CAP Aircraft Purchases

[Auxpilot]

The reality is that we do not have the budget for standardization like the AF. The best that we can hope for is that they continue to purchase good equipment as they can.

I am on the fence about the G1000 systems because as was mentioned before the training and recurrency costs are pretty high. At some point it may be better to consolidate most of the G1000 platforms into certain geographic areas so the pilots there are not having to keep moving from steam to glass.

The Apsen Avionics 172 upgrade has peaked my interest a lot. It looks like a great middle ground between the simplicity of steam and the high end features of the G1000 without the cost or high learning curve.

Does anyone know how they plan on configuring the ancillary avionics (GPS, Nav/Com etc) when they do the upgrade? Will they add new GPS systems (G430-530) or stick with whatever is in the panel?

The Aspen 172's or 182's with a couple of G430's would be a really nice, user friendly platform for most of the non-mountainous units and would allow a much more budget friendly upgrade path.

Unless Congress decides to include CAP in the stimulus (as I choke) package, my guess is money is going to be tight.

[RiverAux]

At some point it may be better to consolidate most of the G1000 platforms into certain geographic areas so the pilots there are not having to keep moving from steam to glass.

This would be a logical approach. 

However, if you were to do this the result would be that the vast majority of wings would end up with older and older fleets while only a few wings would be getting ALL the new planes.  How well do you think that would go over?  How would you like to be in that last Wing that wouldn't be getting any new aircraft for 20 years?

[FW]

Does anyone know how they plan on configuring the ancillary avionics (GPS, Nav/Com etc) when they do the upgrade? Will they add new GPS systems (G430-530) or stick with whatever is in the panel?

The Aspen 172's or 182's with a couple of G430's would be a really nice, user friendly platform for most of the non-mountainous units and would allow a much more budget friendly upgrade path.

Unless Congress decides to include CAP in the stimulus (as I choke) package, my guess is money is going to be tight.

The new panel will include the Aspen Pro PFD, a Garmin MFD, a GNSw430 and a GL30 Nav/Com.

[airdale]

Clearly, you're not from out west ...  a minimum endurance requirement of 7.5 hrs  ... Don't try that in a 172.

I don't think your statement challenges the accuracy of what I said: "In most parts of the country, the 172/180s are better airplanes for the SAR mission anyway."

The new panel will include the Aspen Pro PFD, a Garmin MFD, a GNSw430 and a GL30 Nav/Com.

SL-30, presumably.  Not a bad configuration but too bad to lose the Apollos' good SAR capability.  And what's the point of an MFD?  These airplanes are tools for simple tasks.  I'll bet many of them haven't been 5000' agl since they were ferried in from the factory and that the majority have have never been in a cloud.  An STEC-20 AP without a GPSS box would be a better safety device than an MX-20 and cheaper as well.

[sparks]

Has anyone seen a list of what wings will be getting one of the new aircraft that are being produced?

[Auxpilot]

At some point it may be better to consolidate most of the G1000 platforms into certain geographic areas so the pilots there are not having to keep moving from steam to glass.

This would be a logical approach. 

However, if you were to do this the result would be that the vast majority of wings would end up with older and older fleets while only a few wings would be getting ALL the new planes.  How well do you think that would go over?  How would you like to be in that last Wing that wouldn't be getting any new aircraft for 20 years?

With the plan to refurb the 172's my thinking is that we will be buying fewer "new" planes and upgrading the rest.

If that were the case all of the Wings should have an equal chance to get refurb planes as they are completed.

It's kind of the way things happen in the AF. A bomb wing with B52D's got stuck with the old stuff and the B52G wings got the newer stuff. Operationally it makes a lot more sense to keep like aircraft together.

I'm talking logic here, not self interest. No I would not want to be the wing with the 20 year old airplanes but coing from a Group that has been flying the same plane for the better part of 15 years, i'm kind of used to it. I would be perfectly happy to have it refurbed with the Aspen glass upgrades and go on doing what we do.

[Auxpilot]

Does anyone know how they plan on configuring the ancillary avionics (GPS, Nav/Com etc) when they do the upgrade? Will they add new GPS systems (G430-530) or stick with whatever is in the panel?

The Aspen 172's or 182's with a couple of G430's would be a really nice, user friendly platform for most of the non-mountainous units and would allow a much more budget friendly upgrade path.

Unless Congress decides to include CAP in the stimulus (as I choke) package, my guess is money is going to be tight.

The new panel will include the Aspen Pro PFD, a Garmin MFD, a GNSw430 and a GL30 Nav/Com.

I could live with that! Since the GX55 is already there will they leave it for SAR only use or does it come out?

The 430 does not have SAR but it sure is a lot eaiser to teach people to use a 430 than a GX55.

[RiverAux]

No I would not want to be the wing with the 20 year old airplanes but coing from a Group that has been flying the same plane for the better part of 15 years, i'm kind of used to it.

