The 200 hour per aircraft goal

Started by RiverAux, April 07, 2013, 03:30:14 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

A.Member

Quote from: RTFB on September 07, 2013, 06:15:32 AM
Quote from: BHartman007 on September 07, 2013, 03:57:05 AM
When I first joined (yeah, it was only a few months ago), I sat in on an aircrew meeting. They were walking new squadron pilots through how to set up a mission in wmirs and get a flight release. I remember thinking that I'd gladly pay another $80/hr to the fbo just to avoid the hassle. I can have a plane there in 30 minutes with zero paperwork. Even at half the cost I don't know how much I'd fly the squadron plane for proficiency once I'm form 5.

Really?  I can create a WMIRS sortie and complete the pre-flight sections of the e104 in less than 5 minutes, including pulling the TAFs & METARs from ADDS.  I don't know anything about you personally, but let me say that many people blame their computer/web incompetence on CAP's processes.  Not that there aren't a million other things about CAP's bureaucracy to complain about...
You can try to make that argument all you want.  The overwhelming fact is that overly burdensome approach to flying in CAP (ie the regulations/bureaucracy) is the number one contributor to reduced hours/deterrence to fly in our Wing and WMIRS kind of sucks. 

How do I know/what makes me say these things?   We just completed a survey of our 120+ pilots.  We had over a 60% response rate.  48% of the respondents rated this as the #1 challenge in flying with CAP.   Our regulations/bureaucracy are second only to personal availability (an interesting discovery that we will look for more insight to address) in preventing members from flying more.

As for the 200hr goal, it needs to be re-evaluated.   Flying is down across the board as the earlier post notes.   So, what is national going to do about it?  Continue to threaten to take an airplane?  Nice..  Go ahead....where are you going to move it to?  Another squadron that already didn't qualify to get an aircraft?  I'm sure that will solve the issue.  Not.   

National needs to take a step back and look at the factors they can actually control as it pertains to promoting more flying.   Those factors include scrapping the silly consolidated National maintenance model.   Waiting weeks on parts while it goes through some silly process with slow shipping, keeps aircraft off the schedule.   Overly restrictive, burdensome, and punitive regulation are deterrents to pilots.   Those roadblocks need to be removed.     
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

BHartman007

Quote from: RTFB on September 07, 2013, 06:15:32 AM
Quote from: BHartman007 on September 07, 2013, 03:57:05 AM
When I first joined (yeah, it was only a few months ago), I sat in on an aircrew meeting. They were walking new squadron pilots through how to set up a mission in wmirs and get a flight release. I remember thinking that I'd gladly pay another $80/hr to the fbo just to avoid the hassle. I can have a plane there in 30 minutes with zero paperwork. Even at half the cost I don't know how much I'd fly the squadron plane for proficiency once I'm form 5.

Really?  I can create a WMIRS sortie and complete the pre-flight sections of the e104 in less than 5 minutes, including pulling the TAFs & METARs from ADDS.  I don't know anything about you personally, but let me say that many people blame their computer/web incompetence on CAP's processes.  Not that there aren't a million other things about CAP's bureaucracy to complain about...

I'm not saying it's not doable, I'm saying its a lot more hassle than getting a plane elsewhere.
Finding a FRO, waiting on him to approve the flight... Why can't my squadron commander do that instead of having to find a special guy in another city I've never met to tell me I can fly? Want to land at a neighboring airport to fill up on cheaper gas? Another sortie, another flight release. Again, not impossible, just more trouble than renting one at the fbo.

Wing Assistant Director of Administration
Squadron Deputy Commander for Cadets

FW

I just heard an interesting "tidbit" of information; that the Air Force no longer is going along with our 200hr/aircraft/year goal.  They actually would like us to double our utilization... ::)  If true, we have some hefty work ahead!!!

lordmonar

Your squadron commander CAN do that.

He just has to take the FRO training and send the request to wing to get on the list.

Building the sorties in WIMRS is not that hard...takes maybe 5 minutes.

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

lordmonar

Quote from: FW on September 07, 2013, 03:26:17 PM
I just heard an interesting "tidbit" of information; that the Air Force no longer is going along with our 200hr/aircraft/year goal.  They actually would like us to double our utilization... ::)  If true, we have some hefty work ahead!!!

I still don't know why we are having trouble putting time on our aircraft.

NVWG reported recently that we have something like 4.2 pilots per aircraft.

