So why is nothing being made of the defunding of the counterdrug mission?
This seems to have dropped completely under the radar, despite it being a
big consumer of airframe hours in some states.
Do you have a link to the information you are presenting?
How do you link to a negative?
The USAF isn't funding CD anymore (at least this FY).
Quote from: Eclipse on July 03, 2019, 06:47:54 PM
How do you link to a negative?
The USAF isn't funding CD anymore (at least this FY).
Well, start to a link of prior funding from a document that lists the amounts, then show the line item missing from this FY?
Quote from: Eclipse on July 03, 2019, 05:11:23 PM
So why is nothing being made of the defunding of the counterdrug mission?
Because it's not happening? We're still flying lots of CD missions down here, so my guess is it's local to your wing/region.
Quote from: jeders on July 03, 2019, 06:53:58 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 03, 2019, 05:11:23 PM
So why is nothing being made of the defunding of the counterdrug mission?
Because it's not happening? We're still flying lots of CD missions down here, so my guess is it's local to your wing/region.
Are those customer funded or USAF funded?
Surely the legalization of marijuana in so many places, and decriminalization in other places, is biting into this mission.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 03, 2019, 07:05:36 PM
Quote from: jeders on July 03, 2019, 06:53:58 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 03, 2019, 05:11:23 PM
So why is nothing being made of the defunding of the counterdrug mission?
Because it's not happening? We're still flying lots of CD missions down here, so my guess is it's local to your wing/region.
Are those customer funded or USAF funded?
Yes.
The customer funds them via the USAF.
It is the same old story since the dawn of time. Local counter drug authorities fund the local CD operations.
Now.....here's the question.
Anyone been watching the the general push to decriminalize a certain drug that was the primary target of most CD flights?
Now ask yourself.....why there may be a drop in the number of CD flights requested/funded.
So...yes I'm not surprised at all that there would be a drop in the CD missions.
Soon though, the states with "legal" pot will start funding CD ops to get those darned untaxed and therefore illegal pot growers identified.
Quote from: OldGuy on July 04, 2019, 05:54:00 PM
Soon though, the states with "legal" pot will start funding CD ops to get those darned untaxed and therefore illegal pot growers identified.
CAP as "revenooers?"Give me a break!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In our wing, we don't even fly counter-drug operations (at least not in association with our state; we've flown them for neighboring states), despite our state not being a legalized locale.
Is the counter-drug mission being defunded, or are counter-drug missions not as necessary?
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on July 05, 2019, 06:25:27 PM
Is the counter-drug mission being defunded, or are counter-drug missions not as necessary?
I believe it is both, at least in as much as I have been told.
Locally-funded missions for agencies where cannabis has been decriminalized and/or outright legalized
going away as a matter of course, and the USAF not funding CD missions either (my wing / region had both).
https://www.mpp.org/states/
(https://i.postimg.cc/ryrpwVzp/maryjanebystate.jpg)
The sociopolitical "why" is essentially irrelevant (though it
is going to start effecting CAP and
can't be ignored by NHQ too much longer), however the ramifications for CAP in some states
will be non-trivial.
In some cases CD flying accounted for 1/2 an airplane or more worth of hours, and may have been the
impetus behind one or another airframe being stationed in a given area or wing.
Much as when COPAS-SARSAT stopped monitoring 121.5, with the result being significantly less
non-distress / overnight CAP activation and hours, this too will result in less flight hours, less
training days and requirements, and overall "less CAP".
Yet nary a mention anywhere.
Does CAP need to be performing counter-drug functions? Does that funding need to be available?
Is it a legitimate statement that CAP has had a reduction in counter-drug funding, or is that not actually the case? Can we see the budget?
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on July 05, 2019, 08:58:44 PM
Does CAP need to be performing counter-drug functions? Does that funding need to be available?
To me, this has always been a questionable practice at best, at put CD aircrews at a risk better assumed by sworn LEOs.
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on July 05, 2019, 08:58:44 PM
Is it a legitimate statement that CAP has had a reduction in counter-drug funding, or is that not actually the case? Can we see the budget?
Good luck with that - you could probably do past reporting through WMIRS with the right access, but future
stuff was always a black mirror when I was involved.
