The 200 hour per aircraft goal

[PHall]

Here's how it appears to me. YMMV

Some number cruncher, somewhere, decided that 200 hours per year was a good target.

The Air Force and CAP decided this was a good number. So it bacame the target.

Now with the reduction in flying that we have had over the past couple of years there are basically two options available to the "deciders".
1. Lower the target and maintain the current fleet of 550 aircraft. 
2. Keep the 200 hour target and reduce the fleet to the point that all of the aircraft will get 200 hours a year.

Considering what has been happening with the budget lately, I would bet on option 2.

[RiverAux]

Or some version of the option with which I began this thread -- no single overall target, but a mixture of targets for different types of flying...

[FW]

The Air Force wishes we had more hours on our aircraft.  We're not accomplishing this.  The questions I have: Why are flying hours reduced when mission funding has remained constant (relatively)? Why has the Air Force changed their opinion of our utilization/year/aircraft? Why is it a problem for pilots to fly CAP aircraft for proficiency, currency and, further training vs. another source?  Why are we not succeeding in finding new missions which can be flown by pilots all over the country? 

If we can't figure this out, the fleet will shrink.  From past experience, once we lose, we don't get back...   

[A.Member]

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.

I'm going to venture out on a limb, albeit not far I imagine...you're not a pilot, are you?

[flyboy53]

As an aircrew member, I posed the 200 hour requirement to the wing LG once and was told that that it had to do with aircraft upkeep. In my wing, the DO will aggressively move aircraft around the state to make sure that the wing's fleet meet the 200 hour requirement on each airframe.

Whether you like the 200 hour requirement or not -- or generate excuses -- the bottom line is that there really isn't a reason why it can't be done -- other than weather.

I'm an observer. I used to fly pretty consistently up until the point that I got my senior observer wings. Now, however, my schedule is such now that I'm lucky to get in two to three sorties a year. It shows and I know I'm a little rusty with procedures or equipment. The same holds true for pilots and the airframes themselves.

[A.Member]

The Air Force wishes we had more hours on our aircraft.  We're not accomplishing this.  The questions I have: Why are flying hours reduced when mission funding has remained constant (relatively)? Why has the Air Force changed their opinion of our utilization/year/aircraft? Why is it a problem for pilots to fly CAP aircraft for proficiency, currency and, further training vs. another source?  Why are we not succeeding in finding new missions which can be flown by pilots all over the country? 

If we can't figure this out, the fleet will shrink.  From past experience, once we lose, we don't get back...   

See my post at the top of page 2. 

Our Wing just completed a survey on this very topic.  Top obstacles are:  CAP rules/regulations and personal availability/other commitments. 

It's very frustrating that National continues their same approach without any quantitative data or notable strategy behind their directive.   If our Wing can compile data, why can't National?   That's step 1:  Understand the root cause before attempting to solution.   

Instead, we hear the same old "fly more" followed by threats of moving aircraft.  That approach has proven quite effective, hasn't it?! 

[lordmonar]

[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.

I agree that CAP is very poor in mandating these requirments to squadrons.

Like I said.....10 crews (pilot, observer. scanner) per aircraft is a nice round number to be able to have a crew ready at any given time for call outs.
Like I said......1 hour a month (or 2 hours ever other month or 3 hours ever quarter) is a nice round number to insure that the crew stays current to be ready for call outs.
Like I said......at least one O-ride per cadet per year is a nice round number to meet our AE goals on the CP side of things.

Sure they are "assumptions", but they are logical assumptions, not with specific mission related goals in mind.

[lordmonar]

I'm going to venture out on a limb, albeit not far I imagine...you're not a pilot, are you?

No......but that does not invalidate my point.   I am as Senior Observer.....I would expect my Observers and Scanners to foot their share of the flying bill as well.  This is not pilot bashing in any way.

I am active in ES.  I can crunch the numbers as well as the next guy to know what sort of manning a unit needs to have to be able to respond to an immediate ES call out.

If you only got 3 pilots in your squadron flying "your" airplane......what are the odds that you can get a crew ready to respond within say 2 hours of notification to fly a SAR missionb?

Logis suggest that more crews you have trained and ready....the more likely that one of them will be available at 8 PM on a Thursday to fly a SAR "right now".

Do I know that 10 is the right number?  No.....it is a WAG.....but it is better then the 4 that my wing is currently reporting.

[lordmonar]

Our Wing just completed a survey on this very topic.  Top obstacles are:  CAP rules/regulations and personal availability/other commitments.

What CAP rules prevent a crew from scheduling a flight?  Personnel available is exactly what I am talking about.  Mandate to the squadron commander to have more personnel.........and help, train, and hold them to the fire....and you fix that problem.  Other commitments.....I'll buy that.  Again....If you can't commit to flying at least one hour a month and/or one O-ride a month.....then maybe you would better serve CAP in some other capacity than "Pilot".  It is not different then what we ask our CP personnel....we need you there 3 hours a week or we willl have to find someone else to do it.

It's very frustrating that National continues their same approach without any quantitative data or notable strategy behind their directive.   If our Wing can compile data, why can't National?   That's step 1:  Understand the root cause before attempting to solution.   

Instead, we hear the same old "fly more" followed by threats of moving aircraft.  That approach has proven quite effective, hasn't it?!

I completley agree with this statement.
In my experince in CAP in the entire ES world....it is a cart vs horse issue.  No one has done any OPLANS that spell out exactly what each wing/group/squadron should be doing to meet CAP's over all "SPECIFIC" mission objectives.

[Eclipse]

"CAP rules/regulations" is code for "Too lazy to fill out a few forms. I just want to burn gas and touch the sky..."

