How many Form 5 pilots to get an aircraft assigned to a squadron

[FastAttack]

quick question for you guys.

Usually how many active form 5 pilots does it require for a airplane to be moved to a local airport were a squadron can access a little bit easier?

Our situation:

When I mean active we are flying a group airplane pretty much once a week , for O-rides , Pre-Form 5 flying, Flight proficiency and Training new scanners and observers.

We currently have
2- Form 5 pilots ( which one of them is me)
1- Pilot completing his form 5 in about a week or so.
1- Pilot completing his form 5 and IP checkout in about 2 weeks. ( nice to have him around, i might have him do my IFR training )

And we have 2 other new pilots that are waiting on us to help them out as they are new members.

And now we have a cadet solo pilot wanting to continue his training.

to make matters more interesting our squadron has an A&P as well.

The only reason I ask because the airplane we use is also used regularly by other squadrons, and i got a feeling that they think we use it to much. ( Which we do , as our squadron is almost 100 members big , we got a lot of needs )

We do have access to a 182T with g1000 that is not used that often , but so far we have to re-do our FITS training due to that particular airplane being tasked we can't even do our form 5 in it since it has been here.

just curious if there is a requirement to get aircraft re-located from another wing or group.

[Eclipse]

Its going to vary by wing, but aircraft deployment is generally based on hours flown, not raw number of pilots.  You could have 20 TMP's, but if the only fly once a year, you won't keep an airplane.  With 100 members, and an already taxed aircraft nearby you may have justification for a second airplane.

The A&P is irrelevant thanks to CMX, as is the cadet, since the cadet will not likely put a significant number of hours on the aircraft (might, I suppose, depends on $$$).

There are no hard-fast rules regarding the place, however if you already have a G1000 in the area, the odds are its there for a reason and getting a second plane nearby is generally difficult.  If no one can fly the G1000 and you have all 172 steam pilots, its time to have your CC discuss up the chain moving the planes around your wing.

[vento]

Its going to vary by wing, but aircraft deployment is generally based on hours flown, not raw number of pilots.  You could have 20 TMP's, but if the only fly once a year, you won't keep an airplane.  With 100 members, and an already taxed aircraft nearby you may have justification for a second airplane.

The A&P is irrelevant thanks to CMX, as is the cadet, since the cadet will not likely put a significant number of hours on the aircraft (might, I suppose, depends on $$$).

There are no hard-fast rules regarding the place, however if you already have a G1000 in the area, the odds are its there for a reason and getting a second plane nearby is generally difficult.  If no one can fly the G1000 and you have all 172 steam pilots, its time to have your CC discuss up the chain moving the planes around your wing.

x2

Also, I would think that form 91 pilots that can actually put hours into the program is a better criteria than form 5 pilots.   

[a2capt]

The number thats been tossed around before they'll even look is... 5.

But thats going to be 5 fully active pilot members. So ...

...and you'll find the politics are a lot thicker and it can be as little as 1 that keeps it from ever happening, even if there are 20 yearning for it.

[bosshawk]

As far as I know, there are no rules on the subject.  As has been stated, politics plays a role in a lot of cases.  I know of one Sq in CAWG that has no active pilots and has an aircraft.  Don't ask me why this is allowed to happen: I only work here, now.  Notice that I am no longer the CDO in CAWG: served three years and wanted off the Wing Staff so badly that I asked to be relieved.

[jimmydeanno]

1) Is the wing cc a pilot?

2) Does the wing cc live in your area or have a bunch of their pilot buddies around your area?

Just kidding, of course. 

In our wing assignment is based off geographical coverage needs for the most part.  They swap planes with lower hours to the busy squadrons regardless of how many pilots the unit has.  For example our unit has half the pilots another one does, but we fly "our" planes nearly three times as much.

Once we established that we would use the plane we got some more chips on the table to negotiate our needs with.  So now, we have a 172 based here because we have a bunch of cadets doing flight training.

[FastAttack]

well,

at least we established that its not the number for form 5 pilots ( although it helps)

But the usage. No biggie..
I myself i am flying at least 10 hours a month ( trying to reach 175 hours before NESA comes around) , the other form 5 pilot flies pretty much every weekend doing O-rides.

The new and upcoming pilot is working on building hours to also go to NESA he also flies around 10 hours a month.

The new and upcoming IP is willing to train new cadets and work with the new senior pilots. He is an airline pilot/ military  so he is out for about 1-2 weeks then he has a lot of free time.
He will also be going to NESA or just work with one of the local instructors here to do his form 91 work.

the other 2 pilots are low time pilots ( around 50-75 hours) and are just uneasy of taking a form 5. So we are bringing them along and helping them with the process.


Little background about the G1000:

The G1000 aircraft is tasked a lot on this area for form 91 pilots but other than that its not used that often during a weekly basis ( mostly night missions for "special tasking", super hush hush stuff).