Looking at the financial reports available on the NHQ website:
Operating Expenses - Counterdrug
2017 - $1, 257,794
2016 - $871,871
2015 - $837,872
2014 - $791,502
2013 - $662,572
There is no financial report posted for 2018 but the Report to Congress is, and it shows: Counterdrug & Drug Interdiction/Homeland Security 5 missions, 1,447 sorties, 3,450 hours.
There are no Reports to Congress posted for years between 2008 and 2018. The report format and content varies between years, so no meaningful comparison can be made between the 2018 report and the earlier ones.
Mike
CD missions are generally quiet and assigned only to established aircrews. Without getting into details, I can assure you they still happen.
Quote from: sardak on July 05, 2019, 11:42:27 PM
Looking at the financial reports available on the NHQ website:
Operating Expenses - Counterdrug
2017 - $1, 257,794
2016 - $871,871
2015 - $837,872
2014 - $791,502
2013 - $662,572
There is no financial report posted for 2018 but the Report to Congress is, and it shows: Counterdrug & Drug Interdiction/Homeland Security 5 missions, 1,447 sorties, 3,450 hours.
There are no Reports to Congress posted for years between 2008 and 2018. The report format and content varies between years, so no meaningful comparison can be made between the 2018 report and the earlier ones.
Mike
The above mirrors my understanding as there had been somewhat of a ramp-up in ops temp
until the last couple of years.
Also, I didn't say they were not happening, they clearly are, but that they are slowing down
with no comment or mention of it.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 03, 2019, 05:11:23 PM
So why is nothing being made of the defunding of the counterdrug mission?
This seems to have dropped completely under the radar, despite it being a
big consumer of airframe hours in some states.
So funding increased and you call it "defunding", odd that.
Operating Expenses - Counterdrug
2017 - $1, 257,794
2016 - $871,871
2015 - $837,872
2014 - $791,502
2013 - $662,572
Quote from: OldGuy on July 06, 2019, 12:16:57 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 03, 2019, 05:11:23 PM
So why is nothing being made of the defunding of the counterdrug mission?
This seems to have dropped completely under the radar, despite it being a
big consumer of airframe hours in some states.
So funding increased and you call it "defunding", odd that.
Operating Expenses - Counterdrug
2017 - $1, 257,794
2016 - $871,871
2015 - $837,872
2014 - $791,502
2013 - $662,572
Quote from: Eclipse on July 05, 2019, 11:55:28 PM
The above mirrors my understanding as there had been somewhat of a ramp-up in ops temp
until the last couple of years.
2019-2017 = 2. "Couple" is a generally accepted Colloquialism for "two".
Edit: Fixed quote tag.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 06, 2019, 12:45:04 AM
Quote from: OldGuy on July 06, 2019, 12:16:57 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 03, 2019, 05:11:23 PM
So why is nothing being made of the defunding of the counterdrug mission?
This seems to have dropped completely under the radar, despite it being a
big consumer of airframe hours in some states.
So funding increased and you call it "defunding", odd that.
Operating Expenses - Counterdrug
2017 - $1, 257,794
2016 - $871,871
2015 - $837,872
2014 - $791,502
2013 - $662,572
Quote from: sardak on July 05, 2019, 11:42:27 PM
The above mirrors my understanding as there had been somewhat of a ramp-up in ops temp
until the last couple of years.
2019-2017 = 2. "Couple" is a generally accepted Colloquialism for "two".
Why did you attribute a quote you made, to me, and then clarify it?
Mike
Grabbed the wrong quote tag, sorry.
So ... if funding and hours are increasing even though grass is being legalized ... leads me to ask what else is included in CD missions, other than looking for marijuana fields? Maybe its a secret.
Funding and hours, are in fact, not increasing.
2016 was actually the last significant year for CD, with a precipitous drop off in flight hours since.
Only 6 wings are still flying any CD at all.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 06, 2019, 04:13:51 AM
2016 was actually the last significant year for CD, with a precipitous drop off in flight hours since.
2017 - $1, 257,794
2016 - $871,871
Idd, that looks like a MAJOR increase to me. Facts are hard.
^ Yes, they apparently are.
Have you, by chance, reviewed the actual flight hours and sortie statistics
for the last four fiscal years?
You might want to before making any more assertions.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 06, 2019, 06:04:15 AM
^ Yes, they apparently are.
