Uh oh.. this is going to put a crimp in transportation

[NIN]

http://www.npr.org/2014/08/15/340700366/in-the-obituary-for-a-boxy-van-a-word-on-whats-to-come

(and an article from 2 years ago: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/end-ford-econoline-marks-era-great-american-vans-204544690.html)

Looks like Chevy will be the only domestic full-size van producer left standing.

[PHall]

Hasn't hurt us too bad in CAWG. The California Vehicle Code says that you need a Class B license, with a passenger endorsement, to drive a vehicle that is designed to carry more then 10 people. The Class B license requires a medical. This applies to 15 pax vans even if you remove seats.
So we just get the 8 pax vans now.

[arajca]

Ford will still be selling full size vans, just not the ubiquitous E-series. So any new Ford vans will look different, big deal. Give it a few years and the Transit will be approaching the same commonality as the E-series. Also, Dodge has re-entered the full size van market as well.

[a2capt]

Hasn't hurt us too bad in CAWG. The California Vehicle Code says that you need a Class B license, with a passenger endorsement, to drive a vehicle that is designed to carry more then 10 people. ...

If the vehicle is driven for hire, for profit, or by a non-profit organization (in that they are used much in the same fashion)

One could argue a family of 10+ is a non-profit organization ... though perhaps of a different type.

The Brady Bunch does not need a CDL to transport their troops en-mass.

[Гугл переводчик]

We need more 4x4 SUVs... at least up here in Idaho because we get alot of snow and we have plenty of mountains...

[arajca]

We need more 4x4 SUVs... at least up here in Idaho because we get alot of snow and we have plenty of mountains...

Living in the mountains of CO, 4x4 is not really needed - unless you paln to go off road, something in my experience, few CAP drivers have much experience with. Excluding parking lots and driveways, of course. Winter driving comes down to an issue of know HOW to drive rather than knowing WHAT to drive. Especially if you do not regularly drive an SUV/4x4.

[The Infamous Meerkat]

We need more 4x4 SUVs... at least up here in Idaho because we get alot of snow and we have plenty of mountains...

Living in the mountains of CO, 4x4 is not really needed - unless you paln to go off road, something in my experience, few CAP drivers have much experience with. Excluding parking lots and driveways, of course. Winter driving comes down to an issue of know HOW to drive rather than knowing WHAT to drive. Especially if you do not regularly drive an SUV/4x4.

Sir,
As members of the search team for N36ML, and the five family members that went down with her, I must disagree with your statement that most of Idaho's CAP drivers have little experience in conditions requiring a 4x4 vehicle. As every SAR mission that has occurred since my return to Idaho has been based on the outskirts of the Frank Church Wilderness, we have absolutely required the use of our Expeditions, and on one occasion found it to be almost inadequate. While your missions may not take you further than the shoulder of the roadway, I can assure you that this is not the case in Idaho. Cadet Major Rosinsky understands quite well the needs of our missions, and twelve passenger vans are the furthest thing from fulfillment of those needs.

It may be true that better skill will trump better equipment most of the time, but when we are hard pressed to accomplish our tasking of driving for five hours on mountain roads in the snow with both ample equipment and skill, you can understand why your sentiments ring hollow here in our State. Some towns where missions are held at here require 4x4 capability even in reasonable weather, and both Yellow Pine and Warren are no exception to that.

[Eclipse]

Your experience notwithstanding, by far the vast majority of 4x4's and SUVs, especially those owned in urban areas,
>never< use the 4-wheel drive, and certainly never go off-roading in a way that remotely resembles the
marketing that sells these vehicles to the average consumer.

[The Infamous Meerkat]

Your experience notwithstanding, by far the vast majority of 4x4's and SUVs, especially those owned in urban areas,
>never< use the 4-wheel drive, and certainly never go off-roading in a way that remotely resembles the
marketing that sells these vehicles to the average consumer.

Sir,
That isn't in dispute, and it's absolutely true. However, Arajca is telling this Cadet that because he also lives in a mountainous state and he does not believe that 4x4 capability is required, that the same must be true of Idaho. I may be drawing a faulty inference from his statement, but my state is actively pressing our 4x4's into service based on verified needs, and the conclusion I drew from Arajca's statement was that if he doesn't need them then we shouldn't,  and if we had the proper skill in driving, then we wouldn't need the vehicles at all.

