Without naming names, I hear that National is not keen on continuing to fund the CA program and that CAWG is not willing to scout out other business for their aircrew outside SAR. Since the 121.5 satellites have stopped listening I think we can all agree that the number of callouts has dropped significantly. O-Rides have also been off the cards due to budget constraints.
This begs the question: How many hours will the average CA plane fly in 2011? How will aircrew stay proficient other than through a couple of SAREX's per year and paid proficiency?
It all seems very quiet.
I guess you didn't get the message our "appropriated" budget was reduced over $4 million this year. Yes, the amount CAP gives to pilots for some subsidized proficiency flying has been drastically reduced. O'flight budget has been reduced as well. This is not just a CAWG problem. So, unless congress "hears our prayers", we're all in for some real belt tightening.
If you want to fly, I suggest helping the wing find either funds or reimbursable "missions". This year, it's back to the day when we spent our own cash to fly anything other than reimbursable AFAMs.
The problem isn't limited to the left coast. We're all going to have to be creative when it comes to funding and searching out new missions/customers.
Simon: did you mean CD when you posted CA? CD makes up about one third of CAWG's total flying hours and it is in limbo for about four months of every year, due to the budget dithering that goes on each fiscal year. FW hit the nail on the head when he mentioned the possibility(horrors) of individuals paying for their own proficiency flying. When I joined CAP, that is exactly what was done. Horrors of horrors, I did my Form 5 and Form 91 training on my own nickle.
Given the current state of affairs, flying is and will continue to be a minor part of CAP in CA: cadets come first.
From the FAA:
"In the stay, filed Jan. 10, 2011, the FCC notes that the FAA "further asserts that 121.5 MHz ELTs can continue to provide a beneficial means of locating missing aircraft even without satellite monitoring of frequency 121.5 MHz, because the frequency is still monitored by the search and rescue community, including the Civil Air Patrol." The FAA is also is concerned about the cost of equipping aircraft with 406 MHz ELTs."
We need to continue monitoring the 121.5 channel for those pilots (Vast majority) that are still using older ELT's. In a recession, there are not many aircraft owners that are considering this a priority! One way to do that is to put inexpensive LPer's, or other receivers, at our repeater sites so as to continue monitoring 121.5. ATC is not passing on the ELT reports in many locations. :(
Quote from: Mission Pilot on February 16, 2011, 03:39:36 PM
From the FAA:
"In the stay, filed Jan. 10, 2011, the FCC notes that the FAA "further asserts that 121.5 MHz ELTs can continue to provide a beneficial means of locating missing aircraft even without satellite monitoring of frequency 121.5 MHz, because the frequency is still monitored by the search and rescue community, including the Civil Air Patrol." The FAA is also is concerned about the cost of equipping aircraft with 406 MHz ELTs."
We need to continue monitoring the 121.5 channel for those pilots (Vast majority) that are still using older ELT's. In a recession, there are not many aircraft owners that are considering this a priority! One way to do that is to put inexpensive LPer's, or other receivers, at our repeater sites so as to continue monitoring 121.5. ATC is not passing on the ELT reports in many locations. :(
There's such a thing as an inexpensive L-Per? >:D
I like the idea, but I can see problems with self-activations instead of reports coming down from AFRCC as they usually do.
Regardless of satelites, all aircraft in the US are to monitor 121.5 if able to do so
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/notices/2011-02-10/Part1,Sec%203.cfm
QuoteFDC 4/4386 - SPECIAL NOTICE...NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM INTERCEPT PROCEDURES. AVIATORS SHALL REVIEW THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION MANUAL (AIM) FOR INTERCEPTION PROCEDURES, CHAPTER 5, SECTION 6, PARAGRAPH 5-6-2. ALL AIRCRAFT OPERATING IN UNITED STATES NATIONAL AIRSPACE, IF CAPABLE, SHALL MAINTAIN A LISTENING WATCH ON VHF GUARD 121.5 OR UHF 243.0. IF AN AIRCRAFT IS INTERCEPTED BY U.S. MILITARY AIRCRAFT AND FLARES ARE DISPENSED, THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES ARE TO BE FOLLOWED: FOLLOW THE INTERCEPT'S VISUAL SIGNALS, CONTACT AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL IMMEDIATELY ON THE LOCAL FREQUENCY OR ON VHF GUARD 121.5 OR UHF GUARD 243.0, AND COMPLY WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY THE INTERCEPTING AIRCRAFT INCLUDING VISUAL SIGNALS IF UNABLE RADIO CONTACT. BE ADVISED THAT NONCOMPLIANCE MAY RESULT IN THE USE OF FORCE.
Pilots, remember, FDC NOTAMS are regulatory in nature.
In my experience, CAP does not routinely monitor 121.5, either sporadically or continuously. There is one guy in Socal who routinely monitors it, so that he can call AFRCC and get a mission number and then go and turn it off: thereby receiving a Find credit. I don't know the number, but he probably has several hundred Finds. If that is what the FAA is referring to, they are somewhat misled.
I also know one guy in CAWG who has looked into putting 121.5 receivers at repeater sites, but I think that it died for lack of interest.
The FCC is within the next year setting up thousands of 'surveillance receivers' to act as DF stations all over the country. One of the plans is to be used to DF ELT's
Quote from: bosshawk on February 16, 2011, 06:09:33 PM
In my experience, CAP does not routinely monitor 121.5, either sporadically or continuously. There is one guy in Socal who routinely monitors it, so that he can call AFRCC and get a mission number and then go and turn it off: thereby receiving a Find credit. I don't know the number, but he probably has several hundred Finds. If that is what the FAA is referring to, they are somewhat misled.