Have you, by chance, reviewed the actual flight hours and sortie statistics
for the last four fiscal years?
You might want to before making any more assertions.
You made the assertion that funds AND flight hours were decreasing. I don't know where OldGuy got his numbers, but if they are accurate, it is abundantly clear that funds are NOT decreasing. Seeing as there was ~50% increase from 2016 to 2017.
After reviewing the annual reports cited, these numbers make even less sense,
especially considering the substantial drop in hours.
(https://i.postimg.cc/NfkGGmWs/2016.jpg)
Note that "contributed flying" for 2016 is suspiciously the exact same number
as the hours flown(?).
Yet in 2017...
(https://i.postimg.cc/C1srnMYq/2017.jpg)
That line item is now over 264k, and the CD hours are not called out
separately in the report as they are in 2016.
The FY2018 CD budget is 1,129,648.
(https://i.postimg.cc/XqLsvndY/2018.jpg)
That's 128k less then 2018. Also note that "contributed flying" is also
about 1/2 year-to year.
One can only imagine what "facility maintenance" is, which seems to be
holding these budget numbers so high.
In FY2016, CAP flew 9682 hours counterdrug.
In FY2017 it was down to 6138.
In FY2018 is was down to 3540 with only 6 states flying CD.
(It also appears some HLS is in there?)
FY2019 is on a track to be lower then 2018.
How does CD have a $22,000 telephone bill? How many people have dedicated CD cell phones? ;)
Quote from: Eclipse on July 06, 2019, 06:52:29 AM
One can only imagine what "facility maintenance" is, which seems to be
holding these budget numbers so high.
Maybe if a Squadron does at least one CD mission a year, the CD budget will pay their hangar rent for the entire year? LOL
Ive always found it somewhat amusing to know a CAP plane is in a CD mission, and hear it doing approaches with a missed to the hold over and over again for 2 hours 8) CD has been more than "looking for weed". Its not a huge secret, but I wont go in to that here. But give it a couple years I think you'll see it dry up unless the definition of CD becomes more broad. I've been out of it for a while, but I was the LE Liason for CAWG for a while. It was a booming business there for a while. I was flying several times per month 2-3 days in a row. It seemed that the CD roles were mophing in to what looked more like what I would call a homeland security missions vs looking for dope.
*bump*
This topic was addressed by Maj Gen Smith in his interview on the Breaking Ranks podcast (a good podcast, with the boss being perhaps the best episode yet).
CD is a partner mission with state law enforcement, but CAP nationally was bearing most of the financial burden. With the pie being finite, CAP made a decision to only continue CD missions in states where the state government would share the cost. Quite a few states did not offer funding, which is why you've seen such a precipitous drop in missions.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 06, 2019, 06:52:29 AMIn FY2018 is was down to 3540 with only 6 states flying CD.
Wow. I flew 2% of CAP's CD missions myself last year (131 Hours)
Quote from: dwb on August 01, 2019, 12:54:40 PM
CD is a partner mission with state law enforcement, but CAP nationally was bearing most of the financial burden. ...
Whats the history of that? Why did CAP volunteer to fly these for free in the beginning? The states should have always paid.
Quote from: dwb on August 01, 2019, 12:54:40 PM
*bump*
This topic was addressed by Maj Gen Smith in his interview on the Breaking Ranks podcast (a good podcast, with the boss being perhaps the best episode yet).
CD is a partner mission with state law enforcement, but CAP nationally was bearing most of the financial burden. With the pie being finite, CAP made a decision to only continue CD missions in states where the state government would share the cost. Quite a few states did not offer funding, which is why you've seen such a precipitous drop in missions.
Facts! How cool, thanks.
Quote from: etodd on August 01, 2019, 03:17:22 PM
Quote from: dwb on August 01, 2019, 12:54:40 PM
CD is a partner mission with state law enforcement, but CAP nationally was bearing most of the financial burden. ...
Whats the history of that? Why did CAP volunteer to fly these for free in the beginning? The states should have always paid.
A lot of initial programs get "self-funded" to prove their worth to partner agencies before switching to a different model.
Quote from: Holding Pattern on August 01, 2019, 04:28:36 PM
A lot of initial programs get "self-funded" to prove their worth to partner agencies before switching to a different model.
