So how many Pilots are there in CAP???

[Nomex Maximus]

I just received a list from wing of all the pilots in our wing and their qualifications - to be used by FROs in deciding when to issue a flight release. Much to my suprise, of about 1500 people in our wing, there are only 34 pilots listed and only 20 of those are ES  mission pilots (!).

Is this typical for a wing in CAP? I remember when I joined how people made a point of saying that you didn't need to be a pilot in order to serve but this seems to be going way too far in the non-pilot direction. If this list is correct, and typical for CAP, then only 2% of CAP are pilots (!) This might explain a lot of things...

-- Nomex
(one of the few, the proud, the PILOTS)

[Eclipse]

I just received a list from wing of all the pilots in our wing and their qualifications - to be used by FROs in deciding when to issue a flight release. Much to my suprise, of about 1500 people in our wing, there are only 34 pilots listed and only 20 of those are ES  mission pilots (!).

Is this typical for a wing in CAP? I remember when I joined how people made a point of saying that you didn't need to be a pilot in order to serve but this seems to be going way too far in the non-pilot direction. If this list is correct, and typical for CAP, then only 2% of CAP are pilots (!) This might explain a lot of things...

-- Nomex
(one of the few, the proud, the PILOTS)

Yes, that is typical.

Check some demographics on the percentage of aircrew in the USAF, its only a little higher.

[RiverAux]

According to the CAP Homeland Security Resources page https://ntc.cap.af.mil/ops/hls/resources.cfm CAP has 2,308 mission pilots.  I don't know how current those numbers are though. 

[SDF_Specialist]

There doesn't seem to be enough pilots, but there always are enough to get the job done right. Now one other question, why are SOME pilots so full of themselves?

[aveighter]

Learn to fly, get a form 5 and a form 91 and you will find out!   

[isuhawkeye]

In a 3 or 5 deep model we only need.  (Iowa uses similar numbers in its unit manning documents)

550X5=2,750

we only need 2,750 pilots to maintain an adequate state of readiness in the country. 

[RiverAux]

I am usually a proponent of 5-6 deep myself, but you've just made the big assumption that mission pilot distribution comes close to matching distribution of airplanes and that airplane distribution is really matched to where they are needed to meet ES needs. 

[isuhawkeye]

interesting thought. 

Do many mission pilots exist outside of the operating radius of the aircraft in which they do their proficiency flying?

As far as aircraft distribution goes....

   There is much rime and reason to position aircraft within our organization.  I would hope that mission support would rank fairly high in the decision matrix. 



added:
in my experience many emergency response agencies staff at the 3 deep model.  In Iowa The DMAT's, the USAR TF, and many volunteer fire departments us this model to determine their staffing needs. 
You can clearly disagree, but I think it works well, and frankly in CAP I only see 3-5 pilots doing most of the flying at any given time.

Again, thats my experience yours mav vary.

[RiverAux]

3 deep is an absolute minimum, but I bet you won't find too many of those oranizations who wouldn't feel better about having 5 deep.  It all depends on the type of mission you want to meet. 

Personally, I think any CAP unit with a plane should have the crew available to come close to a 100% guarantee of being able to keep an airplane in the air for 4-7 days straight and with a 3-deep bench you're going to have a hard time doing it.  Such missions don't happen all the time, but often enough that we should be ready for them.  Of course, thats going to depend on the local situation and type of missions you're getting.   

[bosshawk]

I haven't checked the CAWG lists, but I'll bet that there are around 200 pilots out of an adult roster of around 2000.  I do know that I have around 120 cleared and current pilots in the CD program and we give most of them a chance to fly each year.

[Eclipse]

3 deep is an absolute minimum, but I bet you won't find too many of those oranizations who wouldn't feel better about having 5 deep.  It all depends on the type of mission you want to meet. 

Personally, I think any CAP unit with a plane should have the crew available to come close to a 100% guarantee of being able to keep an airplane in the air for 4-7 days straight and with a 3-deep bench you're going to have a hard time doing it.  Such missions don't happen all the time, but often enough that we should be ready for them.  Of course, thats going to depend on the local situation and type of missions you're getting.   