Our Wing CC uses one of the 4x4's for his CAP transportation needs, and I can't help but wonder how seriously our various Emergency Management Agencies would view our group if he used a CAP van instead...

[Garibaldi]

The vast majority of CAP drivers would never be able to use this endorsement. In special circumstances, there could be an endorsement, but CAP would NEVER take on the liability for the risks involved with using a 4x4 as a whole. In my opinion, learned as it may not be, and given the experience I've had driving in various winter conditions, it wouldn't be worth it. You get one hot rod younger SM and a car full of cadets, and that equals disaster. I know. I've seen me do it.

[Eclipse]

I doubt there would be much inference either way.  Not all wing CCs are even involved in SAR.

Honestly, any mission that requires a team to utilize much more then normal roads and highways,
or puts them into areas where legitimate 4x4 vehicles are needed, may well be pushing the ORM envelope.

Having to drive 5 hours for a mission isn't a great idea, either, though granted Idaho has a big chunk of land with
a small membership pool.

[PHall]

Hasn't hurt us too bad in CAWG. The California Vehicle Code says that you need a Class B license, with a passenger endorsement, to drive a vehicle that is designed to carry more then 10 people. ...

If the vehicle is driven for hire, for profit, or by a non-profit organization (in that they are used much in the same fashion)

One could argue a family of 10+ is a non-profit organization ... though perhaps of a different type.

The Brady Bunch does not need a CDL to transport their troops en-mass.

No, but a certain non-profit organization by the name of Civil Air Patrol does. 
CAP used to have a specific exemption from this law, we lost it when the law was revised a coujple of years ago.
And there seems to be no interest on the part of the Wing in regaining that exemption.

[Fubar]

No, but a certain non-profit organization by the name of Civil Air Patrol does. 
CAP used to have a specific exemption from this law, we lost it when the law was revised a coujple of years ago.
And there seems to be no interest on the part of the Wing in regaining that exemption.

Do other non-profit corporations have exemptions from the law?

[SarDragon]

Hasn't hurt us too bad in CAWG. The California Vehicle Code says that you need a Class B license, with a passenger endorsement, to drive a vehicle that is designed to carry more then 10 people. ...

If the vehicle is driven for hire, for profit, or by a non-profit organization (in that they are used much in the same fashion)

One could argue a family of 10+ is a non-profit organization ... though perhaps of a different type.

The Brady Bunch does not need a CDL to transport their troops en-mass.

No, but a certain non-profit organization by the name of Civil Air Patrol does. 
CAP used to have a specific exemption from this law, we lost it when the law was revised a coujple of years ago.
And there seems to be no interest on the part of the Wing in regaining that exemption.

Has anyone pitched it specifically to the new Wing King?

[arajca]

If you get out west, 3, 4, 5, 8 hours drive times are quite common.

I hear from ALOT of people that mountain driving REQUIRES 4x4s. I drive in the mountains all winter long and I'd estimate 80% of the vehicles in ditches are 4x4s.

I drive a full size van year round. I also have enough sense to NOT go out when conditions are that bad. I'm a retired volunteer fire fighter up here as well. I've been to far too many wrecks involving 4x4s in the winter because people did not have enough sense to drive appropriate to the conditions.

I grew up driving in northern IL (Bolingbrook), so I'm familiar with the flat land snow as well.

[SarDragon]

It looks like y'all are arguing generalities on one side, versus a specific statement that Lt. Brizziz made (emphasis mine): As members of the search team for N36ML, and the five family members that went down with her, I must disagree with your statement that most of Idaho's CAP drivers have little experience in conditions requiring a 4x4 vehicle.

arajca did acknowledge that, but the rest of you seem to be talking more about the general public. If you train for, and practice in, these conditions, you will become competent. When I'm driving in snow, I take as many opportunities to "play" in a safe area, to maintain my skills. The physical aspect is not hard. The mental aspect is.

[sarmed1]

4x4 in the sense of the general public is like a "body armor".....just because you have it doesnt make you invincible.  I have been to a number of wrecks here in PA where someone eventually utters "...I dont know what happened, I had the 4 wheel drive on...."  its a tool, that serves in some very specific conditions not some kind of magic save all. 