I was talking about having to wait 20 years to replace that 15-year old plane.... 

[Auxpilot]

No I would not want to be the wing with the 20 year old airplanes but coing from a Group that has been flying the same plane for the better part of 15 years, i'm kind of used to it.

I was talking about having to wait 20 years to replace that 15-year old plane....

It's all going to come down to money. We can't expect uncle sam to keep printing money like it has no impact on our kids. Hell the KC135 that I crewed in the 80's that was built in 1966 is still flying.

Like I said, I am perfectly happy getting a refurb 1985 "P" model 172. Given the limited missions that we fly it seems to be the most cost effective solution.

Not as sexy as a shiny new G1000 182 but it's more sexy than the 70% incremental income tax rate that we will need to pay for it and everything else that Congress seems hell bent to spend other people money on.

[heliodoc]

Like AuxPilot said about KC135's

I will add.... 50 yr P2V Neptunes flying as airtankers

Formwer Hawkins and Powers flying old C130's and before C119 Boxcars

Aero Union used to fly P3A and B series and STILL are with some other variants , quite possibly C model variants

Other folks flying 20 to 30 year old leadplanes etc etc etc

Don't know what CAP is crying about ........ there are plenty of operators out there flying older light and heavy iron that makes us look everything is nearly new

Yep.... what is wrong with a 20 yr old CAP C172  they are not tired enough or beat up enough like an old airtanker

Thank your lucky stars CAP has got what they have

[Mustang]

Clearly, you're not from out west ...  a minimum endurance requirement of 7.5 hrs  ... Don't try that in a 172.

I don't think your statement challenges the accuracy of what I said: "In most parts of the country, the 172/180s are better airplanes for the SAR mission anyway."

I wasn't speaking to that portion of your post, only to your assertion that CAP doesn't need airplanes with the endurance of a 182. 

But what is just fine for some parts of the country can be woefully inadequate for other parts, and that's the reality we in the mountain west face.  We have to live with the decisions made by those who live in the flatlands and at sea level, people who don't have an adequate appreciation for just how INadequate even a 182 can be when performing a contour search at 12,000 feet.  Wings in the mountain west NEED turbocharged 206s, but the powers-that-be won't hear of it.

Bak to the orignal subject...I heard that CAP is buying some new steam-gauge 182s soon; apparently Cessna has a bunch they can't sell, and they gave CAP a good deal on them.

[DG]

apparently Cessna has a bunch they can't sell, and they gave CAP a good deal on them.

Where did you hear that?

Cessna has't made round dials for 5 years.

Check your source.

[PHall]

apparently Cessna has a bunch they can't sell, and they gave CAP a good deal on them.

Where did you hear that?

Cessna has't made round dials for 5 years.

Check your source.

Lease returns from FBO's?

[FW]

Just thought you would like to see the panel of the restored aircraft.
This is of a 182.  The 172 is almost identical

[Trung Si Ma]

Just thought you would like to see the panel of the restored aircraft.
This is of a 182.  The 172 is almost identical

Where are they putting the back up AI?

[FW]

 ^probably where the vertical speed indicator is.

[wingnut55]

Great It makes 1000X more sense to zero time our aircraft at TBO, upgrade avionics and put FLIR on the 206s along with an SDIS that works.

[airdale]

back up AI?

Is that a photoshop job?  I can't tell from the picture.  There would be no reason to have two CDIs.  The Aspen has an HSI, so you'd only keep one CDI and drive it with the SL30.  So there's a hole for a backup AI without losing the VSI.

[Auxpilot]

back up AI?

Is that a photoshop job?  I can't tell from the picture.  There would be no reason to have two CDIs.  The Aspen has an HSI, so you'd only keep one CDI and drive it with the SL30.  So there's a hole for a backup AI without losing the VSI.

That is great question? There has to be a backup AI in my opinion.

Does anyone know if we have started this program or if not when it is expected to start?

[airdale]

There has to be a backup AI in my opinion.

I disagree.  I think the airplanes could be made much safer than this baseline by adding a simple STEC-20 autopilot, then ditch the MX-20 and the backup AI and you are net money ahead.  Reasons:

1) These are day VFR airplanes.  The basic configuration that they now have is entirely adequate for the little bit of short-haul IFR flying that might occur.  The upgrade to the Aspen is frosting on the cake already.

2) An AP will reduce pilot fatigue flying to and from a mission.  It also has the potential, given the right SAR software in the G430 and a GPSS box, to automate a significant fraction or even all of some search patterns.  Again, less fatigue.  Also more accurate patterns and the pilot's eyes not quite so tied to the panel, so probably a tiny improvement in POD.

3) Punching the AP into wing leveler mode can be taught easily and reduces the risk of VFR-into-IMC accidents.

The statistical probability of a CAP airplane being in the clouds _and_ losing vacuum has gotta be near zero.  Backup AIs are for airplanes that regularly fly IMC or at night.