Its a nice tool to have but we can't do that much with it , as we would have to be very careful on blocking some time with it.

Thanks again guys for the responses.

[FastAttack]

Its going to vary by wing, but aircraft deployment is generally based on hours flown, not raw number of pilots.  You could have 20 TMP's, but if the only fly once a year, you won't keep an airplane.  With 100 members, and an already taxed aircraft nearby you may have justification for a second airplane.

The A&P is irrelevant thanks to CMX, as is the cadet, since the cadet will not likely put a significant number of hours on the aircraft (might, I suppose, depends on $$$).

There are no hard-fast rules regarding the place, however if you already have a G1000 in the area, the odds are its there for a reason and getting a second plane nearby is generally difficult.  If no one can fly the G1000 and you have all 172 steam pilots, its time to have your CC discuss up the chain moving the planes around your wing.

x2

Also, I would think that form 91 pilots that can actually put hours into the program is a better criteria than form 5 pilots.   

I would agree with you but in our case we are putting more hours on the airplane than most of the form 91 pilots in our group right now

that's because we are all committed not only to help our squadron out but I'll be honest for our own benefit of getting proficient and learning something new other than flying around the pattern.

For me CAP flying gives me a purpose and adventure. And like the other pilots in my squadron we enjoy working together and also working with other pilots of the group.

[FastAttack]

Its going to vary by wing, but aircraft deployment is generally based on hours flown, not raw number of pilots.  You could have 20 TMP's, but if the only fly once a year, you won't keep an airplane.  With 100 members, and an already taxed aircraft nearby you may have justification for a second airplane.

The A&P is irrelevant thanks to CMX, as is the cadet, since the cadet will not likely put a significant number of hours on the aircraft (might, I suppose, depends on $$$).

There are no hard-fast rules regarding the place, however if you already have a G1000 in the area, the odds are its there for a reason and getting a second plane nearby is generally difficult.  If no one can fly the G1000 and you have all 172 steam pilots, its time to have your CC discuss up the chain moving the planes around your wing.

Our group used to have 3 aircraft at one point. Like any other states, i believe the 3rd aircraft was dropped due to low flight hours and lack of pilots. This was when gas hit like 6-7 dollars a gallon so everyone in the group stop flying all together.

I guess its a cycle. We either have to many active pilots or we don't.

[sdcapmx]

That's what the wing DO get paid the big bucks for.  It is up to the DO to place AC where needed.  I can tell you that Mission Pilots are a priority when placing AC but utilization has to be looked at as well.  I won't simply put an AC where I have a few MPs if they don't fly but may instead put it somewhere that is looking to fly the bird.  If the AC do not get flown we stand the chance of them moving around within the region so utilization is very important.

[PHall]

That's what the wing DO get paid the big bucks for.  It is up to the DO to place AC where needed.  I can tell you that Mission Pilots are a priority when placing AC but utilization has to be looked at as well.  I won't simply put an AC where I have a few MPs if they don't fly but may instead put it somewhere that is looking to fly the bird.  If the AC do not get flown we stand the chance of them moving around within the region so utilization is very important.

Actually it's the Wing Aircraft Manager's job, but that's a minor detail.

The most common reason I have seen for why an aircraft is based at airport X or at airport Y is because the Wing Commander wanted it at airport X.

And since the Aircraft Manager is on the Wing Staff...

[Eclipse]

That's what the wing DO get paid the big bucks for.  It is up to the DO to place AC where needed.  I can tell you that Mission Pilots are a priority when placing AC but utilization has to be looked at as well.  I won't simply put an AC where I have a few MPs if they don't fly but may instead put it somewhere that is looking to fly the bird.  If the AC do not get flown we stand the chance of them moving around within the region so utilization is very important.

Actually it's the Wing Aircraft Manager's job, but that's a minor detail.

The most common reason I have seen for why an aircraft is based at airport X or at airport Y is because the Wing Commander wanted it at airport X.

And since the Aircraft Manager is on the Wing Staff...

Depends on your Wing.  In mine the ACM handles the planes where they sit, but has little say about the where.

We also deploy them based primarily on hours flown and proximity to active pilots.  I'm not aware of any issues politically with where ours are deployed (which is not to say everyone is happy), but I'm sure there are plenty of places where that'snot the case.

[sdcapmx]

Actually a quote from CAPR 20-1 found under the Wing Operations Officer duties states:

"Develop standard operating procedures for the control and operation of CAP aircraft."

I find no such position of "Aircraft Manager" listed in said regulation.  Now for a larger wing the DO may have an Aircraft Manager appointed but I can assure you the Aircraft Manager will work under the direction of the DO in that case.