Ah yes. The ... "Work for free and you'll get lots of exposure" concept.
Can work out sometimes, but after the first or second job, they know the value. Pay up or it stops.
Except that in many cases CAP doesn't mention the real expense of the mission until afterwards,
and /or doesn't pre-qualify that the agency in question even has the funding to pay for CAP
costs, minimal though they may be, regardless.
So...now that what was asserted, supported by data to begin with, has been confirmed by HEADCAP
where are the 30+ airplanes worth of hours going to come from?
Quote from: Eclipse on August 01, 2019, 05:52:10 PM
Except that in many cases CAP doesn't mention the real expense of the mission until afterwards,
and /or doesn't pre-qualify that the agency in question even has the funding to pay for CAP
costs, minimal though they may be, regardless.
So...now that what asserted, supported by data to begin with, has been confirmed by HEADCAP
where are the 30+ airplanes worth of hours going to come from?
I'd ask your wing CD officer. Captalk really is not the right venue for that discussion, in my opinion.
Quote from: OldGuy on August 01, 2019, 08:56:43 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 01, 2019, 05:52:10 PM
Except that in many cases CAP doesn't mention the real expense of the mission until afterwards,
and /or doesn't pre-qualify that the agency in question even has the funding to pay for CAP
costs, minimal though they may be, regardless.
So...now that what asserted, supported by data to begin with, has been confirmed by HEADCAP
where are the 30+ airplanes worth of hours going to come from?
I'd ask your wing CD officer. Captalk really is not the right venue for that discussion, in my opinion.
The what now? This isn't a mission any more in the majority of the wings. The spots are vacant
and they aren't re-qualing the aircews who were flying the missions.
CD's off the table, and UAV flights don't count. At some point losing 10%+ of your flight hours
annually has to have a consequence of some kind, and that consequence is likely fleet reduction.
That's funny. We have a really active CD mission here in CAWG. My group does one weekend a month, and there are two other groups who also do the mission. There hasn't been any decline announced. The current schedule runs through October.
Quote from: SarDragon on August 01, 2019, 10:33:53 PM
That's funny. We have a really active CD mission here in CAWG. My group does one weekend a month, and there are two other groups who also do the mission. There hasn't been any decline announced. The current schedule runs through October.
Yes, CAWG is one of the 6 wings still flying CD.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 01, 2019, 09:14:09 PM
Quote from: OldGuy on August 01, 2019, 08:56:43 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 01, 2019, 05:52:10 PM
Except that in many cases CAP doesn't mention the real expense of the mission until afterwards,
and /or doesn't pre-qualify that the agency in question even has the funding to pay for CAP
costs, minimal though they may be, regardless.
So...now that what asserted, supported by data to begin with, has been confirmed by HEADCAP
where are the 30+ airplanes worth of hours going to come from?
I'd ask your wing CD officer. Captalk really is not the right venue for that discussion, in my opinion.
The what now? This isn't a mission any more in the majority of the wings. The spots are vacant
and they aren't re-qualing the aircews who were flying the missions.
CD's off the table, and UAV flights don't count. At some point losing 10%+ of your flight hours
annually has to have a consequence of some kind, and that consequence is likely fleet reduction.
Or you can look at it as you have 10% more hours to fly other things.
If CD being reduced then that means the aircraft is available to fly Cadet Wings/O-Rides/Fly A teacher, hell even proficiency flying.
I would not be going straight to the Doom and Gloom of "Oh! They are going to take away our planes!"
Quote from: lordmonar on August 02, 2019, 03:55:31 AM
Or you can look at it as you have 10% more hours to fly other things.
If CD being reduced then that means the aircraft is available to fly Cadet Wings/O-Rides/Fly A teacher, hell even proficiency flying.
I would not be going straight to the Doom and Gloom of "Oh! They are going to take away our planes!"
For sure. My Wing has been begging people to get crews together and go fly paid proficiency profiles. Funding is there and not enough take advantage of it. Whats up with that? I flew a crew this week to keep us limbered up and ready for Missions. :)
Quote from: lordmonar on August 02, 2019, 03:55:31 AM
Or you can look at it as you have 10% more hours to fly other things.
If CD being reduced then that means the aircraft is available to fly Cadet Wings/O-Rides/Fly A teacher, hell even proficiency flying.
