Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 26, 2017, 09:57:13 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Emergency Services & Operations  |  Topic: Interesting Year End Stats
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] 2  All Print
Author Topic: Interesting Year End Stats  (Read 1328 times)
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 634

« on: December 23, 2016, 11:56:51 PM »



Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,474

« Reply #1 on: December 24, 2016, 12:06:43 AM »

The red numbers are the ones that should give the leadership pause, especially O-Rides.
When you consider how much most wings hammer getting cadets in the air, it's a wonder
those numbers continue to fall.

The DR is likely an anomaly thanks to Matthew, and while support to ROTC is fine, that's up while
flying our own cadets is way down.  I'd hazard that't due to the continued significant shrinkage
of the cadet population as a whole, plus disengagement.

One thing - if your wing isn't flying, it's not due to lack of money, and at least East of the Mississippi,
there's been plenty of mission work this year, air and ground.
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 634

« Reply #2 on: December 24, 2016, 12:10:35 AM »

In looking at those stats, is everything at the top 'A' missions since its totaled under it as AFAM?

Are self-pay 'C' proficiency flights part of 'Corporate' shown?

Here is the full pdf file, btw:
https://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/DO04_Aircraft_Ops__StanEval__3_Aug__641678DAAEA2E.pdf
« Last Edit: December 24, 2016, 12:23:38 AM by etodd » Logged
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 634

« Reply #3 on: December 24, 2016, 12:32:11 AM »

The red numbers are the ones that should give the leadership pause, especially O-Rides.
When you consider how much most wings hammer getting cadets in the air, it's a wonder
those numbers continue to fall.

As CAP buys more and more C-182s .... how will this affect Cadet training? We have Cadets taking primary training in our 172 that would not be possible with a 182. Seems to me CAP should be pushing Cadet training more. With a PPL costing about half what a Part 91 school wants, we could have new Cadets lined up at the door.


Quote
One thing - if your wing isn't flying, it's not due to lack of money, and at least East of the Mississippi,
there's been plenty of mission work this year, air and ground.

And what of the 182 issue with Seniors? A new SM with a new PPL can get qualified quickly to fly a CAP 172, but needs 100 hours before he can be a 182 PIC.  May be an issue, or not. But something to ponder.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,474

« Reply #4 on: December 24, 2016, 12:50:12 AM »

In looking at those stats, is everything at the top 'A' missions since its totaled under it as AFAM?

They could be A or B as AFAMs.

Are self-pay 'C' proficiency flights part of 'Corporate' shown?

Presumably no, since by design a C isn't an "AFAM".  CAP does a lot of customer-funded flying
which presumably isn't captured in the above.
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,474

« Reply #5 on: December 24, 2016, 12:54:22 AM »

The red numbers are the ones that should give the leadership pause, especially O-Rides.
When you consider how much most wings hammer getting cadets in the air, it's a wonder
those numbers continue to fall.

As CAP buys more and more C-182s .... how will this affect Cadet training? We have Cadets taking primary training in our 172 that would not be possible with a 182. Seems to me CAP should be pushing Cadet training more. With a PPL costing about half what a Part 91 school wants, we could have new Cadets lined up at the door.

Cadet powered training is such a small percentage of flying hours that it's barely a blip - a few flight academies,
a few encampments, and the occasional scholarship.  Most wings maintain a couple of 172s for this or similar purposes, or
can borrow them from neighbors.  I'm not aware that the lack of appropriate airframes has been indicated in
the list of challenges to get cadets pilot training, at least not in my region.

The red numbers are the ones that should give the leadership pause, especially O-Rides.ne thing - if your wing isn't flying, it's not due to lack of money, and at least East of the Mississippi,
there's been plenty of mission work this year, air and ground.

And what of the 182 issue with Seniors? A new SM with a new PPL can get qualified quickly to fly a CAP 172, but needs 100 hours before he can be a 182 PIC.  May be an issue, or not. But something to ponder.

I guess if all the 172s are mustered out, this will be an issue, but like what I said above, this
hasn't been on the list of conversations regarding senior members not flying, then again we
still have a couple, so there's that.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2016, 01:00:12 AM by Eclipse » Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,680

« Reply #6 on: December 24, 2016, 01:48:37 AM »

The biggest reason I've seen here in California for the drop in Cadet O Flights is the drop in O Flight Pilots.
There are more then a few of our pilots who simply don't want to deal with the additional requirements anymore.
And the revamped Cadet Protection programs has scared off more then a few too.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,474

« Reply #7 on: December 24, 2016, 03:36:34 AM »

And the revamped Cadet Protection programs has scared off more then a few too.

I do hear that from time to time and don't understand it - there's been no change to the policy in regards to flight ops.
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Briank
Member

Posts: 52
Unit: GLR-OH-064

« Reply #8 on: December 24, 2016, 09:12:41 AM »

Locally, o-flights just ran into bad luck this year.  Seems like every time an o-flight day was scheduled for a unit, we'd either have bad weather roll in or the plane would be down with some issue.  Both SAREXs I attended had flight hours cut short due to weather too.  Combined with an allergy season that never ended (and kept some pilots self-grounded) it just was not a good flying year.

