Wing Aircraft Losses Due To Reassignments

[Mustang]

There is some validity to maintaining aicraft in places where they couldn't really be justified otherwise, but there is a crossover point where you don't either have the CAP membership or ES need for even that to make sense.     

Quite frankly, based on a quick look, RMR is already being pretty heavily subsidized in terms of aircraft assigned and flying hours.  Colorado seems to be the only state holding their own.

Both of these statements rely heavily on the premise that flying hours ARE the means for justification, which is an invalid basis in my opinion. Aircraft should be deployed based solely on mission requirements.

[wingnut55]

Assumptions are often illogical. Being  Objective tells us that we have many Squadrons with 2 Mission Pilots, and the aircraft is being flown by other squadrons. Logically you would expect some method of monitoring who is flying rather than just how many hours are flown. Realistically,  we can expect reshuffle because of a lack of actual crews or non-active support of ES missions. Remember that our AFRCC commitment is primary, yet I have seen CD flight that refuse to respond to a possible downed Aircraft ELT?? Is this bad for us?

The rule of thumb from National is we must have at least 5 aircrews to sustain one aircraft, in other words: Squadrons who can field a minimum of Five separate qualified and current aircrews can handle 24/7 Emergency call outs.

How many squadrons can do that, or are willing to make the recruiting and retention efforts to do so??

[RiverAux]

There is some validity to maintaining aicraft in places where they couldn't really be justified otherwise, but there is a crossover point where you don't either have the CAP membership or ES need for even that to make sense.     

Quite frankly, based on a quick look, RMR is already being pretty heavily subsidized in terms of aircraft assigned and flying hours.  Colorado seems to be the only state holding their own.

Both of these statements rely heavily on the premise that flying hours ARE the means for justification, which is an invalid basis in my opinion. Aircraft should be deployed based solely on mission requirements.

No, they are based on the premise that flying hours REFLECT mission requirements.  If you are not flying very many hours towads any mission (not just ES) then it shows that there may not be as much of a need for an aircraft as there may be someplace else. 

But, as I said earlier, total flying hours is too crude a measurement for this purpose.

Wingnut is also on to something regarding who is flying the planes.  I know that it is common practice in my Wing to rotate planes in and out of the units that do the most flying from those that do the least so as to put as many hours on each airframe as possible.  If it weren't for this little shell game that is played in every Wing, I think we would have a much better idea of where there is a strong need for an aircraft (or even multiple aircraft) vs where we just can't support one.

We only have enough planes to put one at about a third of our units, so no matter how they are allocated most units are going to lose out. 

[Gunner C]

As a group commander, I had to keep in mind that SAR was not the only "mission" flying that we did.  We also had cadet O-flights and ROTC O-flights.  While school was in session, we had MANY more hours with that flying than we did with ES missions.  I had to take that into consideration with aircraft assignment.  There were aircrews who could support SAR missions, but didn't have as many as other locations. 

We need to take all missiosn into consideration.  All flight hours count. SAR isn't the only thing we do.

[RiverAux]

As a group commander, I had to keep in mind that SAR was not the only "mission" flying that we did.  We also had cadet O-flights and ROTC O-flights.  While school was in session, we had MANY more hours with that flying than we did with ES missions.  I had to take that into consideration with aircraft assignment.  There were aircrews who could support SAR missions, but didn't have as many as other locations. 

We need to take all missiosn into consideration.  All flight hours count. SAR isn't the only thing we do.

No one has said only count SAR hours. I've said numerous times that all missions should count, just not administrative and proficiency flights.

[Mustang]

Other than keeping crews sharp, what's the point in "putting as many hours on each airframe as possible"? 

[DG]

Other than keeping crews sharp, what's the point in "putting as many hours on each airframe as possible"?

Duh!

a statistical measure of activity.



If Delaware is flying 400 hours per year per aircraft,

and Massachusetts is flying 125 hours per year per aircraft,

Who is doing more flying?

And who should get a new airplane?

Remember, we all are following all rules and regulations and flying only CAP authorized* missions / sorties.

(CAP authorized* means authorized by CAPR 60-1.)

[Mustang]

Other than keeping crews sharp, what's the point in "putting as many hours on each airframe as possible"?

Duh!

a statistical measure of activity.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. 

So what makes flying hours a VALID measure, on which aircraft distribution should be based?   I assert that it is not, and it would appear that the Ops committee has begun to agree with me.

If Delaware is flying 400 hours per year per aircraft,

and Massachusetts is flying 125 hours per year per aircraft,

Who is doing more flying?

And who should get a new airplane?

A textbook non-sequitur, that.

[RiverAux]

Flying hours does represent a measure of how much airplanes are likely to be used as a well as a measure of how much they are needed in a particular area.  There are certainly an abundance of other measures that could be used to get at similar information.  Just off the top of my head:
1.  Average number of days each plane is utilized per month.
2.  Total number of missions/sorties (could split down by type) per year (works best at Wing level).
3.  Average number of planes used per mission in previous year (works best for ES).
4.  Max number of Wing planes used per mission in previous year (works best for ES).
5.  Distance to nearest currently assigned aircraft (for squadron assignments).
6.  Number of times assets from other Wings were requested to assist in missions in previous year. 