I also know one guy in CAWG who has looked into putting 121.5 receivers at repeater sites, but I think that it died for lack of interest.
What I'm referring to is the fact that, per the NOTAM, if you have two radios in your plane, and you're cruising along only using one of them (for ATC), you are supposed to be listening to 121.5 on the other. When you need two, like when you're doing a handoff or listening to an enroute AWOS, that's fine...but when capable you are supposed to maintain a listening watch on 121.5.
This includes all aircraft in the United States, including everything from a little 172 up to an A-380.
We have an organization in Colordado that has done exactly that. They have some receivers that listen for ELT's and transmit any hits on a ham radio frequency. I know of several CAP members that were involved, using personally owned DF gear.
Their website is offline at the moment though, making me wonder if they are still around: www.fredf.org
FCC's system uses TDOA receivers placed all over the place, tide back to a central network. Its pretty amazingly accurate. And it can be tuned to any freq 50 mhz to 2ghz. Soon that might make CAP antiquated....
Quote from: SARJunkie on February 16, 2011, 07:25:06 PM
FCC's system uses TDOA receivers placed all over the place, tide back to a central network. Its pretty amazingly accurate. And it can be tuned to any freq 50 mhz to 2ghz. Soon that might make CAP antiquated....
In the grand scheme that would, of course, be a good thing. Easier finds = more lives saved.
It still can't find a boyscout or alzheimer's patient though.
it can if they have a cell phone or radio... :)
Quote from: simon on February 16, 2011, 12:10:03 PMHow will aircrew stay proficient other than through a couple of SAREX's per year and paid proficiency?
That is how the vast majority of CAP pilots stay proficient
Quote from: bosshawk on February 16, 2011, 06:09:33 PM
In my experience, CAP does not routinely monitor 121.5, either sporadically or continuously. There is one guy in Socal who routinely monitors it, so that he can call AFRCC and get a mission number and then go and turn it off: thereby receiving a Find credit. I don't know the number, but he probably has several hundred Finds. If that is what the FAA is referring to, they are somewhat misled.
I also know one guy in CAWG who has looked into putting 121.5 receivers at repeater sites, but I think that it died for lack of interest.
"One guy"? Since when does CAP allow "one guy" to do anything?
Quote from: SARJunkie on February 16, 2011, 07:25:06 PM
FCC's system uses TDOA receivers placed all over the place, tide back to a central network. Its pretty amazingly accurate. And it can be tuned to any freq 50 mhz to 2ghz. Soon that might make CAP antiquated....
Sounds a lot like LORAN....I would guess that a system like that would be great for Kansas, but would not help out a lot on our mountainous West (or left, if you prefer) Coast. I was thinking about building a few APRS transmitters that would have a 121.5 receiver for use at airports and send a distinctive " I am here" signal on the APRS network. This would allow a high percentage of activations to be disposed of quickly. I wonder how the FCC got the budget for that kind of a system in this pre-apocalyptic budgetary crisis?
Major Lord
Quote from: SARJunkie on February 16, 2011, 07:25:06 PM
FCC's system uses TDOA receivers placed all over the place, tide back to a central network. Its pretty amazingly accurate. And it can be tuned to any freq 50 mhz to 2ghz. Soon that might make CAP antiquated....
Interesting stuff, do you have a link?
The test platform is in Southern CA. Very successful . They use an AOR receiver, Linux based software, and GPS timing to establish the baseline time data. Then a central server complies all the data on a map with an "X" marks the spot. Ill see if I can find a link.
Eclipse: if you have the nerve(and I think that you do), email the Wing CC of CAWG and ask him that question.
^Your being a naughty boy Paul ;)
Paul
Look out the window. let me know if you see a black CAP van
They're all white here in CAWG. ;)
Yes, Rob, I am, but with good reason. With 12 days left in this mess, I have trouble caring.
And Dave, I doubt if the white van can find my house, I am so far off the beaten track and such a minor player in this terrible drama.
Quote from: SarDragon on February 17, 2011, 12:10:55 AM
They're all white here in CAWG. ;)
The ones you know about are. 8)
Quote from: bosshawk on February 16, 2011, 11:41:33 PM
Eclipse: if you have the nerve(and I think that you do), email the Wing CC of CAWG and ask him that question.
My GAS factor would need to be a lot higher, or it would need to involve one of my people.
I'm sure there are other people in the CAPverse who have standing to make that call who might be interested.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 16, 2011, 07:57:02 PM"One guy"? Since when does CAP allow "one guy" to do anything?
Allow? LOL. He says, "the regulations, those are just guidelines". It's not a question of allow.
Quote from: simon on February 16, 2011, 12:10:03 PM
Without naming names, I hear that National is not keen on continuing to fund the CA program and that CAWG is not willing to scout out other business for their aircrew outside SAR. Since the 121.5 satellites have stopped listening I think we can all agree that the number of callouts has dropped significantly. O-Rides have also been off the cards due to budget constraints.
This begs the question: How many hours will the average CA plane fly in 2011? How will aircrew stay proficient other than through a couple of SAREX's per year and paid proficiency?
It all seems very quiet.
So aside from the vans....