Simply mandate that they all get one hour of flight time per month and once a quarter the do that at night so that they maintain their currency....and you have 48 hours per airframe just doing currency training.

Then you mandate that each airframe do something like 10 hours of O-rides per month and you add another 120 hours.

That's 168 hours just with squadron level operations.

Add 10 hour ever other month that's 60 hours per year....for a grand total of 228 hours.....BEFORE we do any real missions!

Bump up the requirement to have each squadron have 9 pilots per assigned aircraft.....add 10% for squadron with out an plane who have pilots....and the air frame hours are just there!
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

NIN

I was told for a long time the reason we wouldn't get a plane at my unit was that we didn't have enough pilots.

So we finally had like 4 pilots and got a plane assigned. And consequently flew the wheel pants off the thing.

Every month, I'd go to commander's call and hear the other units with aircraft reporting "We only flew 1.2 hours" or "5.5 hours." I'd say "22.9" or something and they'd all look at me like I made that number up. 

One month our plane went to another airport for maintenance for a couple weeks, and I reported it had flown 25 hrs or some such number during the previous month.  The Wing Ops guy was like "You couldn't have flown 25 hours, it was with the other unit for two weeks!"  He looked at his records, and he was right: we didn't fly it 25 hours.   My bad.  The other unit flew like 3 hrs and we flew 22.   8)

Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

a2capt

Add into the mix, the great Member Owned Freeze-Out era.

Units that have no aircraft, coupled with the "hassle", and you're removed a lot of the motivation to remain current, even if it's to fly corporate aircraft less than you would have flown your own for CAP.

Therefore, there's less pilots, and you've heightened the "Flying Club" factor of the units that do have an aircraft. 

Sure, CAP Incorporated saw the member owned hours as a threat to their corporate aircraft's viability.

But at the end of the day, what's the mission? To be the largest fleet operator, or to serve the community, state and nation in aerospace education and emergency services?

Critical AOA

It all comes down to the motivation of individual members, their willingness to deal with the bureaucracy and their leaderships personal efforts to get the numbers up by acting as both a facilitator and motivator of the flying program.  Units that have high usage have the right mix of members and leadership.  Those that don't, don't.
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."   - George Bernard Shaw

sparks

Quote from: lordmonar on September 03, 2013, 11:59:08 PM
Putting 200 hours on an aircraft should not be a issue.

If each squadron with an aircraft was mandated.....mandated to maintain 9 or ten crews (that is 9 pilots, 9 observers and 9 scanners and no double billeting) and each crew was tasked to do at least 1 hour a month to maintain profeciancy.

Add to that a mandate to fly at least 3 hours a month O-rides.

That's 12 hours just manditory flying..that's a 144 just doing O-rides and Pro flying.

Add 10 hour for SAREX's each quarter that 184 hours and then you are looking at 16 hours of actual missions to make up the differences.

CAP's problem is that we post an expectation of what we want to fly with out giving any mandate of how we should be doing that flying.

200 hours is a big problem for most wings/squadrons. The majority of squadrons with aircraft in my wing don't need mandates to fly. If they did I suspect pilots would not comply. If they don't fly now why follow a mandate! If 200 hours is achieved it is through their own dedication. Flight hours in CAP have been declining for several years. Is it due to reduced missions in some states ELT, cadet lack of O-Ride interest etc.) I can't say. someone with all the facts can run the numbers at NHQ. The solution certainly isn't the Air Force deciding to increase our mandatory flying hours.

If only a handful of states can get to 200 hoours with the national average at 130, the fleet will shrink. Maybe that is what the Air Force is thinking.

SunDog

Quote from: RTFB on September 07, 2013, 06:15:32 AM
Quote from: BHartman007 on September 07, 2013, 03:57:05 AM
When I first joined (yeah, it was only a few months ago), I sat in on an aircrew meeting. They were walking new squadron pilots through how to set up a mission in wmirs and get a flight release. I remember thinking that I'd gladly pay another $80/hr to the fbo just to avoid the hassle. I can have a plane there in 30 minutes with zero paperwork. Even at half the cost I don't know how much I'd fly the squadron plane for proficiency once I'm form 5.

Really?  I can create a WMIRS sortie and complete the pre-flight sections of the e104 in less than 5 minutes, including pulling the TAFs & METARs from ADDS.  I don't know anything about you personally, but let me say that many people blame their computer/web incompetence on CAP's processes.  Not that there aren't a million other things about CAP's bureaucracy to complain about...