The 172 vs. 182 thing is a good point.  I'm comfortable in either, but my wife really isn't a big fan of high performance/constant speed props (even though she's got the endorsement and the hours).  I'd imagine others are in the same boat, so I'm sure it cuts down on willing pilots.  However, what choice is there?  With the limited capacity of the current 172s (they're effectively 2 seaters for today's modern adult, that rear seat is just a fancy package shelf in most cases) if you want a truly mission capable airplane it has to be a 182.

Next year is almost certainly going to be worse too, but for different reasons.  I hear there's plenty of money available, but that's no good if you don't have airplanes.  My wing just lost 2 airplanes this year (that won't be replaced), and I'm told there won't even be one in my part of the state at all.

Might as well re-brand as the Civil Ground Patrol (just kidding, I think...  Sigh.)...
Logged
kcebnaes
Member

Posts: 89
Unit: GLR-OH-064

« Reply #9 on: December 24, 2016, 10:27:00 AM »

Here's hoping my group can help change some of those numbers for this coming year for the better!

Also, BrianK- check your CAP email.  :)
« Last Edit: December 24, 2016, 10:44:46 AM by kcebnaes » Logged
Maj Sean Beck
Ohio Wing
Group VI Commander
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 9,841
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #10 on: December 24, 2016, 01:55:57 PM »

The biggest reason I've seen here in California for the drop in Cadet O Flights is the drop in O Flight Pilots.
There are more then a few of our pilots who simply don't want to deal with the additional requirements anymore.
And the revamped Cadet Protection programs has scared off more then a few too.

On top of that, down here in my part of the world (SoCal), we've had weather, and maintenance issues, get in the way of O-flights. Annnnnd, one of our 182's got wrecked in August, which didn't help things.
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,680

« Reply #11 on: December 24, 2016, 02:08:28 PM »

And the revamped Cadet Protection programs has scared off more then a few too.

I do hear that from time to time and don't understand it - there's been no change to the policy in regards to flight ops.

I think it was the way the revamped program was presented.
Logged
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,680

« Reply #12 on: December 24, 2016, 02:11:35 PM »

The biggest reason I've seen here in California for the drop in Cadet O Flights is the drop in O Flight Pilots.
There are more then a few of our pilots who simply don't want to deal with the additional requirements anymore.
And the revamped Cadet Protection programs has scared off more then a few too.

On top of that, down here in my part of the world (SoCal), we've had weather, and maintenance issues, get in the way of O-flights. Annnnnd, one of our 182's got wrecked in August, which didn't help things.

That and the fact the it "seems" that O-Flights are at the bottom of the priority list when reserving aircraft.
At least that's the way it appears from our end.
Logged
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 634

« Reply #13 on: December 25, 2016, 01:04:24 AM »


Are self-pay 'C' proficiency flights part of 'Corporate' shown?

Presumably no, since by design a C isn't an "AFAM".  CAP does a lot of customer-funded flying
which presumably isn't captured in the above.

Looking at the top chart in my OP, isn't the total at the bottom all inclusive of CAP flight hours?

Where do self pay C flights appear?  Isn't customer -funded flying  included in the top line: DSCA/DR ?
Logged
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 634

« Reply #14 on: December 25, 2016, 01:10:11 AM »


Cadet powered training is such a small percentage of flying hours that it's barely a blip - a few flight academies,
a few encampments, and the occasional scholarship.

We have Cadets taking primary training as self paid flights with our Squadron's CFIs. Another one will start in the Spring. Two more interested with parents looking into finances.

Are we that unique? Do other Squadrons not have any Cadets interested in taking lessons and with the finances to do so? Its so much cheaper than outside of CAP.

If not ... why not? We should be encouraging it. Creating Cadet pilots who will become future Senior Member pilots.

Do we have a shortage of CFIs who are willing to teach primary students? If so, what can we do to change that?
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,474

« Reply #15 on: December 25, 2016, 01:55:36 AM »


Are self-pay 'C' proficiency flights part of 'Corporate' shown?

Presumably no, since by design a C isn't an "AFAM".  CAP does a lot of customer-funded flying
which presumably isn't captured in the above.

Looking at the top chart in my OP, isn't the total at the bottom all inclusive of CAP flight hours?

No - not if this is a list of AFAMS

Where do self pay C flights appear?  Isn't customer -funded flying  included in the top line: DSCA/DR ?

DSCA = Defense Security Cooperation Agency  Defense Support of Civil Authorities
Quoth the wiki:
"The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), as part of the United States Department of Defense (DoD), provides financial and technical assistance, transfer of defense matériel, training and services to allies, and promotes military-to-military contacts. Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA) is the process by which United States military assets and personnel can be used to assist in missions normally carried out by civil authorities."

"C" missions, as in "Corporate" are not "Air Force Assigned Missions".

This list looks like all USAF managed appropriations and 1AF directed / funded operations for or with other DOD and .gov agencies.