What mission should we scout? Lets hear some ideas? Considering the aviation assets that are present in CA in regards to Fire, LE, Fed LE, etc. I think we do pretty good.
With the state drowning in red ink, there may be a greater need for our aircraft/crew in CAWG. We do work a lot cheaper and, some don't mind working week days... :D
Quote from: Flying Pig on February 17, 2011, 03:37:19 PM
Quote from: simon on February 16, 2011, 12:10:03 PM
Without naming names, I hear that National is not keen on continuing to fund the CA program and that CAWG is not willing to scout out other business for their aircrew outside SAR. Since the 121.5 satellites have stopped listening I think we can all agree that the number of callouts has dropped significantly. O-Rides have also been off the cards due to budget constraints.
This begs the question: How many hours will the average CA plane fly in 2011? How will aircrew stay proficient other than through a couple of SAREX's per year and paid proficiency?
It all seems very quiet.
So aside from the vans....
What mission should we scout? Lets hear some ideas? Considering the aviation assets that are present in CA in regards to Fire, LE, Fed LE, etc. I think we do pretty good.
From what I've gleaned from other posts, you could probably spend some time fixing your relationships regarding ground teams.
Yeah,....I think they'll be OK
My wing has similair problems. No funding for anything. No orientation flights, no F5's, no F91's. Everything is now self-funded. The planes are getting dusty sitting in the hangars.
Welcome to the old CAP. When I joined in January of 1996, if you wanted to become a mission pilot or observer you paid for the flights out of your own pocket. And you know what, the members who had aeronautical ratings tended to be more dedicated to the mission as they had skin in the game. Once we started paying for all of the training, we got a lot more of the people who were just in it for the free flying and while the number of Form 5 pilots went up, the number of form 91 pilots went down.
^Aint that the truth.
Quote from: Thrash on February 17, 2011, 06:59:28 PM
My wing has similair problems. No funding for anything. No orientation flights, no F5's, no F91's. Everything is now self-funded. The planes are getting dusty sitting in the hangars.
Recurrent 5's and 91's should be funded, and O-Ride money is generally a matter of having the pilots and asking for the money.
Is this because of the overall issues with the continuing resolution, or doesn't your wing request an annual budget?
Eclipse: this happens every 1 Nov, when the NOC runs out of money from the last fiscal year and has no authority to spend any money that might be approved in the as-yet unapproved appropriation. They typically bumble along until Feb or March, when the AF budget is finally approved and then the money starts to flow. With a continuing resolution, I am not sure that anyone knows what funds are going to be available.
I did see recently that some O Ride money had become available: have no idea where it came from and really don't intend to ask.
I mentioned in another post that while I was CAWG CD Director, we went into hiding from Nov through Feb every year: no money. Our customers finally took onboard that this was going to happen and they made other plans.
My sense is that CAP goes from paycheck to paycheck every year and that is unfortunate. An operating reserve might be nice. Ned: hint, hint, hint.
^I understand, my wing's in the same boat, we all are, as are a lot of my friends who work for government agencies and even Fermi - we got a few buckos
recently for o-rides, and all but the big SAREx's are self-funded, or locally funded, as are encampments, etc., so the CR situation is typical and
not really that big an impact on operations.
But Thrash's comment had the tone of no money being status quo in his wing.
From what I hear all CA SAR teams are being redesignated as solely "RESCUE" units. Apparently, there is no need for "SEARCH" units as Gov. Moonbeam(V 2.0) will be locating lost persons, vehicles, aircraft, etc. by TMT(Transcendental Mental Telepathy). ;D ;D
Sign me up for the Astral Projection Ground Team! You won't even have to get wet, dirty, or tired, and no forms to fill out! "Men who stare at Cessnas" Awesome dude!
Major Lord
Quote from: bosshawk on February 16, 2011, 11:41:33 PM
Eclipse: if you have the nerve(and I think that you do), email the Wing CC of CAWG and ask him that question.
When you talk to the CAWG Wing King ask him why CAWG puts out numerous repeated pages for resources. This includes locating an IC as well as aircrews and ground resources. Seems like just a few in California Wing run and handle almost all the missions for the Wing. Do you really want to argue and complain about success? Seems like CAWG handles more missions than any other wing, more finds which to me means these few are producing most of the Wing's results and has earned CAWG the "BEST OF THE BEST" award for their ES program. I know the "one guy" you are referring to. It is not just him but a few just like him. There are a few people who's lives they saved that would argue that they would not be alive today had it not be for them. Period! They are able to execute their missions without much air support, quickly and professionally, and are a target of many for not needing or using aircraft. Many have felt that this is a threat to our aircrews and culture...so what! They get the job done, get results and get criticized. But if you ever need help, these are the guys you want to come and find you!
They have placed a 121.5/243.0 df receiver atop one of the southern California repeaters. As far as I know outside of one other site, it is the only one of two and as I understand it has yielded numerous finds for CAP as well as distress finds and numerous saves. But as par for the course, we must complain about their success. It is not "his" success, but our success as well as those that we search for. At the end of the year, those numbers yield needed results that is good for CAP as a whole. Good for them!
The inability to compose a team is not "success". Making up your own rules is not "success".
Yeah, yeah, I know. "It's an emergency and lives are at stake so I must go alone!"
Interesting how the same state has members complaining about "no ground activity" because of issues with the
local agencies, then we hear that members are being sent alone to do ELT hunts.