ORM not withstanding there are likely many situations in CAP SAR that 4x4 capability would be a benefit.   But I dont think we are talking true "off roading"  being the likely plan here.  I get the benefit of the 12 pax van to affect multiple CAP activities, but I think a better mix of vehicle types might not be a bad idea; especially in those areas that the 4x4 option could be a more frequently needed mission tool.

mk

[Garibaldi]

There are a few areas we train in North Georgia that could benefit from a 4x4, or even a 2x2, but I've taken my 2002 Cougar up the same roads with little difficulty. If it became too rough, I'd abandon it and ride in the van until the op was over. But, since these ops are the exception rather than the rule, I'd argue against it. ORM in our area at least would rule against any sort of ops during snow or ice. Especially in light of last winter...and the almanac says this one is supposed to be as bad or worse.

[Spaceman3750]

While it's doubtful that we have much of a need to scale the side of a mountain on a Jeep trail (and good luck getting the beastly Expedition up one), I've seen two-track service roads used a fair amount. In dry conditions it's mostly ground clearance that's the issue so 12-pax is fine. In wet conditions, probably not so much (haven't had the pleasure of getting a van stuck in the mud so I can't say that from personal experience).

One thing that I will sharply disagree with is the sentiment that if the mission is away from a paved road we shouldn't be doing it. People and planes have a tendency to go missing in areas where there aren't people to see them go down or get lost. Not many paved roads where there are no people.

[Garibaldi]

While it's doubtful that we have much of a need to scale the side of a mountain on a Jeep trail (and good luck getting the beastly Expedition up one), I've seen two-track service roads used a fair amount. In dry conditions it's mostly ground clearance that's the issue so 12-pax is fine. In wet conditions, probably not so much (haven't had the pleasure of getting a van stuck in the mud so I can't say that from personal experience).

One thing that I will sharply disagree with is the sentiment that if the mission is away from a paved road we shouldn't be doing it. People and planes have a tendency to go missing in areas where there aren't people to see them go down or get lost. Not many paved roads where there are no people.

What, you missed the statistic that clearly shows 99.9% of the plane crashes we respond to are within easy reach of a paved road?

All kidding aside, you are correct, but mostly we would use our heads and park the van when we can't go further, and proceed on foot. We did just that this past weekend on our FTX. We didn't see the van for more than 24 hours.

[Spaceman3750]

While it's doubtful that we have much of a need to scale the side of a mountain on a Jeep trail (and good luck getting the beastly Expedition up one), I've seen two-track service roads used a fair amount. In dry conditions it's mostly ground clearance that's the issue so 12-pax is fine. In wet conditions, probably not so much (haven't had the pleasure of getting a van stuck in the mud so I can't say that from personal experience).

One thing that I will sharply disagree with is the sentiment that if the mission is away from a paved road we shouldn't be doing it. People and planes have a tendency to go missing in areas where there aren't people to see them go down or get lost. Not many paved roads where there are no people.

What, you missed the statistic that clearly shows 99.9% of the plane crashes we respond to are within easy reach of a paved road?

All kidding aside, you are correct, but mostly we would use our heads and park the van when we can't go further, and proceed on foot. We did just that this past weekend on our FTX. We didn't see the van for more than 24 hours.

And I agree with walking, though in a hilly or rugged area I'd rather get my people as close as possible and wear them out searching rather than wearing them out walking to the search area.

Not a problem I face with any frequency living in central IL, but in the southern reached of the state it could be an issue at some point. Then again, you also don't make logistical decisions based on "could happen", but if you're in Idaho and have a routinely demonstrated need for a higher ratio of 4x4s then by all means, go buy them.

[The Infamous Meerkat]

Sir,

I would venture to say that we both have very different understandings of the term winter given our obvious Geographic differences. I am only familiar with North Carolina's and Pensacola Florida's versions of winter, and while it has parts that make it no fun to work in, Idaho's winter is considerably different. Snow is a given reality, it's going to be there regardless of any factors that could possibly affect our weather. We live in a state that has extreme elevation changes throughout its landscape, aptly named the Rocky Mountains. The most inhabited part of the state is the lower area which has the good fortune of being leveled by the Yellowstone hot spot millions of years ago. In Idaho we don't have the ability to choose which day we will drive in the snow or not, as me may have several feet of snowpack on our roadways for weeks on the busy city streets of Boise. Smaller towns fare worse, and outlying mining towns like Yellow Pine and Warren fare still worse than that.

In Idaho we do often see 4x4 vehicles in the ditch, and often they have stickers or license plates from California or other states!     just kidding!