I would not be going straight to the Doom and Gloom of "Oh! They are going to take away our planes!"
The intention is not to be doom and gloom, but the situation shouldn't be ignored or glossed over, and if the majority of
the country is out of the CD biz, then the rhetoric should be reduced or removed in most of the marketing collateral in the
same way Green Flag, UAV escorts, etc., aren't really a realistic mission for the majority of the membership or potential members.
CD
crews don't participate in Wings, O-rides, or
Fly A Teacher TOPS flights, so those wouldn't be a 1-to-1 anyway,
so that's 2-3 members from each sortie who no longer get to play, and a lot of CD work was done during business hours,
which means specific people and circumstances.
Also, weekends and aircraft don't scale, there's still x-hours per day.
My wing is already pretty much maxed out weekend-wise in regards to all of the various types of flying.
About the only ting this might help alleviate is aircraft being down less in maintenance, but when it's do to
a significant reduction in flight hours, now you're having those "conversations" annually about why they didn't make
the magic (pretend) 200 per.
Also, CD is generally a pretty specific AO, sometimes requiring a specific airframe to be stationed in a specific place
to meet the need. Without CD, the justification for having "x-plane at y-airport" may be lost, making it even harder
for crews away from population centers to get proficiency (I'll grant, though, that sometimes this last point was as much
a PITA as a value due to having to artificially rotate airframes to maintain the "required" hours).
This doesn't even account for member spirit and initiative when they find out, off-handedly, that something
they've been doing on a regular basis just faded away with barely a mention and no replacement, so much for
the time and effort spent getting the extra clearances and quals, both initial and refresher.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 02, 2019, 05:06:05 AM
CD crews don't participate in Wings, O-rides, or Fly A Teacher TOPS flights, so those wouldn't be a 1-to-1 anyway,
so that's 2-3 members from each sortie who no longer get to play
Having flown CD flights when they were being conducted, and also regularly flying the "other" kinds of flights, I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. When CD flights were needed here I volunteered for them, and now that they're not required I fly the "other" missions.
Should I be upset that the organization's needs changed? Personally, I choose instead to appreciate the opportunities it offers.
The CAP corporation certainly doesn't owe me an explanation either. If they suddenly stopped the orientation flight program, what choice does the membership have but to comply with that directive?
Quote from: Eclipse on August 02, 2019, 05:06:05 AM
CD crews don't participate in Wings, O-rides, or Fly A Teacher TOPS flights.
That's a pretty broad statement there. Too bad there's not much to support it.
In CAWG at least some of our more active O-Flight pilots are also some of our more active CD pilots.
Our most active pilots tend to fly a bit of everything. That's why they're the most active.
In the past you could fly nothing but ES and stay busy. It's a different world today.
^ Crews
The other missions might share the pilots...might...but the crews aren't getting on those alternative flights.
That's 2-3 people potentially per sortie who don't get flights anymore, that's 12-18000 member flight hours lost per year
(at this point).
Quote from: Eclipse on August 02, 2019, 03:07:49 PM
The other missions might share the pilots...might...but the crews aren't getting on those alternative flights.
That's 2-3 people potentially per sortie who don't get flights anymore. ....
Did those members join CAP just to fly in those CD Missions? Their version of "the flying club"? As missions change, members have to find other interests and areas to work.
Quote from: etodd on August 02, 2019, 06:04:59 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 02, 2019, 03:07:49 PM
The other missions might share the pilots...might...but the crews aren't getting on those alternative flights.
That's 2-3 people potentially per sortie who don't get flights anymore. ....
Did those members join CAP just to fly in those CD Missions? Their version of "the flying club"? As missions change, members have to find other interests and areas to work.
I believe the point Eclipse is making is that
aircrews aren't allowed on o-flights and TOP flights. The whole point of those flights is to get people up in the air who are not part of aircrews (teachers and young cadets). So even if you replace CD flights with o-flights and TOP flights, the pilot might not see a reduction in flying, the aircrews (MO/MS) sure do.
^ Correct, and there is also no way you can replace 6000+ hours annually
with TOPS flights (which for those scoring at home can be a huge PITA just to get approved by
the NOC, let alone all the wrangling of schedules), and O-rides or Wings flights.
So it's both a crew (non-pilot) issue and a fleet justification issue.