**** Edit: Egg Nog, and presents clouded my response.

Yes - it appears "C" missions are in the second part of the chart under Corporate, those would be the local agency support,
non-AFAM DR, etc., etc.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2016, 11:40:35 AM by Eclipse » Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,474

« Reply #16 on: December 25, 2016, 02:04:51 AM »


Cadet powered training is such a small percentage of flying hours that it's barely a blip - a few flight academies,
a few encampments, and the occasional scholarship.

We have Cadets taking primary training as self paid flights with our Squadron's CFIs. Another one will start in the Spring. Two more interested with parents looking into finances.

Are we that unique?

For the most part, yes.

Do other Squadrons not have any Cadets interested in taking lessons and with the finances to do so? Its so much cheaper than outside of CAP.
It's only "cheaper" if you attend an academy or have interested CFIs.

If not ... why not? We should be encouraging it. Creating Cadet pilots who will become future Senior Member pilots.

Do we have a shortage of CFIs who are willing to teach primary students? If so, what can we do to change that?
A "shortage" pre-supposes there is a number which would be adequate.  Obviously that number is "non-zero", but CAP
doesn't recruit CFIs, per se to do cadet flight instruction.

I can say that with the GA community shrinking in general each year, including the loss of regional and local airports,
there are a lot of CFIs who have had to move on to other occupations, not to mention the general aging of the GA community
which in turn means retiring pilots. In my area pilots and CFIs, especially those with time for CAP, are getting harder and harder to find.

And while renting CAP aircraft for flight instructions is cheaper in most cases then your average FBO's bird's nest / trainer plane,
there are non-trivial issues of availability, proximity, and approvals.  We should encourage cadet flight training,
but that should also be lower on the totem pole then O-rides, Missions, and SAR training, which isn't going to leave a lot of hours
left on those birds out of the 100 between maintenance.

And lastly, for every kid with a gleam in his eye to "touch the face of God", there's a thousand who just aren't interested,
and while CAP may offer cheaper opportunities (in some places, when the stars align) learning to fly is in no way "cheap"
and a lot of families would be hard-pressed to afford $5-10k especially before college, and even more so when a good college-based
aviation program is probably a better way to get your PPL and invest the money.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2016, 02:12:46 AM by Eclipse » Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

sardak
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,120

« Reply #17 on: December 25, 2016, 03:12:17 AM »

Quote
DSCA = Defense Security Cooperation Agency
While this is one official use of the acronym, DSCA referred to in this chart and in other CAP documents means Defense Support of Civil Authorities. There is a entire appendix in DoD Manual 3025.01 Volume 1, Defense Support of Civil Authorities devoted to CAP. CAP is also referenced in DoD Directive 3025.18, DSCA, and Joint Pub 3-28, DSCA. Current versions of all are attached.

Mike
Logged
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 634

« Reply #18 on: December 26, 2016, 12:06:04 PM »


It's only "cheaper" if you attend an academy or have interested CFIs.

I can understand the fact of most CFIs wanting to charge for their services outside of CAP and feeling that giving lessons inside of CAP is hurting their income stream.

I've recruited 3 new Cadets to our Squadron in the last year, but want to take it up a notch. I'm working toward Commercial currently and hoping to get to CFI for the sole purpose of training Cadets as primary students. My way of 'giving back' and to help get more young folks interested in aviation.



We should encourage cadet flight training,
but that should also be lower on the totem pole then O-rides, Missions, and SAR training, which isn't going to leave a lot of hours
left on those birds out of the 100 between maintenance.

The average CAP plane is not anywhere near getting the desired 200 hours per year. They are only being used 3-4 hours per week. That leaves quite a bit of time they could be used for training. But yes ... having enough willing CFIs is a key factor.


And lastly, for every kid with a gleam in his eye to "touch the face of God", there's a thousand who just aren't interested,
and while CAP may offer cheaper opportunities (in some places, when the stars align) learning to fly is in no way "cheap"
and a lot of families would be hard-pressed to afford $5-10k especially before college, and even more so when a good college-based
aviation program is probably a better way to get your PPL and invest the money.

I know one teenage kid here that is driving a $500 junk car he paid cash for, while his buddies are driving $20-30k vehicles to school, because he is using the money they use for car payments to fly 2-3 lessons a month. Its all about priorities and desire. It may only be one out of a thousand kids, but I really want to help that one. :)

Logged
Spaceman3750
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,588

« Reply #19 on: December 26, 2016, 12:24:49 PM »

The average CAP plane is not anywhere near getting the desired 200 hours per year. They are only being used 3-4 hours per week.

You should probably do the math on that one...
Logged
"Anyone can hold the helm when the seas are calm ... leadership is about weathering the storm."

The moment any commander or staff member considers themselves a gatekeeper, instead of a facilitator, they have failed at their job.
I can't fix all of CAP's problems, but I can lead from the bottom by building my squadron as a center of excellence to serve as an example of what every unit can be.
Pages: [1] 2  All Print 
CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Emergency Services & Operations  |  Topic: Interesting Year End Stats
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.467 seconds with 20 queries.