[Ned]

Speaking as a NHQ guy, I suppose I should point out that these policies result from careful decisions based on mountains and mountains of data.  Endless charts, Powerpoints, briefings, and reams of tabular data highlighted and tabbed.

Obviously we can and should be better at communicating how these standards are reached, but I can assure you based on the number of hours lost to my family, church, and career, that we really, really study the metrics carefully.  And often.

[A.Member]

"CAP rules/regulations" is code for "Too lazy to fill out a few forms. I just want to burn gas and touch the sky..."

It is, huh?!  Again, from another non-pilot.

[A.Member]

Speaking as a NHQ guy, I suppose I should point out that these policies result from careful decisions based on mountains and mountains of data.  Endless charts, Powerpoints, briefings, and reams of tabular data highlighted and tabbed.

Obviously we can and should be better at communicating how these standards are reached, but I can assure you based on the number of hours lost to my family, church, and career, that we really, really study the metrics carefully.  And often.

I've got to challenge you a bit on that data, Ned.  I've been involved with this organization for ~15 years.  During this time, I do not ever recall a solicitation for info/survey from National (or anyone else for that matter) in reference to any topic related to CAP flying.  So, if for no other reason than that, any data National is using related to this topic is suspect, at best - regardless of how many PowerPoints someone has put together.

[A.Member]

Our Wing just completed a survey on this very topic.  Top obstacles are:  CAP rules/regulations and personal availability/other commitments.

What CAP rules prevent a crew from scheduling a flight?  Personnel available is exactly what I am talking about.  Mandate to the squadron commander to have more personnel.........and help, train, and hold them to the fire....and you fix that problem.  Other commitments.....I'll buy that.  Again....If you can't commit to flying at least one hour a month and/or one O-ride a month.....then maybe you would better serve CAP in some other capacity than "Pilot".  It is not different then what we ask our CP personnel....we need you there 3 hours a week or we willl have to find someone else to do it.

How does that approach solve or even move the needle on the issue in any positive direction?   

There is already a pilot shortage.  We don't have a line at the door for new ones.  Hours are down.   Pilots indicate the burdensome nature of flying in this organization, combined with a punitive a approach to dealing with issues, is one of the leading deterrents to putting on more (or sometimes any) hours.   Sorry, but I don't see anything in your approach that addresses this issue in any positive manner - quite the contrary.

[RiverAux]

Mandate to the squadron commander to have more personnel

Yes, and personnel will magically appear out of thin air now that squadron commanders realize that it is important to recruit pilots into the organization. 

Snark aside, if one wants to read between the lines, NHQ has set goals for how many pilots we should have.  Using the Commanders Dashboard:
>5 pilots per aircraft is "Green" and I assume this is what they would like to see
4-4.9 is "Yellow"
<4 is "Red" 

[PHall]

"CAP rules/regulations" is code for "Too lazy to fill out a few forms. I just want to burn gas and touch the sky..."

It is, huh?!  Again, from another non-pilot.

Defensive much?

[SunDog]

Speaking as a NHQ guy, I suppose I should point out that these policies result from careful decisions based on mountains and mountains of data.  Endless charts, Powerpoints, briefings, and reams of tabular data highlighted and tabbed.

Obviously we can and should be better at communicating how these standards are reached, but I can assure you based on the number of hours lost to my family, church, and career, that we really, really study the metrics carefully.  And often.

I've got to challenge you a bit on that data, Ned.  I've been involved with this organization for ~15 years.  During this time, I do not ever recall a solicitation for info/survey from National (or anyone else for that matter) in reference to any topic related to CAP flying.  So, if for no other reason than that, any data National is using related to this topic is suspect, at best - regardless of how many PowerPoints someone has put together.

Ned, honest question, no snarkiness or cynicism intended - do you honestly believe the process, as now exists, to get a training mission launched (funded or otherwise) is efficient or logical?Filling out a few forms is the least of it. I have, literally, spent as much time on email, phone calls, WMIRS, eServices, and commuting as I did flying the mission.

I do second the above -  to my knowledge, NHQ  has never solicited/surveyed pilots on the impact of the process on their participation, or on how aircraft are assigned. I fly a lot of my hours in CAP airplanes, but it is often a chore to do so. I like the mission. I don't like the goat rope.

One anecdote - I crossed paths with a former CAP instructor a while back, during a time I had stepped away from CAP, in frustration. He aked me if I was still flying CAP, and when I told him I'd quit, he resonded "Everyone does, eventually". An exaggertion, but he made his point.

Mandating an hour a month isn't an issue - we'll fly that, and much more. Just clean up the klunky, stop, stumble, and fall mess of a process.

[A.Member]

"CAP rules/regulations" is code for "Too lazy to fill out a few forms. I just want to burn gas and touch the sky..."

It is, huh?!  Again, from another non-pilot.

Defensive much?

Nothing defensive about it.  Just pointing out it his comment was provided from a position with no direct experience and it added no value to the discussion.   

[Eclipse]

"CAP rules/regulations" is code for "Too lazy to fill out a few forms. I just want to burn gas and touch the sky..."

It is, huh?!  Again, from another non-pilot.

Defensive much?

Nothing defensive about it.  Just pointing out it his comment was provided from a position with no direct experience and it added no value to the discussion.

No "direct experience".  Try again.

[A.Member]

"CAP rules/regulations" is code for "Too lazy to fill out a few forms. I just want to burn gas and touch the sky..."

It is, huh?!  Again, from another non-pilot.

Defensive much?

Nothing defensive about it.  Just pointing out it his comment was provided from a position with no direct experience and it added no value to the discussion.

No "direct experience".  Try again.

Are you a pilot - yes or no?