Adding UAVs into this mix, which has the potential to further reduce flight hours,
and that will just make it worse.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 02, 2019, 06:15:40 PM
....no way you can replace 6000+ hours annually .....
So, if the budget is already there for 6000 hours ... and non-pilot aircrews are going to lose anyway .... why not slide that 6000 hours over to Cadet PPL candidates?
Quote from: Eclipse on August 02, 2019, 06:15:40 PM
Adding UAVs into this mix, which has the potential to further reduce flight hours,
and that will just make it worse.
Don't worry about the sUAS Program. Once everyone interested is all trained, the sUAS gear will be sitting in the closet, next to the Garmin Virb, collecting dust 90% of the time.
Quote from: etodd on August 02, 2019, 06:43:59 PM
So, if the budget is already there for 6000 hours ... and non-pilot aircrews are going to lose anyway .... why not slide that 6000 hours over to Cadet PPL candidates?
The budget
isn't there, that's why they aren't being flown anymore. The customers are dying up,
and those still left don't want to pay.
Those hours are
gone with no mission or other tasking to replace them, partially because of the nature
of the when and where they were flown.
If there are only 6 Wings flying CD then this mission has fallen to niche status like a lot of other "cool" things we use to recruit people into CAP. It will become increasingly difficult to manage CAP as a national organization as each state continues to become more and more unique in what it does. I really do hope CAP can hold on to the operational missions but I keep getting more pessimistic.
Not that there is anything wrong with it, but it just seems to me that before long CAP will have devolved so far into becoming a cadet-based organization that the AF will drop it in favor of AF JROTC. Without the ES and other ops missions like CD there really is no need for us to be on our own.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 01, 2019, 09:14:09 PM
At some point losing 10%+ of your flight hours
annually has to have a consequence of some kind, and that consequence is likely fleet reduction.
We never did CD. We're consistently in the top 10 wings for flying hrs. We'll fly the (wheel) pants off one of your planes.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 02, 2019, 07:07:38 PM
Quote from: etodd on August 02, 2019, 06:43:59 PM
So, if the budget is already there for 6000 hours ... and non-pilot aircrews are going to lose anyway .... why not slide that 6000 hours over to Cadet PPL candidates?
The budget isn't there, that's why they aren't being flown anymore. The customers are dying up,
and those still left don't want to pay.
Those hours are gone with no mission or other tasking to replace them, partially because of the nature
of the when and where they were flown.
Okay, so if that mission is disappearing, is this a concern about "What do we do with all the existing crews we have?"
I'm still not really understanding what the problem is here. What is the issue that we are looking for answers or resolution toward?
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on August 05, 2019, 05:15:32 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 02, 2019, 07:07:38 PM
Quote from: etodd on August 02, 2019, 06:43:59 PM
So, if the budget is already there for 6000 hours ... and non-pilot aircrews are going to lose anyway .... why not slide that 6000 hours over to Cadet PPL candidates?
The budget isn't there, that's why they aren't being flown anymore. The customers are dying up,
and those still left don't want to pay.
Those hours are gone with no mission or other tasking to replace them, partially because of the nature
of the when and where they were flown.
Okay, so if that mission is disappearing, is this a concern about "What do we do with all the existing crews we have?"
I'm still not really understanding what the problem is here. What is the issue that we are looking for answers or resolution toward?
We really need to do a study of exactly what missions are we doing now and how many aircraft and crews are needed to perform them.
Over the past 10 years we seem to have moved from hunting ELT's to providing pictures for Disaster Relief operations.
And some of that has the potential of being performed by sUAS's.
So do we really need 550 aircraft? Is the current mix of aircraft suitable for what we want to do? What does the Air Force think?
Times change and so do the missions that we perform. I remember back in the 1970's when one of our missions was Ground and Aerial Radiological Monitoring.
That "mission" went away in the 1980's...
Essentially losing one of our moderately important operational missions seems like a pretty big deal to me. We are dependent on aircrews to perform many of our missions and losing out on any opportunities to use those skills in the "real world" is going to reduce motivation to train and reduce operational proficiency.
What is the "optimal" operational tempo across all our missions? Well, there are some goals in the eservices Commander's Dashboard for that, but with the vast majority of Wings flying less than 200 hours/aircraft in FY18, it seems likely we aren't where we want to be in terms of flying hours, and losing any is a problem.