But of course there's no correlation.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 18, 2011, 05:40:32 AM
The inability to compose a team is not "success". Making up your own rules is not "success".
Yeah, yeah, I know. "It's an emergency and lives are at stake so I must go alone!"
Interesting how the same state has members complaining about "no ground activity" because of issues with the
local agencies, then we hear that members are being sent alone to do ELT hunts.
But of course there's no correlation.
"the inability to compose a team is not "success" Making up your own rules is not "success"
The CAWG policy for UDF teams is that one person can deploy in the field per vehicle, two vehicles per team and the two teams must remain within simplex radio range. That is what these guys do and do it well and quickly. But they would come under fire by many because most in the wing didn't understand or agree with the Commander's policy. These guys were not making up the rules as implied, but followed them. As to the inability to compose a team, when I would do my tour as the wing alerting officer, I would call 40 ICs in southern California and would only get the last guy I called (number 40) to take the mission. It was "him". Same as for finding aircrew and udf teams. Four pages for aircrews and teams and the only response was the same one aircrew and one udf team 90% of the time.
The lack of success falls on the wing commander and most of our membership. Seems like the ones that complain the loudest are the ones that never respond at all.
Your points are salient, but don't change things. Also, your characterization is not the same as the original, which dilutes the original point.
Single-members working together in separate vehicles is not the same as "one guy" rolling on his own as was presented.
Regardless, if people won't answer the phone, you take them off the list. Either way you win.
Either they step up and respond, or your list, and by association, understanding of real response capabilities, is a lot shorter.
This is literally the exact problem with CAP - instead of addressing issues head-on and holding people responsible for their behavior and
lack of performance, they make up new processes that end around or ignore the bad actors, or make everyone to to refresher training.
Field expediency is supposed to be used in emergencies and extraordinary circumstances, not as the basis for a structured program.
Wait, CAWG got a "Best of the Best" award for ES but doesn't play nicely with local agencies on the ground?
How is that a representation of the best of the best? There's three sides to operations and they should all be functioning well if you want to be used as an example for anything positive.
When and how did CAWG fet a "Best of the Best" ES Award?
Quote from: SARPilotNY on February 18, 2011, 05:23:38 AMSeems like CAWG handles more missions than any other wing, more finds which to me means these few are producing most of the Wing's results and has earned CAWG the "BEST OF THE BEST" award for their ES program.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on February 18, 2011, 02:58:17 PM
Quote from: SARPilotNY on February 18, 2011, 05:23:38 AMSeems like CAWG handles more missions than any other wing, more finds which to me means these few are producing most of the Wing's results and has earned CAWG the "BEST OF THE BEST" award for their ES program.
Well let's see WAWG has earned two "Outstandings" for SAR Evals in the last 7 years, participated in multiple Presidential Declared Disaster Relief Missions, quite a few real SAR missions and is consistently awarded as the best CD wing in PCR. An that is just WAWG, AKWG probably has more "Saves" then any other wing in the region or country for that matter and the other wings in the region also have good programs. Somehow I think the other big wings like FLWG and TXWG to name a few would probably take exception to that statement as well. CAWG likes to think it is the best in the country, but the facts simply just do not support it.
This was the award that AFRCC awards through NHQ. And if I am right, a California aircrew earned an award for their service by the 1st Airforce at last summers National Boards.
They must be doing something right in the eyes of the Air Force.
You might be surprised how little information the AFRCC has about our missions - they don't even know who goes.
They simply hand off the mission and rely on us to follow our internal rules and procedures. If we find the beacon, they
have no idea who did it, just that it was turned off.
None of this justifies ignoring procedure.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on February 18, 2011, 02:00:08 PM
Wait, CAWG got a "Best of the Best" award for ES but doesn't play nicely with local agencies on the ground?
Not playing nicely with others may be a poor characterization of the situation. I think a more accurate description would be CAP ground ops simply aren't needed since many of the sheriff's have ground SAR resources, in terms of personnel, equipment and training, that far exceed anything CAP has to offer. The sheriffs are happy to leave electronic search to CAP and CAP often works closely with them in that area.
CAP plays very nicely with agencies in CA. Especially in the CD arena. But like was said above, most agencies in CA just dont need CAP very often.
Being in CAWG, I've never heard that CAWG won anything like "The Best of the Best" award. Maybe my paygrade doesn't allow me access to privileged information, who knows... ;D
However, I do know that a few members were awarded for meritorious mission. Snip from a message sent to ALL CAWG
Quote3 California members have also received the AFNORTH's Commander's Award, established by Maj. Gen. Henry Morrow, which acknowledges the Most Meritorious CAP Mission.
Congratulations to Tom Charpentier, Ken Deeble and Bob Keilholtz for earning this award during their participation in the mission in which 3 lives were saved near Camp Pendleton.
If we are referring to this one as "Best of the Best", then it had been blown out of proportions and the subsequent sarcasm and comments are really uncalled for. I am sure we have members who had performed mission well and saved lives all across the country, it is not a CAWG only thing. If this is not the event being referred to here, then somebody please enlight me about the truth about "Best of the Best" award, without compromising OPSEC of course. >:D
Actually, I was wondering that. Ive never heard of the Best of the Best Award either.
Quote from: PA Guy on February 18, 2011, 06:27:08 PM
I think a more accurate description would be CAP ground ops simply aren't needed since many of the sheriff's have ground SAR resources, in terms of personnel, equipment and training, that far exceed anything CAP has to offer.
