and PR) and other resources are available if needed.

Not asking for help or passing a mission to another wing is constantly cited as a finding during evals.
There is a big difference between asking for additional help during a mission because you don't have enough resources and turning down a mission entirely because you don't have the ability to carry out any mission.  If you turn a mission down because you don't have crews willing to fly, you darn should expect some consequences.  But, if the mission requires 10 planes and you've only got 5 in your Wing, NHQ can't blame you for asking for help assuming you're using all your resources wisely. 

Mustang

Quote from: RiverAux on January 29, 2010, 04:27:47 PM
If there ES-mission tempo is so low that it would negatively affect their total "mission flying hours", then they need to get on the stick and do develop more non-ES mission flying to make up the difference. 
That's not always an option. ES is the chief reason why we have these airplanes, not non-ES mission flying.   Here out west, we have massive areas of land we're responsible for, and when a state the size of Montana has the same number of aircraft as Rhode Island or Delaware, that's a problem.  You don't take away the fire stations in a community simply because there haven't been any fires. 

CAP has been run like a flying club rather than an emergency response organization for far too long, and I for one am glad to see us getting away from the hours-on-airframes yardstick.
"Amateurs train until they get it right; Professionals train until they cannot get it wrong. "


Eclipse

Quote from: Mustang on January 30, 2010, 03:44:18 AMYou don't take away the fire stations in a community simply because there haven't been any fires. 

Actually, you might.

The location of fire stations are based on complex studies of population density, area covered vs. response time, and risk.  Less calls means less need, means less resources until the trend is the other way.  (I used to work for a local municipality).

Your other points are valid about the way we've been doing things, but in our case we haven't even really identified the customer properly.


"That Others May Zoom"

RiverAux

There is some validity to maintaining aicraft in places where they couldn't really be justified otherwise, but there is a crossover point where you don't either have the CAP membership or ES need for even that to make sense.     

Quite frankly, based on a quick look, RMR is already being pretty heavily subsidized in terms of aircraft assigned and flying hours.  Colorado seems to be the only state holding their own.