[Larry Mangum]

It does vary from wing to wing how aircraft are distributed. I have seen it done through a wing level aircraft manager and through an aircraft utilization committee. In the end though it is the Wing Cc, who decided where a plane is based.  Don't kid yourself though; politics and Geographic's do have a role in the decision as they should.
Let's take past WAWG history as an example. The majority of the 11 aircraft that the wing, use to have, where positioned in the Olympia to Bellingham corridor along I-5.  This is also where 90 to 95 % of your pilot base, lives. Only 3 aircraft were based east of the cascades, 1 in Spokane, 1 in Yakima, and 1 in Walla Walla. None of those three cites has a large form 5 or form 91 pilot base. So why are they located there, because of geographical, political, and weather conditions. 
Spokane supports AFROTC and SAR in the NE corner of the state. Walla Walla, supports AFROTC, CD and SAR in the SE corner of the State and Yakima, supports the central part of the state.  I mentioned weather as a condition and in the northwest that comes primarily as rain, ice, and snow. This means that while it may only take an hour to an hour and a half to fly from Seattle to Yakima, if the weather is bad you may have to go via the Columbia Gorge and now you have a five to five and a half hour flight instead and that is if you can get through the gorge. 
So how does politics come into play? Simply supporting the flying of AFROTC cadets brings a political aspect, as the failure to locate an airframe with a short distance of the college, would make it cost prohibitive to support AFROTC.  Politics also plays a role in assigning an aircraft to any area with a very small pilot population. Can a wing afford to not position an aircraft in an area, if it would leave a large part of the state uncovered? Is a 5 hour flight, in good weather to provide support to a sheriff acceptable? Other consideration migh be for examplem if we place a plane in the area, will it help the local squadron or squadron's to recruit pilot's and observers?
The case I am trying to make here, is that even though, it would be nice if aircraft positioning could be based upon pilot density, the decision as to where a plane is based, always involves other  considerations as well.

[Eclipse]

Actually a quote from CAPR 20-1 found under the Wing Operations Officer duties states:

"Develop standard operating procedures for the control and operation of CAP aircraft."

I find no such position of "Aircraft Manager" listed in said regulation.  Now for a larger wing the DO may have an Aircraft Manager appointed but I can assure you the Aircraft Manager will work under the direction of the DO in that case.

Bear in mind, 20-1 is a suggested framework, not a prescription.

[Mustang]

One of the NHQ types, might have been Salvador, said on the NEC feed Friday that a pilot-to-plane ratio of at least 5:1 is the unwritten rule of thumb, and that's pretty much in line with my experience in a few different wings. 

[RiverAux]

Bear in mind, 20-1 is a suggested framework, not a prescription.

Tell that to all those folks who had their non-standard position titles eliminated a few months ago when NHQ purged them out of the database. 

[wingnut55]

I suspect hat the GAO will ferret out the charade we present on our actual availability, response, actual Aircraft usage, etc, etc. The response to ELTs has plummeted to dismally low numbers.  Very little recruiting is being done, most of the experienced Pilot's that I know are disillusioned and weary of the constant barrage of regulations and many just eventually drop out

Having one Airplane for three or four pilots is ridiculous and a waste of Taxpayers money. CAP needs to move back to the Member owned Aircraft mentality because we cannot sustain the coming Budget Cuts to  CAP with 500 CAP/Corporate/ Tax Payer Paid for Airplane fleet. The maintenance alone will bankrupt us. We can't have 200 airplanes getting  less than 100 hours a year of flight time.

[BlueLakes1]

In Indiana, we have 8 airframes and 10 or 11 units that could potentially sustain an aircraft (at widely varying levels of participation). In order to help us sort assignments out, and to help kill the perception of favoritism by the CC/DO/Santa Claus/whoever, we developed a custody application form that grades units on a number of factors to show how the unit participates in total - SAR/DR flying, CD flying, O-rides, how many pilots, Mission Pilots, base staff personnel, etc. Units are required to submit the form annually, and a committee made up of the "Top Three", DO, ES Director, Aircraft Maintenance Officer, Stan/Eval Officer, and CD Officer review the packets. Units may be selected to have year round custody, or custody during the CD season or off season only. This has worked pretty well; we can show strenghts and weaknesses between units that apply, and units know what they need to work on over the next year to strengthen their application for the next year.

While we select what units will have custody, and when they will have it, we specifically do not assign a given aircraft to a unit. Some units, especially during our CD season, will fly substantially higher numbers than others, and we rotate airframes as needed to balance the hours. While the custody application process is new, rotating airplanes between units is not, and in the three years that we have been doing it, we have been quite successful in keeping 200 hours on each tail.

If anyone would like to see our custody application form, I'll be more than happy to share.

[Captain Morgan]

The magic number is 200 hours per year.  If you think your unit or location can put 200 hours total on a bird in a year, I would ask your Squadron commander to present your case to the Wing DO.