I very much doubt that any sheriff's SAR team has as many personnel available for searches as they would really like to have. I don't doubt that they have enough of the specialized teams to handle those missions, but not generic ground SAR missions. I very much doubt that if they fully understood what capabilities CAP ground teams had that they would not accept such assistance because they had more than enough people of their own. Keep in mind, I'm only talking about ground teams -- CA seems to be unique in the extent to which county's have access to significant rotary wing resources and which CAP's aerial assets wouldn't be much of an advantage.
However, developing the personal relationships necessary to get CAP involved at that level are very difficult and I'm not really aware of any Wing that has devoted any significant resources towards doing so and making sure that CAP is on the callout list for such searches.
I note that some on CAPTalk deride any suggestion that CAP go looking for missions for our airplanes as either unfairly competing with private industry or are somehow degrading to CAP by not involving some sort of ES mission. For example, the grief that some here express about CAP providing support to state agencies involving wildlife or fisheries activities.
Most SAR teams are part of the sheriffs Office. In FL all SAR is the responsability of the Sheriff per State Statute. Unless it is dispatched through AFRCC, then it goes to CAP.
Many times the Sheriff has been actively searching, and not called out CAP based on previous negative relationships with CAP and Sheriff.
Last year a Florida Sheriff called on CAP for specialized SAR. The SAR needed ARCHER search. In talking to the Sheriff's Aviation Unit, they leave all ELT and most air search to CAP as they don't have ELT search equipment in their helicopters.
I was the IC for that mission.
The only reason CAP was used is one of the deputies (Dispatchers) was in CAP, and heard that ARCHER could find a target. Archer never found the vehicle. It took over 48 hours to get a 'spectral signature' sample to match to the target.
CAP still gets called on all ELT missions directly from AFRCC. PLB's go to the sheriff.
I was referring to missing person SAR in my last post.
Quote from: vento on February 18, 2011, 06:56:49 PM
Quote3 California members have also received the AFNORTH's Commander's Award, established by Maj. Gen. Henry Morrow, which acknowledges the Most Meritorious CAP Mission.
Congratulations to Tom Charpentier, Ken Deeble and Bob Keilholtz for earning this award during their participation in the mission in which 3 lives were saved near Camp Pendleton.
That's interesting. I was at the Boards when they got their award, and there was no mention of anything beyond a brief description of the mission and the presentation of the award.
The mission is documented in the Volunteer magazine, Aug-Oct 2009 issue, pg 11, and the award is documented in the Oct-Dec 2010 issue, Pg, 2. I know these guys, and none of them are glory hounds. They do ES, and they do it well.
Saw a situation yesterday where a TDOA system may have helped.
Had a find yesterday in southern OK. Piper Saratoga went into the trees about 500 yards off the departure end. Got reports Sunday PM from airliners farther to the North about an ELT. The search started Sunday near Tulsa by other
aircrew(s) but nothing was found. We got called out Monday and started searching much further south.
Many lessons learned (or reinforced).
1) At 30,000 feet the range on an ELT is so long CAP started searching 70 miles away.
2) The only reason anyone knew about the crash was the individual that arrived to pick up the passengers saw it. Fortunately all on board survived with minor injuries and were nowhere around when we found the aircraft. Amazing since the wings were completely sheared off, though the passenger compartment was fairly well intact. The local police were notified but they didn't bother telling anyone else and obviously no one thought to turn off the ELT.
3) We (as in the aircrew) didn't find the aircraft until we landed at the small airport. We (assumed that it was one of the aircraft on the ramp as we had no reports of missing aircraft) Big lesson here....make it a habit of checking the extended runway centerline for at least couple miles in each direction as part of your search and yes, never assume :)
4) Instrument rating and having more than one pilot on board helped. Ceiling was 1800. We were able to get cleared to climb IFR to VFR on top to aquire the signal and do the DF magic though the signal was still hard to get a solid direction on. When we got our strongest signal we called center to descend IFR below the clouds to finish the search. G1000 and the moving map were a big help too.
Other than aircrew training and proficiency, SAREX's, actual SAR missions, CD and O-Rides, what are CAP planes across the country doing in the air on a regular basis?
Since the annual hours per aircraft in CA seem to be shrinking, I am interested to know what other Wings are doing with their planes.
Is anyone doing medical related work?
Quote from: simon on February 23, 2011, 12:37:28 PM
Other than aircrew training and proficiency, SAREX's, actual SAR missions, CD and O-Rides, what are CAP planes across the country doing in the air on a regular basis?
We do a fair amount of DR photo work.
Other than aircrew training and proficiency, SAREX's, actual SAR missions, CD and O-Rides, what are CAP planes across the country doing in the air on a regular basis?
Since the annual hours per aircraft in CA seem to be shrinking, I am interested to know what other Wings are doing with their planes.
Is anyone doing medical related work?
What kind of medical work? I dont think anyone has done an organ/blood flight in years. Certainly not going to do any type of EMS by any means.
^Good point about organ/blood flights. Angel flight pilots have been doing more organ transport lately. Seems Angel Flight is easier to deal with as, it is strictly a humanitarian and self funded federation of organizations. And, even though pilot requirements vary from region to region, it's safety record has been amazing and, their mission load is increasing geometrically.