One difference in Idaho you won't see in many places is that we stop to help in any way we can. Most people carry chains and traction material,  jackets and other equipment and will help each other out of these situations. In Idaho, sticking your vehicle in the ditch isn't a comical happening to most passersby, it's a threat to life.

I hear a lot of argument that says we shouldn't be driving in the snow with cadets because it pushes ORM boundaries. To that I would say that our ORM boundaries have significant differences from each other. Snow is not a boundary, snow is baseline, and treacherous mountain roads are where we do our business to help people.

Some decided not to go on this mission with me, and I still respect them and their choices. But as CAP was the first team other than the counties' own SAR team, I feel pretty good about the fact that we are able to operate safely enough within our means using these vehicles to save lives, or at least make the attempt to. The mountain that plane crashed on gains 4,000 feet over less than a mile, and the snow covered rocks and dead fall made it very difficult to move on foot. Even using a UTV, my team and our Sheriff's Detective driver took more than two hours just to make it a half mile up one of the trailheads, cutting trees every several feet, just to gain a bit of elevation. We can't simply claim it's too dangerous when there could be living victims on the side of that mountain needing our help.

I respect the reasoning behind having vans, we use the heck out of them like any other wing does. But we do have the problem in Idaho that there are places a van just can't (or shouldn't) go for any reason in any weather, and it's a world where HF comms is the only effective  way to pass information. When it creates more danger to have the top heavy non-4x4 vehicle, I feel very strongly that we need these vehicles. Our command does as well, as nearly every squadron has one, and more are on the way.

[Eclipse]

I hear a lot of argument that says we shouldn't be driving in the snow with cadets because it pushes ORM boundaries. To that I would say that our ORM boundaries have significant differences from each other. Snow is not a boundary, snow is baseline, and treacherous mountain roads are where we do our business to help people.

No one said "cadets", ORM applies to everyone.  As to the bold, there are many who would have issues with that statement.

Some decided not to go on this mission with me, and I still respect them and their choices. But as CAP was the first team other than the counties' own SAR team, I feel pretty good about the fact that we are able to operate safely enough within our means using these vehicles to save lives, or at least make the attempt to. The mountain that plane crashed on gains 4,000 feet over less than a mile, and the snow covered rocks and dead fall made it very difficult to move on foot. Even using a UTV, my team and our Sheriff's Detective driver took more than two hours just to make it a half mile up one of the trailheads, cutting trees every several feet, just to gain a bit of elevation. We can't simply claim it's too dangerous when there could be living victims on the side of that mountain needing our help.

This was a CAP operation?

UTV?  How does that align with 77-1?

Cutting trees?  What did you cut them with?

That paragraph above alone is over the ORM for CAP.

[The Infamous Meerkat]

I hear a lot of argument that says we shouldn't be driving in the snow with cadets because it pushes ORM boundaries. To that I would say that our ORM boundaries have significant differences from each other. Snow is not a boundary, snow is baseline, and treacherous mountain roads are where we do our business to help people.

No one said "cadets", ORM applies to everyone.  As to the bold, there are many who would have issues with that statement.

Some decided not to go on this mission with me, and I still respect them and their choices. But as CAP was the first team other than the counties' own SAR team, I feel pretty good about the fact that we are able to operate safely enough within our means using these vehicles to save lives, or at least make the attempt to. The mountain that plane crashed on gains 4,000 feet over less than a mile, and the snow covered rocks and dead fall made it very difficult to move on foot. Even using a UTV, my team and our Sheriff's Detective driver took more than two hours just to make it a half mile up one of the trailheads, cutting trees every several feet, just to gain a bit of elevation. We can't simply claim it's too dangerous when there could be living victims on the side of that mountain needing our help.

This was a CAP operation?

UTV?  How does that align with 77-1?

Cutting trees?  What did you cut them with?

That paragraph above alone is over the ORM for CAP.

And now you're oversimplifying the story to match your premise Sir. The UTV was owned and operated by VCSO, not us, as was the chainsaw used to to cut trees, which we moved after he was done. Frankly, I'm insulted you would jump to conclusions that I violated regs that badly.

Furthermore every road in Idaho has treacherous points, even Highway 55 (the case in point) runs along a cliff beside a river for most of the journey. No other road goes there without jumping outside the state at some point, and they are no different. These roads are not unsafe when driven by people skilled and experienced enough to know their limits and follow the rules of the road, but that doesn't mean they can't be treacherous...