[flyguy06]

As a group commander, I had to keep in mind that SAR was not the only "mission" flying that we did.  We also had cadet O-flights and ROTC O-flights.  While school was in session, we had MANY more hours with that flying than we did with ES missions.  I had to take that into consideration with aircraft assignment.  There were aircrews who could support SAR missions, but didn't have as many as other locations. 

We need to take all missiosn into consideration.  All flight hours count. SAR isn't the only thing we do.

Amen

[DG]

Other than keeping crews sharp, what's the point in "putting as many hours on each airframe as possible"?

Duh!

a statistical measure of activity.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. 

So what makes flying hours a VALID measure, on which aircraft distribution should be based?   I assert that it is not, and it would appear that the Ops committee has begun to agree with me.

If Delaware is flying 400 hours per year per aircraft,

and Massachusetts is flying 125 hours per year per aircraft,

Who is doing more flying?

And who should get a new airplane?

A textbook non-sequitur, that.

LOL

[RogueLeader]

So, if my unit has 4 full crews, but only receives 1 actual mission a year, how am we supposed to stay proficient,  when we can't keep an aircraft if admin flights are out?

[Spike]

^ Yup.  Welcome to the "real" CAP.

At least it is not 15 years ago when planes and vehicles were assigned based on NOTHING at all. 

[RogueLeader]

answer the question, or is your answer: "you're not."?

[Larry Mangum]

So, if my unit has 4 full crews, but only receives 1 actual mission a year, how am we supposed to stay proficient,  when we can't keep an aircraft if admin flights are out?

The discussions on this subject are rather interesting, but rather short sided in a lot of cases. If your unit is succeeding in putting 200 hrs a year on the aircraft; your availability is good, when asked to participate in o-rides, etc; and the aircraft is being maintained properly by the unit (washed, waxed, etc) then you have a very good case and chance of keeping the aircraft.  Remember as alluded earlier in this thread and in other similar threads, there is a lot that goes into aircraft placement and assignment then just the number of pilots in a unit.

[DG]

So, if my unit has 4 full crews, but only receives 1 actual mission a year, how am we supposed to stay proficient,  when we can't keep an aircraft if admin flights are out?

Request for clarification.

By proficient, do you mean:

(1)  flying proficient, or

(2)  mission proficient?

[RiverAux]

So, if my unit has 4 full crews, but only receives 1 actual mission a year, how am we supposed to stay proficient,  when we can't keep an aircraft if admin flights are out?

Keep in mind that I am suggesting that all missions other than admin count, not just ES stuff.  So, if you're only getting 1 ES mission a year, you better focus on other missions -- o-rides, CD, teacher flights, etc. 

[lordmonar]

So, if my unit has 4 full crews, but only receives 1 actual mission a year, how am we supposed to stay proficient,  when we can't keep an aircraft if admin flights are out?

That's what SAREXs are for.

Or you can schedule proficency flying.

If you got four full crews...and you are expected to fly 200 hours...thats about 50 hours per crew....that's about four hours (and a bit) per month per crew.

If you add in about 20 hours or so per year for O-flights, 8 or so for form 5s, 12 hours for maintenance....should be easy to keep up those sort of hours.

Even if the members had to pay for the hours themselves....you spead that $400 over three people and you are looking at $134 per person per month at the most (assuming no missions, SAREX, CD, O-rides or other funded missions).

Increase the number of crews to 8 and then they only have to fly every other month to keep the hours on the plane.

[Gunner C]

So, if my unit has 4 full crews, but only receives 1 actual mission a year, how am we supposed to stay proficient,  when we can't keep an aircraft if admin flights are out?

In your wing, aircraft are assigned in this order:
Raleigh
Charlotte
Wing Headquarters
Everywhere else

[RogueLeader]

So, if my unit has 4 full crews, but only receives 1 actual mission a year, how am we supposed to stay proficient,  when we can't keep an aircraft if admin flights are out?

Request for clarification.

By proficient, do you mean:

(1)  flying proficient, or

(2)  mission proficient?

Mission proficient

In your wing, aircraft are assigned in this order:
Raleigh
Charlotte
Wing Headquarters
Everywhere else

Sad but true.

That's what SAREXs are for.

Or you can schedule proficency flying.

If you got four full crews...and you are expected to fly 200 hours...thats about 50 hours per crew....that's about four hours (and a bit) per month per crew.

If you add in about 20 hours or so per year for O-flights, 8 or so for form 5s, 12 hours for maintenance....should be easy to keep up those sort of hours.

Even if the members had to pay for the hours themselves....you spead that $400 over three people and you are looking at $134 per person per month at the most (assuming no missions, SAREX, CD, O-rides or other funded missions).

Increase the number of crews to 8 and then they only have to fly every other month to keep the hours on the plane.

Sad to say that $132 a month is about $75- $80 a month more than my budget allows for, same for many in my unit.  We make do the best we can, but if it wasn't for the funded flying, many can't keep up with the training.