I don't know where to find hours to replace those and I've continued to become more dubious of the long-term prospects for airborne CAP operational missions and with our failure to really develop ground-based mission opportunities, things aren't looking up for OPs.
CD flights at one time was important in some wings for reaching the annual goals of 200 hrs per aircraft. Washington Wing at one point in its past use to generated somewhere between 800 and 900 hrs of flight time every year, just due to the CD mission.
Which was great for the fleet. However what most people did not realize was that that 800+ hrs went to a very small select group of people, as not any and all pilot could fly the mission. I ran ES at the time for the wing and I am willing to bet that less than 10% of the rated mission pilot in the wing actually flew those missions. I am also willing to bet that was true for all of the wings that flew a lot of CD. So while it did help the wing meet annual hour requirements, it did not result in a high number of pilots and observers maintaining their qualifications. A heavy ES training schedule and real world missions did that.
Quote from: PHall on August 05, 2019, 06:04:55 PM
So do we really need 550 aircraft?
Quote from: RiverAux on August 05, 2019, 06:08:49 PM
..... things aren't looking up for OPs.
^^^ Yep. In the last few months I've posted a few times of how I don't think we'll recognize CAP 20 or 30 years from now, will be so different. But when "I've" said it, all heck breaks loose with responses, such that the thread winds up getting closed. >:D >:D >:D
Surely it'll be a gradual change, more evident in some Wings than others. We are so different. Some still doing lots of actual SAR, while mine for example, is more Disaster Photos. My Wing has been flying Army ATC missions every month. That gives us 400ish hours a year. But obviously not every Wing has that opportunity. Syracuse stays busy with their mission. Other Wings have their specialties. The Wings that can find a niche will likely keep their planes longer than those who cannot, or do not, sell themselves locally. (To state the obvious)
Remember that ACC released this solicitation in April of this year. https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=91fd0ac4fea78cbf0a401e4a49d6083a
Contractor will conduct an in-depth analysis of the Civil Air Patrol's (CAP) core missions as stated in the 2016-2020 CAP Strategic Plan and associated aircraft fleet to make recommendations regarding CAP's suitability for current and future mission requirements. Analysis should result in recommendations for requirement standards for aircraft performance, pilot training suitability (ab initio through advance ratings), passenger and cargo capacity, configuration requirements (floats, skis, rough country/off airport landing capability, etc.), special mission equipment, sustainment cost and optimum utilization.
Increased Department of Defense reliance upon CAP through CAP-USAF, has revealed an increasing mission demand for Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA), Homeland Defense (HD), and Homeland Security (HS) missions with a more immediate and greater need in times of crisis. CD was given as an example of an HS mission. sUAS and gliders were included in the list of aircraft to consider.
The original solicitation closed on April 26. An update was posted in June with a closing date of July 18. https://www.fbo.gov/index.php?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=e3f932857dd9576f57270bb7f596e983&tab=core&tabmode=list&=
Mike
Anyone know the percentage of self paid hours? Is that going up or down over the last few years? I wonder what effect, if any, the self paid flights have? Covers a broad spectrum of flights I realize. In four years I have about 225 hours in CAP planes with about 150 as self funded. About 25 of those were IFR training. We have two Cadets taking PPL lessons, so all of those are self funded. Do we have many Squadrons keeping their planes flying with self funded or is it more the exception?
Here are the numbers for CAWG for FY2018:
A time -4786.3 hrs; 74.835 %
B time - 548.2 hs; 8.5712 %
C time - 985.5 hrs; 15.4085 %
L1 time - 75.8 hrs (USAF liaison personnel flying)
This is available in WMIRS, Support, Reports.
Mission symbols here:
https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/07_AIF_FLT_LOG_2_95A1BCB882B93.pdf
Quote from: SarDragon on August 06, 2019, 01:33:09 AM
Here are the numbers for CAWG for FY2018:
A time -4786.3 hrs; 74.835 %
B time - 548.2 hs; 8.5712 %
C time - 985.5 hrs; 15.4085 %
L1 time - 75.8 hrs (USAF liaison personnel flying)
There would be a lot more C time if we had more than just one 172 that was 300+ miles away. I know a growing number of 100< hour pilots.