Though a friend who's a pediatric social worker in Hawaii asked me once about general aviation options and when I brought up Angel Flights and something else his reply as along the lines of thats specifically what he was trying to avoid. That they were too picky, too much hassle to deal with, and were exclusionary based on case type.
Again, region/locale differences. But..
Back in the day, I flew a ton of organ/blood flights for CAP. In fact, I have a Life Saving Ribbon or two(don't really know) for some of those flights. I think that our lawyers got into the act and we lost that battle: seems that we were competing with commerical means for moving those things. I did fly a blood flight the day after 9-11, but that was because all commercial flights had been grounded. am a bit surprised that Angel Flight is flying organs/blood for the same reasons. I belong to Angel Flight West and haven't heard boo about doing those sorts of flights.
Different areas, different rules, I guess.
One of the reasons for multiple pages in CA for crew/IC/ etc is the person mentioned previously sends them out about 3 minutes apart. That person then says...."No one answered up" , so "I guess I will do it myself." That person seems to travel all of Southern CA to turn in large requests for reimbursement. That person , when IC often uses a select crew of friends for the missions. Any others, who may be closer, are told they are not needed, or they waited to long to call.
On several ELTs pages that were in the vicinity of my location (2 minutes and a visual on the airport) to say I was not picking up the beacon and was told, "Never mind I guess I have to do it myself" and that person would make a 2 hour drive to confirm what I just reported.
When that person is IC I have difficulty responding to the call. I am tired of being told I'm of no use.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And now you know why I allowed my ES Qualifications to expire.
No use earning and maintaining them if you never are allowed to use them.
Quote from: bosshawk on February 23, 2011, 05:50:28 PM
Back in the day, I flew a ton of organ/blood flights for CAP. In fact, I have a Life Saving Ribbon or two(don't really know) for some of those flights. I think that our lawyers got into the act and we lost that battle: seems that we were competing with commerical means for moving those things. I did fly a blood flight the day after 9-11, but that was because all commercial flights had been grounded. am a bit surprised that Angel Flight is flying organs/blood for the same reasons. I belong to Angel Flight West and haven't heard boo about doing those sorts of flights.
Different areas, different rules, I guess.
Could be. I was asked to fly an organ to Pittsburgh from Philly just a couple of weeks ago via Angel Flight NE.
I can't be sure but, I don't think the lawyers killed CAP's flying of blood/organs. The ARC may just have better ways to transport materials. And, our MOU with ARC is still valid so...?
Fred: I am glad to hear that Angel Flight is flying blood and organs. That is one fine organization, as far as I am concerned. I have flown for them for a long time, but am inactive right now. Tony mentioned a bad rap from Hawaii, but that could simply be a local problem.
Would there really be much of an Angel Flight market in Hawaii?
Inter-island transportation is a big factor for many folks and often times they need to get to Oahu from other islands. Or to the continent.
Probably not a lot of Angel Flights going across the Pacific is there?
Quote from: Flying Pig on February 24, 2011, 02:35:00 AM
Probably not a lot of Angel Flights going across the Pacific is there?
You would be surprised. There is a fair amount of corporate jet traffic between the islands and the mainland.
And they do get good press and a tax break for "donating" their excess seats to charity.
Quote from: simon on February 23, 2011, 12:37:28 PM
Since the annual hours per aircraft in CA seem to be shrinking, I am interested to know what other Wings are doing with their planes.
Not sure I'd call it "on a regular basis", but since we're doing very little else mission-wise, I will say that here in my wing, we have completed a not-insignificant number of taskings over the past several months in support of a defense project that I cannot yet talk about here. ;)
I
can say that other wings will be brought onto this project in the not-so-distant future. I can also say that our performance to date on this project has people in the military and the defense industry very excited about CAP's potential for similar roles never previously considered. It could be very "full of win" for CAP going forward.
As long as we act, train and, perform professionally, we will be just fine. Evolution takes some time. And, I have no doubt, CAWG, as most other wings, will be flying more missions in the future.
We're still the best aviation value for our current and future customers. And, when we find more substantial contributors to our programs, we will be able to focus more dollars on training, proficiency and resources.
(How's that for a political platform? ;D )
Quote from: FW on February 24, 2011, 12:01:30 PM
(How's that for a political platform? ;D )
I was half expecting you to close with "And that's why you need to get out and vote tomorrow. God Bless you and God Bless America!" >:D
As for new contributors.....I hope we don't stoop to the level of agreeing to fly for anyone and everyone. The corporate side seems to like this stuff, for example tracking gophers, counting lizarrds, flying sick wildabeasts, etc. I know the next words out of the "I wanna fly on someone else's dime" folks are "It's good training. Tracking the beacons of those gophers is mighty tough and will help hone our DF skills." Along with, "do you know how hard is is to spot a lizard from 1000 agl??? It will make our scanners and observers better at doing the job. "
Just an excuse to have someone else pay for your flying. These flying club members have one thought....fly for free. They don't see CAP as a service to our country as the original members did.
If we go that route....I'm outta here.
Quote from: Smokey on February 24, 2011, 08:46:50 PM"do you know how hard is is to spot a lizard from 1000 agl???
...depends on the lizard...
Quote from: Eclipse on February 24, 2011, 08:52:06 PM
Quote from: Smokey on February 24, 2011, 08:46:50 PM"do you know how hard is is to spot a lizard from 1000 agl???
...depends on the lizard...