Sometimes it does go pretty easy. Often, though, it's two, three, four phone calls, same or greater number of emails. Call an FRO to be sure he's available to respond to the release request. Sometimes one call, sometimes five. That's after the email chase for approval if it's funded, or a B training mission. Then the " personal" phone call/conversation with the FRO for IMSAFE. No value added there for the member - though it may help NHQ  with liability. Then someone else in your wing cancels your sortie by accident, and WMIRS  is too lame to incorprate business rules to warn/cope with that.

I really don't think many people blame thier computer/web incompetency on CAP proceeses. The proceeses ARE gacked, as is the software supporting them (WMIRS, eServices).

This new pilot has a perspective, and expectation, based on experience with non-CAP  flying. I think he, and the rest of us, accept there has to be a bit more oversight and hoop jumping than at an FBO or club. But something less than the current process might get pilots in the air more often.

I started my instrument rating using CAP aircraft a few years ago. That lasted about two sessions. The rest of the hours went on club airplanes. My instructor was in CAP (not anymore, though he still instructs).  And we hit roadblocks, hassles, Region limitations, and threw in the towel. We did a bunch of it in a C-172P the club bought from CAP

A.Member

Quote from: lordmonar on September 07, 2013, 03:34:41 PM
Quote from: FW on September 07, 2013, 03:26:17 PM
I just heard an interesting "tidbit" of information; that the Air Force no longer is going along with our 200hr/aircraft/year goal.  They actually would like us to double our utilization... ::)  If true, we have some hefty work ahead!!!

I still don't know why we are having trouble putting time on our aircraft.

NVWG reported recently that we have something like 4.2 pilots per aircraft.

Simply mandate that they all get one hour of flight time per month and once a quarter the do that at night so that they maintain their currency....and you have 48 hours per airframe just doing currency training.

Then you mandate that each airframe do something like 10 hours of O-rides per month and you add another 120 hours.

That's 168 hours just with squadron level operations.

Add 10 hour ever other month that's 60 hours per year....for a grand total of 228 hours.....BEFORE we do any real missions!

Bump up the requirement to have each squadron have 9 pilots per assigned aircraft.....add 10% for squadron with out an plane who have pilots....and the air frame hours are just there!
It's a volunteer organization and, particularly in the case of pilots, members are often times spending their own dime.   You can't mandate anything.  The only real action that can be taken in a volunteer organization is to exclude membership.  Is that what you're proposing?   If not, what is your proposed "consequence" with this mandated approach?  Again, if hours are down across the board, and the fact is they largely are, where are you going to send the plane?  To another underperformer?  This is yet another concept of the punitive approach that plague this organization.  That mindset needs to change and such a cultural change needs to be driven from the top.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

RiverAux

Yep, pretty easy to mandate that pilots spend $750+ a year to fly CAP's planes to meet an arbitrary goal that has no real apparent purpose. 

a2capt

Quote from: A.Member on September 08, 2013, 07:13:44 AMThis is yet another concept of the punitive approach that plague this organization.  That mindset needs to change and such a cultural change needs to be driven from the top.
I agree with this. The penalty has to be realistic. When you've got the same problem across the board. It's easier to find a solution to the reason why utilization is down, then spend your energy harping at everyone.

.. otherwise, you're going to mandate that I blow chunks of cash, and make it a trail of hoops and hurdles for me to do so at the same time. Easier for me to keep my money. You've still got the aircraft on the ground instead of in the air.

Where as if CAP went back to the real meat of it's three missions, owning a huge fleet of aircraft isn't necessarily in the picture. We were founded on member owned aircraft. Now we're struggling to keep the corporation owned ones utilized.

I fully suspect the aircraft would be there if we needed them. Aside from the niches like gliders, Green Flag, the corporate model should be to supplement the fleet, not provide it.

Oh but they wouldn't be painted the same. They were not for most of our existence anyway, and we worked quite well.



SunDog

Quote from: NIN on September 07, 2013, 04:25:24 PM
I was told for a long time the reason we wouldn't get a plane at my unit was that we didn't have enough pilots.

So we finally had like 4 pilots and got a plane assigned. And consequently flew the wheel pants off the thing.

Every month, I'd go to commander's call and hear the other units with aircraft reporting "We only flew 1.2 hours" or "5.5 hours." I'd say "22.9" or something and they'd all look at me like I made that number up. 