You've got to be kidding.  A single unit? 

At what sortie rate per day?  You're probably talking about more pilots than a majority of units have members.

And how would we keep those pilots qualified?

And what is the mission requirement that would indicate this is justified?

It should also be noted that many wings do not issue a plane to a specific unit - they are placed in regional areas where they can be accessible to the most members. (in theory)

[RiverAux]

I think its pretty typical for most missing airplane searches to go for up to a week so I think a 4-7 day deployment seems reasonable.  The stress that such a mission will put on a wing depends on where you are.  Texas probably wouldn't have any problem at all at keeping 10 planes in the air constantly given that this wouldn't even require half their planes to fly, but for some of the smaller states any missing airplane search is an "all-hands-on-deck" situation where it is critical that you've got enough people to keep every flyable airplane in the air.

Why shouldn't we desire that a unit (or a "region") asociated with a plane be able to keep it flying constantly to support the type of mission we are most known for undertaking for a reasonable period of time?

Heck, even for our more typical ELT missions I think only havint 3 available pilots is running a major risk that a unit will not be able to respond.  I've been there myself and it is not a good feeling especially in an area with a fairly high operations tempo.  The same guys only want to get up at 1am so many times a month.

All I'm talking about is having a manning goal.     

     

[IceNine]

Now one other question, why are SOME pilots so full of themselves?

Dos Gringos  "I'm a Pilot".... Google it, and you'll understand

[isuhawkeye]

3 deep is an absolute minimum, but I bet you won't find too many of those oranizations who wouldn't feel better about having 5 deep.  It all depends on the type of mission you want to meet.

If you noticed I did use 5 deep for the calculation.

[RiverAux]

Yes, you did, but where it matters is on the local level.  It Nebraska has 3 pilots per plane it does them no good that California has 10 pilots per plane (made up numbers).

[isuhawkeye]

copy

You are correct, and I see your point. 

[Frenchie]

I just received a list from wing of all the pilots in our wing and their qualifications - to be used by FROs in deciding when to issue a flight release. Much to my suprise, of about 1500 people in our wing, there are only 34 pilots listed and only 20 of those are ES  mission pilots (!).

My squadron is a senior squadron with ~ 40 active members and only about 2-3 of those aren't pilots.  Most pilots in the squadron are mission pilots.  If your numbers are correct, my squadron has more pilots and mission pilots than your entire wing.  While my squadron has a higher number of pilots than is the norm, there are still other squadrons in my area (Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex) that have quite a few pilots.

So either your wing or my wing is a statistical anomaly.

[Nomex Maximus]

"Now we here in CAP have got two kinds of pilots. We got your hot pilots who get all the hot missions, and then we got your pudknockers who get everything else. Now, what can I get you two pudknockers?"

[ammotrucker]

I just received a list from wing of all the pilots in our wing and their qualifications - to be used by FROs in deciding when to issue a flight release. Much to my suprise, of about 1500 people in our wing, there are only 34 pilots listed and only 20 of those are ES  mission pilots (!).

My squadron is a senior squadron with ~ 40 active members and only about 2-3 of those aren't pilots.  Most pilots in the squadron are mission pilots.  If your numbers are correct, my squadron has more pilots and mission pilots than your entire wing.  While my squadron has a higher number of pilots than is the norm, there are still other squadrons in my area (Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex) that have quite a few pilots.


So either your wing or my wing is a statistical anomaly.

I agree with  you.  My squadron has 60 senior members of which 40+ pilots with 32MP or TMP.  So either my squadron along with yours is an anomily or his wing is.

[RiverAux]

I think you are.  Just take a look at the number of mission pilots in various states using the homeland security resources query. 