[Eclipse]

And now you're oversimplifying the story to match your premise Sir. The UTV was owned and operated by VCSO, not us, as was the chainsaw used to to cut trees, which we moved after he was done. Frankly, I'm insulted you would jump to conclusions that I violated regs that badly.

It's your story. Were you >in< the UTV?  If so, I'd say that was a stretch of 77-1 at best.

Regardless, any search that requires off-road vehicles and chain saws to clear the area is not one where CAP belongs.

[The Infamous Meerkat]

I respectfully disagree Sir. That's the mission here in Idaho and you are not the only one who doesn't understand it. Three aircraft wrecks in the past year, all on mountainsides, 2 out of 3 being CAP finds. If you had control of it you would seriously stop us from going to help, even though we are the primary outside resource for that Sheriff in aircraft accidents? I'll never forget the sigh of relief and the look on that Forest Service Officer's face when we showed up beside him on the road, and I can't believe you would be do willing to keep your workers out on the sidelines.

Us being in a vehicle owned and operated by another group isn't discussed by that regulation, and as a Sheriff's Detective he and his agency retain the liability over that vehicle and it's passengers, while CAP retains none. I fail to see how this is skirting regs when it is specifically left out in a regulation titled "Operation and Maintenance of Civil Air Patrol Vehicles" Emphasis mine.

[Spaceman3750]

And now you're oversimplifying the story to match your premise Sir. The UTV was owned and operated by VCSO, not us, as was the chainsaw used to to cut trees, which we moved after he was done. Frankly, I'm insulted you would jump to conclusions that I violated regs that badly.

It's your story. Were you >in< the UTV?  If so, I'd say that was a stretch of 77-1 at best.

Regardless, any search that requires off-road vehicles and chain saws to clear the area is not one where CAP belongs.

You and I agree on many things, but here I'm going to say "cite please". If the activities he describes that you take issue with are being conducted by qualified personnel not on our insurance, what's the problem? Do we close up shop in any non-flat state because we don't want the chance of someone hurting themselves? Do we stop there? There's lots of areas in flat states full of uneven ground, holes, downed trees, and other obstacles that people do a pretty good job of hurting themselves on. In our state, pretty much any time you walk into the woods you risk running into uncapped wells and even the occasional mine shaft, especially in the southern tier. And since the stuff we look for (outside of the non-distress ELT) are generally not on pavement, that's a problem. Of course, you try to limit the time you spend beating through the bush, make sure your team is rested, and constantly looking for those obstacles, but you're going to have to get off of the trail at some point.

I will never put my people at risk of injury for no reason (I'm almost always going to be the one calling an all stop for a safety issue), but we willingly accept that SAR is a higher-risk activity that we do in order to save lives. I highly doubt that in the situation described, moderate-severe injury or death was a risk with a very high likelihood, as long as our personnel were staying far away from the man cutting trees down and their path to the ground. Terrain would have been the biggest risk, and the resulting potential issues of ankle/leg injuries or wildlife related injuries are pretty universal. Nobody's repelling down a cliff in this story. Since neither you nor I can get a fully accurate picture of the situation being described from where we're sitting now, I can only trust that the leaders at all levels of the described operation assessed the risks, implemented controls, used personnel experienced in working with the terrain, and determined that the benefit outweighed the risk.

[Garibaldi]

Situations aside, the vast majority of our ops do not involve what you experience up in the hills. We have hills here in Georgia, you have mountains.

The fact is, CAP will never, ever, take the easy path and accept liability for the use of these vehicles. One of the main reasons they took them away from us in the late 80s, early 90s was the maintenance. We used 1 1/4 ton Army jeep pickups back in those days, sitting on a bench over the wheels. Going out, way out, in the boonies for FTXs was fun for us, but it could have easily led to some sort of disaster. We used a 4WD Dodge ambulance to go up Stone Mountain to maintain our repeater up there, instead of taking the cable car. In short, safety protocol was "Well, if something happens, try to jump out before we plummet to our deaths".

I still maintain that if these 4WD vehicles are used, there is a major potential for disaster, unless they are kept in reserve for such an emergency as you described, and driven by someone who knows what the F they are doing. Letting any Lt. Hotrod drive it is a recipe for disaster. Monthly proficiency tasking would be good. But, I doubt CAP would take on the liability insurance for the use.