(http://www.utahfreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/GodzillavKong1.jpg)
On a different note... last year, didn't CAWG also transport water samples from Barstow to Orange County twice a day for quite a few days? I forget if it was during a state emergency or something to that effect...
Quote from: Mustang on February 24, 2011, 09:08:17 AM
Quote from: simon on February 23, 2011, 12:37:28 PM
Since the annual hours per aircraft in CA seem to be shrinking, I am interested to know what other Wings are doing with their planes.
Not sure I'd call it "on a regular basis", but since we're doing very little else mission-wise, I will say that here in my wing, we have completed a not-insignificant number of taskings over the past several months in support of a defense project that I cannot yet talk about here. ;)
I can say that other wings will be brought onto this project in the not-so-distant future. I can also say that our performance to date on this project has people in the military and the defense industry very excited about CAP's potential for similar roles never previously considered. It could be very "full of win" for CAP going forward.
Update: it would appear it's public knowledge now. See attached, lower-left.
Quote from: Smokey on February 24, 2011, 08:46:50 PM
As for new contributors.....I hope we don't stoop to the level of agreeing to fly for anyone and everyone. The corporate side seems to like this stuff, for example tracking gophers, counting lizarrds, flying sick wildabeasts, etc. I know the next words out of the "I wanna fly on someone else's dime" folks are "It's good training. Tracking the beacons of those gophers is mighty tough and will help hone our DF skills." Along with, "do you know how hard is is to spot a lizard from 1000 agl??? It will make our scanners and observers better at doing the job. "
Just an excuse to have someone else pay for your flying. These flying club members have one thought....fly for free. They don't see CAP as a service to our country as the original members did.
If we go that route....I'm outta here.
Actually, Smokey, lizards want attention as much as anyone else..... >:D
However, don't confuse contributors with customers. Contributors give to CAP because they believe in helping. We use their money to improve cadet programs, aerospace education, scholarships and that kind of "stuff". It frees other funds to help us with flying those missions which are important but, not necessarily reimbursable. Customers pay us for lizard looking....
If your asking us to be selective with our customer base; well, ok, I can agree with that.
Quote from: FW on February 24, 2011, 09:28:57 PM
Quote from: Smokey on February 24, 2011, 08:46:50 PM
As for new contributors.....I hope we don't stoop to the level of agreeing to fly for anyone and everyone. The corporate side seems to like this stuff, for example tracking gophers, counting lizarrds, flying sick wildabeasts, etc. I know the next words out of the "I wanna fly on someone else's dime" folks are "It's good training. Tracking the beacons of those gophers is mighty tough and will help hone our DF skills." Along with, "do you know how hard is is to spot a lizard from 1000 agl??? It will make our scanners and observers better at doing the job. "
Just an excuse to have someone else pay for your flying. These flying club members have one thought....fly for free. They don't see CAP as a service to our country as the original members did.
If we go that route....I'm outta here.
customer base
This may or may not be a good point to bring this up but I'm going to ask anyways...
Why do we call it our "customer base" or "customers"? That sounds as if CAP is selling something (which its not - its providing services near cost with volunteer members), and if that's the case where's my paycheck?! >:D
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on February 24, 2011, 09:35:07 PM
This may or may not be a good point to bring this up but I'm going to ask anyways...
Why do we call it our "customer base" or "customers"? That sounds as if CAP is selling something (which its not - its providing services near cost with volunteer members), and if that's the case where's my paycheck?! >:D
Someone who pays you money to provide a service is a customer.
When GM is losing money, they're providing a product at below cost. Does that mean that when you buy a Corvette, you're not a customer?
It is used in the generic sense of those we serve, however in a lot of cases CAP does bill-through to agencies served.
Good point.
We use "customer" or "customer base" as a generic term (as Eclipse made note) for those who benefit (or may benefit) from our services. Whether or not they pay for it is irrelevant in the Non Profit world.
For a non profit organization to be successful, it must have a "customer base" wanting to use the services it provides and, the funds necessary to perform those services well. The metrics used to balance the ratio depends on our marketing strategy, past mission performance and, a dedicated volunteer base able to perform those services.
If you wish to use another term, go ahead. What ever works is fine with me :angel:
Quote from: Mustang on February 24, 2011, 09:27:21 PM
Quote from: Mustang on February 24, 2011, 09:08:17 AM
Quote from: simon on February 23, 2011, 12:37:28 PM
Since the annual hours per aircraft in CA seem to be shrinking, I am interested to know what other Wings are doing with their planes.
Not sure I'd call it "on a regular basis", but since we're doing very little else mission-wise, I will say that here in my wing, we have completed a not-insignificant number of taskings over the past several months in support of a defense project that I cannot yet talk about here. ;)
I can say that other wings will be brought onto this project in the not-so-distant future. I can also say that our performance to date on this project has people in the military and the defense industry very excited about CAP's potential for similar roles never previously considered. It could be very "full of win" for CAP going forward.
Update: it would appear it's public knowledge now. See attached, lower-left.
Well It IS called "Aviation Leak" >:D
Customer is a perfect word for those we serve. It provides an expectation for a certain level of service and professionalism that you don't get from other descriptors.
Just because we are a non-profit organization doesn't mean that we are in the business of losing money or doing stuff for free. If someone is paying for our services, they certainly are a customer and expect a certain level of service from our members.
A customer doesn't necessarily need to be a paying customer.
I work in the IT department of a company with about 1,200 employees. We treat those fellow employees as our customers; it keeps us focused on the support that that we're supposed to be providing.