One month our plane went to another airport for maintenance for a couple weeks, and I reported it had flown 25 hrs or some such number during the previous month.  The Wing Ops guy was like "You couldn't have flown 25 hours, it was with the other unit for two weeks!"  He looked at his records, and he was right: we didn't fly it 25 hours.   My bad.  The other unit flew like 3 hrs and we flew 22.   8)

My squadron had five mission pilots, and about that many more Form 5 pilots, as well. We had More MP's than a neighboring Group. We lost our airplane. We'd lose it by June every year, anyway, as we'd have it way over 200 hours by then, and they'd swap it out with some low-time aircraft from a GOB location.

The center of gravity for my Wing's pilot population isn't aligned with the the Wing's political CG. It's a two-three hour round trip to the closest glass. Sixty mile round trip for a 172. There are two steam gauge 182's a bit closer, but one is at a local gov't owned airport, and fuel there is much more expensive than nearby airports. Of course, I could add another sortie in WMIRS,  get a second release, etc., etc., and stop for fuel on the way back.

I don't know how much scrutiny, local or national, is paid to aircraft placement? Giving that some objective analysis might help the hours quite a bit. Maybe not solve the problem, but be part of the solution?

lordmonar

Quote from: sparks on September 07, 2013, 11:06:01 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 03, 2013, 11:59:08 PM
Putting 200 hours on an aircraft should not be a issue.

If each squadron with an aircraft was mandated.....mandated to maintain 9 or ten crews (that is 9 pilots, 9 observers and 9 scanners and no double billeting) and each crew was tasked to do at least 1 hour a month to maintain profeciancy.

Add to that a mandate to fly at least 3 hours a month O-rides.

That's 12 hours just manditory flying..that's a 144 just doing O-rides and Pro flying.

Add 10 hour for SAREX's each quarter that 184 hours and then you are looking at 16 hours of actual missions to make up the differences.

CAP's problem is that we post an expectation of what we want to fly with out giving any mandate of how we should be doing that flying.

200 hours is a big problem for most wings/squadrons. The majority of squadrons with aircraft in my wing don't need mandates to fly. If they did I suspect pilots would not comply. If they don't fly now why follow a mandate! If 200 hours is achieved it is through their own dedication. Flight hours in CAP have been declining for several years. Is it due to reduced missions in some states ELT, cadet lack of O-Ride interest etc.) I can't say. someone with all the facts can run the numbers at NHQ. The solution certainly isn't the Air Force deciding to increase our mandatory flying hours.

If only a handful of states can get to 200 hoours with the national average at 130, the fleet will shrink. Maybe that is what the Air Force is thinking.
mandates allow you to plan and track progress.

You got 5 pilots.......they all need to put one hour on the aircraft a month.....First of the month....."I see only two of your pilots flew this month.....what about the other three?"   "No excuse, no plan to fix it next month....maybe we need new leadership in your squadron or give the plane to a squadron who can better manage it".

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

lordmonar

Quote from: A.Member on September 08, 2013, 07:13:44 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 07, 2013, 03:34:41 PM
Quote from: FW on September 07, 2013, 03:26:17 PM
I just heard an interesting "tidbit" of information; that the Air Force no longer is going along with our 200hr/aircraft/year goal.  They actually would like us to double our utilization... ::)  If true, we have some hefty work ahead!!!

I still don't know why we are having trouble putting time on our aircraft.

NVWG reported recently that we have something like 4.2 pilots per aircraft.

Simply mandate that they all get one hour of flight time per month and once a quarter the do that at night so that they maintain their currency....and you have 48 hours per airframe just doing currency training.

Then you mandate that each airframe do something like 10 hours of O-rides per month and you add another 120 hours.

That's 168 hours just with squadron level operations.

Add 10 hour ever other month that's 60 hours per year....for a grand total of 228 hours.....BEFORE we do any real missions!

Bump up the requirement to have each squadron have 9 pilots per assigned aircraft.....add 10% for squadron with out an plane who have pilots....and the air frame hours are just there!
It's a volunteer organization and, particularly in the case of pilots, members are often times spending their own dime.   You can't mandate anything.  The only real action that can be taken in a volunteer organization is to exclude membership.  Is that what you're proposing?   If not, what is your proposed "consequence" with this mandated approach?  Again, if hours are down across the board, and the fact is they largely are, where are you going to send the plane?  To another underperformer?  This is yet another concept of the punitive approach that plague this organization.  That mindset needs to change and such a cultural change needs to be driven from the top.
a) I most certainly can mandate a lot of things......you can volunteer to follow the rules or you can volunteer to quit.
b)  Yep it may be on their own dime......load a crew into a 182 for an hour of Continuation Training.....split the cost.  $30-$40 per person.......that too hard for you......then maybe you shouldn't be a CAP crew member.....sorry it that is too harsh....but we already do that to our CAP members.....you got to go to encampment $200, you need a set of BDU's for encampment $100.  You need to go to two conferences....$100-$200 each.