[flyguy06]

I just recently became a Form 5 pilot. I am not interested in being a mission pilot righ tnow. I just want to give O-rides and provide flight training to cadets. I think we are loosing pilots becaus eit can be a hassel  just to get qualiofied and then schedule. Youhave to get a flight rlease, then you have to eneter the flight into WMIRS. Its a lot easier to go out and rent a plane at an FBO but of course its a lot cheaper in CAP. I like being in CAP but Idont like all the red tape.

[Larry Mangum]

There has been a general decline in both form 5 and mission pilots within the last 4 to 5 years across the nation.  In 2003 Washington Wing has almost a 100 form 5 pilots and about 56 mission pilots.  Today we have 58 pilots with a cap pilot rating  of which only 31 have current form 5's and 30 mission pilots.  Reasons given for not maintaining their ratings or drooping out include:

1. To many requirements put on them due to the change from 50-15 to 60-3. I need to search for old capwatch databases to find out if reason no 1 is really valid, and in any case should not be valid for anyone who joined since 2004. 

2. To many state requirements.   This issue is being examined closely and we are working with the state to clarify member concerns.

3. Not utilized.  SAR mission have declined with the advent of the 406 beacons, however DR and HLS missions have increased. What did happen was the wing in the period from 2004 to 2006 stopped holding SAR/DR exercises and concentrated on aircrew schools to the detriment of people who were already qualified.  In addition if you were not a "graduate" of the schools, they did not call upon your services. This has been stopped.

4. Lost medical. Not much we can do about this.

As you can see there are a myriad of reasons for the decline in mission and form 5 pilots within Washington. We are working to resolve as many of the issues as we can and it has not been easy as most of the changes require a culture shift and many people resent and oppose change.  WE are not going completely away from schools nor going to just sarex's; instead we hope to provide aircrew ground schools for scanners, observers and mission pilots and then hold SAR/DR/HLS exercises  where they can complete the rating requirements.

[wingnut]

WELL

GUYS I KNOW OF PILOTS IN CAWG WHO HAVE NOT BEEN PAID FOR MISSIONS SINCE MARCH 2007, lets see, march, April, May , June, July, August, September,
October.

SO  do you think its true THAT PILOTS ARE NOT FLYING OR QUITING BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT GETTING REIMBURRESED(THATS PAID TO LOAN MONEY TO THE AIR FORCE FOR FREE)

I know at least 5 pilots who paid over 4,000 in fuel bills for the FOSSET search. LETS SEE THAT WAS  when?? SHAME SHAME, an ABUSE OF CAP MEMBERS.

Maybe it should not be a blog but an AF  IG or Congressional

[Nomex Maximus]

I would think it would be time to call the AF OSI or IG about it.

[BillB]

Is this a result of the Wing Banker Program? Or is it a Wing Staff screwup?

[flynd94]

Its a result of a our last Wing/CC (Lt.Col Muniz). I am one of those pilots that hasn't been paid for mission since April.

In the town hall meeting we had with Col Myrick a couple weeks ago a lot was cleared up.  All of the Fossett mission 108's were processed and, sent into the AF.  They are now working on the back log.  CAWG hired a book keeper and, they expect to have all of the old missions done by end of this month.

Yes, it sucks  but, we had a lot of politics going on in CAWG.  Who are you going to file an IG Complaint against?  Our former CC who was removed for this and, a few more reasons?  I am just going to sit back and, trust what Col Myrick told us.

Now for the original question.  I am quite happy with where I am leaving my squadron.

2 years ago, when I took over as DOV, we were down to 3 CAP pilots and 2 MP's.  I now leave them with 10 CAP Pilots and 8 MP's.  The problem is that too many folks focus on the perceived roadblocks and, discourage members. 

It also helps that my old squadron was very heavy on ES side.  I am sad to be leaving behind a lot of outstanding pilots but, I am happy knowing that I am leaving them better off then when I got there.  It was nice having the support of my squadron CC and, it also doesn't hurt to ask folks what there goals are.  Then explain to them the time frame it takes to become a CAP Pilot, MS, MO or MP.  Being upfront is half the battle.  That way folks don't become discouraged with how long (or short) it takes.

With that said the search is on in the Houston area for a squadron that I will fit into.