Quote from: Smokey on February 23, 2011, 05:54:59 PM
One of the reasons for multiple pages in CA for crew/IC/ etc is the person mentioned previously sends them out about 3 minutes apart. That person then says...."No one answered up" , so "I guess I will do it myself."
Wing just had a conference call and we were told there is a prblem with the Wing server getting the pages out again. One IC says it takes on average ten minutes for the page to go out. Seems like everyone wants to blame someone else and not fix or address the paging issue. These delays have been going on for years and often can take over an hour to go out. Now, many ICs just call people on the phone and skip the paging. Seems like you need to find a click to join. The other answer is for the groups to have ICs that will handle missions in their own area and than "that person" won't get to use his "friends". But when I have done the alerting duty, he is still the only one to take the mission. Why are the ICs in your area not taking the missions? Why don't you blame them?
No names here.
We used to have two in my immediate area, but one is missing required ICS coursework (300/400/both), and has expressed a reluctance to travel for a whole weekend to take the course(s). I don't know who the ICs are farther north in the other two counties in my group.h So we have one, and he's "that guy".
He puts out pages, and takes the folks who respond first, or can deploy the soonest. If those people happen to be the same all the time, then the other folks need to improve their response time(s).
We have six units in my county. Four of them have no ES presence (cadet units). The fifth is mine. The sixth is farther north, and doesn't respond when "that guy" is IC, because he expects them to follow the rules. They seem to be more of a GOB flying club, that expects to call their own shots on missions, and fly where and when it's convenient for them. I worked with that unit a couple of times a while back as a ground asset, and it didn't go well either time, primarily due to lack of operator skills with the CAP radio.
[edit to add info]
Regarding multiple pages - after looking at almost two years worth of pages (5/09-2/11), I see 5 missions with multiple pages by "that guy". The shortest interval is 11 minutes. The average is about 15 minutes, discounting 2 outliers of 4+ and 8+ hours.
I did notice some 5-10 minute delays between the time in the page text and the server transmit time.
YMMV.
Quote from: Mustang on February 24, 2011, 09:27:21 PM
Quote from: Mustang on February 24, 2011, 09:08:17 AM
Quote from: simon on February 23, 2011, 12:37:28 PM
Since the annual hours per aircraft in CA seem to be shrinking, I am interested to know what other Wings are doing with their planes.
Not sure I'd call it "on a regular basis", but since we're doing very little else mission-wise, I will say that here in my wing, we have completed a not-insignificant number of taskings over the past several months in support of a defense project that I cannot yet talk about here. ;)
I can say that other wings will be brought onto this project in the not-so-distant future. I can also say that our performance to date on this project has people in the military and the defense industry very excited about CAP's potential for similar roles never previously considered. It could be very "full of win" for CAP going forward.
Update: it would appear it's public knowledge now. See attached, lower-left.
Hmm... I guess this is enough of an omen for me to start cross-training into air ops ;D.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on February 25, 2011, 03:35:04 PM
Hmm... I guess this is enough of an omen for me to start cross-training into air ops ;D.
Come to the Dark Side...We have cookies! >:D
It will be interesting to see the average number of hours put on CAWG aircraft this year. I do not have the figures yet, but if the number of pages being sent out is any indication, my feeling is that it will drop significantly from when the satellites were monitoring 121.5.
As CD missions are not published like regular pages, it could well be that the average hours are still reasonable. I imagine some of the readers will have an answer for this. But the wing has almost 30 aircraft, including a boat load in the Los Angeles basin and a fair few up here in the San Francisco bay area. It doesn't make a whole lot of economic sense to maintain several aircraft in close proximity if they are only going to be averaging 100 hours annually. While the thought of taking a plane away from a squadron would not win any popularity contest, I do recall that prior to the satellites going off that 400 hours was not unusual for a plane in the Wing. It is a shame to see these aircraft gathering dust. I have been told that CD represents around 40% of CAWG's hours. If UAVs move into that role, the future could be dimmer still.
I noticed some people were inferring that I was plugging paid training. This was not why I raised the question of CAWG's flying future. I was instrument rated commercial before I jumped into a CAP plane and paid my own way for most of my flights to F5 and F91. I have no qualms paying for proficiency. Self funded rides in a CAP G1000 are still cheap. I just wonder how these great resources can be used, because the number of missions up here in NorCal have been few and far between in the last year.
I'm in Group 7, and while it's a little early, we seem to be on track for our 200 hrs. We just finished a SAREX last w/e, and have another one coming up in April. We're using our training money to train up new folks, and maintain proficiency for the rest of us.
Quote from: simon on March 02, 2011, 08:00:28 PM
I have been told that CD represents around 40% of CAWG's hours. If UAVs move into that role, the future could be dimmer still.
I noticed some people were inferring that I was plugging paid training. This was not why I raised the question of CAWG's flying future. I was instrument rated commercial before I jumped into a CAP plane and paid my own way for most of my flights to F5 and F91. I have no qualms paying for proficiency. Self funded rides in a CAP G1000 are still cheap. I just wonder how these great resources can be used, because the number of missions up here in NorCal have been few and far between in the last year.
Definitely don't mind adding funded to my own self-funded flying to keep proficient and mission ready. Your right it cost way less than any alternative I can think of.
As for UAVs I think at least one shortcoming will be when a large amount start flying bandwidth will become saturated so a manned platform will be required for sometime. IMHO