The mandate is three fold.  1) Mandate to the squadrons to recruit and train X number of pilots (Observers and scanners...not to be double billeted) per aircraft assigned.  2) Mandate to each of those pilots (and crews) to perform a currency flight of one hour per month....that is take off......do some sort of quick training (30 minutes) and the do a few touch and go to ensure the pilot is flight current. 3) mandates allow the squadron plan, track and report their compliance on a regular basis and allows wing/group to judge the squadron's readiness to react to any missions assigned to them.

Consequences:   Not really consequences...because wing should be monitoring the situation and helping our or making changes as needed.  If a squadron can't meet expectations due to incompetence then retrain as needed or find someone who can do the job.  If the squadron WON"T  meet expectations then take away their toys and give it to someone who will use them properly.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

lordmonar

Quote from: RiverAux on September 08, 2013, 12:46:16 PM
Yep, pretty easy to mandate that pilots spend $750+ a year to fly CAP's planes to meet an arbitrary goal that has no real apparent purpose.
????

I need you ready to fly on a moments notice.

That means current and familiar with the assigned aircraft.

Say your pilots all own their own aircraft.....everything from a Cub to a lear jet......but not one of them has a C-182 glass.....just suppose.

Asking them to log one bloody hour on the plane they will have to fly in a mission "has no real apparent purpose?"

Like I said.....putting 200 hours on an aircraft should be a no brainer.

Every aircraft SHOULD have 10 pilots assigned to it.   That insure that you can get enough of them to respond to ES call out and space them out for a long SAR/DR mission.

Every pilot (and crew) SHOULD get one hour flight time a month....just to stay current this ensures that they are current and ready to respond toe ES call outs.

Every plane SHOULD be flying a certain number of O-rides per year.  if we had 36K cadets and 500 planes....that is 72 O-rides a year just to give each cadet ONE o-ride.  That is six O-rides a month/aircraft.

Isn't that why we have airplanes in the first place?  To be ready to answer the call from our city, state and nation and to promote Aerospace Education to our cadets?

Yes it could be expensive.....that's why CAP is not necessarily for everyone.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

RiverAux

You're putting a lot of thought into designing mandates to meet a goal that has no actual purpose.   Our goal isn't to put time onto the airplanes.  If the goal is to maintain pilot proficiency, then we need to have a rational discussion of just how many hours it takes and how that might be different depending on what the pilot does for the organization.  A pilot that does o-rides might need a different level of proficiency than a mission pilot.  And, if we're interested in proficiency, there is no reason that proficiency time couldn't be built up in non-CAP aircraft. 

lordmonar

Quote from: RiverAux on September 08, 2013, 07:51:07 PM
You're putting a lot of thought into designing mandates to meet a goal that has no actual purpose.   Our goal isn't to put time onto the airplanes.  If the goal is to maintain pilot proficiency, then we need to have a rational discussion of just how many hours it takes and how that might be different depending on what the pilot does for the organization.  A pilot that does o-rides might need a different level of proficiency than a mission pilot.  And, if we're interested in proficiency, there is no reason that proficiency time couldn't be built up in non-CAP aircraft.
No....I'm not mandating putting time on the air frames.....and I don't think USAF and CAP is either.

I think it is just no one has really explained it the way I just did.

IF you had enough pilots to ensure ES coverage.  If each of those pilots put in at least ONE hour a month into keeping the skills current and IF we flew enough O-rides to insure each cadet got at least one flight a year.

Then putting 200 hours on the airframes would NOT be a problem.

If you are not putting 200 hours on your airframe.....you DONT have enough pilots, they are NOT doing enough training and they are NOT flying enough O-rides.

Now.....someone tell me I am wrong.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

RiverAux

Quote from: lordmonar on September 08, 2013, 07:58:26 PM
[If you are not putting 200 hours on your airframe.....you DONT have enough pilots, they are NOT doing enough training and they are NOT flying enough O-rides.
That assumes:
1) What "enough" pilots is
2) What "enough" training is
3) what "enough" o-rides are

You're just working backwards trying to explain why it shouldn't be a problem to meet this arbitrary standard instead questioning the standard itself.