No Helo's in CAP?

[Airrace]

I think they would be a great thing to have in CAP, but the money issue will never make it a reality.

[Flying Pig]

When your not flying them for profit, ie. a flight school, charter, etc. they arent that bad.  Our Operating costs on our MD500s are at $190 per hr.  And thats a turbine.  And their fuel burn is about 12-15 gph.   You would definitely want to make sure your mission pilot standards were high but it wouldnt be as bad as most think.  You cant compare them to Blackhawks or A-Stars.

I know it will never happen (considering Ive had CAP ICs tell me helicopters have no place in SAR) but its fun to discuss.

[heliodoc]

IC's saying helicopters have no place in SAR??

Try telling that to the wildland firefighter when you need BOTH in that environment

A CAP IC OUGHT to to know its in the toolbox....time for a liitle RE-EDUCATION for CAP IC's for operations in the REAL world!!

AGAIN lack of education or trying to get educated in helo ops as well as CAP's view of their "own little world"

[Flying Pig]

I should clarify... one particular IC, not IC's.

[capchiro]

A long, long, time ago (1950-55), CAP evaluated one of the very early Bell 47's (known as the OH-13 to Army Aviators) for search and rescue work.  I am sure Bell made it work well.  We could have picked up a lot of them after Korea, but I am sure the expense is a problem.  There is also the problem getting pilots.  The largest pool would be ex-Army Aviators, but it is expensive to even keep current on the darn things.  After all, they don't fly, they just beat the air into submission. 

[a2capt]

I should clarify... one particular IC, not IC's.

Which is opposite of the another particular IC that finds a way to involve his own helicopter into any CAP activity.

[Flying Pig]

I should clarify... one particular IC, not IC's.

Which is opposite of the another particular IC that finds a way to involve his own helicopter into any CAP activity.

"His" being the key word?     Nice.

[Rotorhead]

A long, long, time ago (1950-55), CAP evaluated one of the very early Bell 47's (known as the OH-13 to Army Aviators) for search and rescue work.  I am sure Bell made it work well.  We could have picked up a lot of them after Korea, but I am sure the expense is a problem.  There is also the problem getting pilots.  The largest pool would be ex-Army Aviators, but it is expensive to even keep current on the darn things.  After all, they don't fly, they just beat the air into submission.

Seems to me that back in the 90s, helicopters weren't "prohibited" from CAP use, but were discouraged. Or at least not encouraged.

My feeling is, if someone wants to use their helicopter in a CAP search, we shoudl welcome that, not turn them away.

[heliodoc]

You're correct, Scott

The wildland fire environment integrated them with fixed wing long ago and now with complexities, involve an Air Tactical Group Supervisor (ATGS). A Platform in the sky that directs all the resources in and out of the  wildland fire areas and probably under a TFR.

Also with that, some of the operators have  painted their main rotors alternating colors as to be seen from above.

This, you probably well know.  But I will reiterate that CAP has only SOME experience with these assets and not a complete operational knowledge, which is VERY evident in the taskbook.

It also appears that CAP has not outwardly made these resources welcome nor have they really made efforts to include them unless we are USING them for cadet O-rides.

Helicopters are slow enough that they can be tracked and watched in the search area.   The only problem that I see the whole fix is::   When it comes to the old Form 108's the old timers in CAP and the Air Force eyebrows would surely rise

From my perspective that is the ONLY reason rotors have not been used more in these operations: COST and a more thorough awareness.  If CAP had a better outreach as they claim to have had with GA, there probably MORE involvement with the rotor wing community.

But, I, personally am not waiting for any "new" training from CAP involving helicopters...that would have to be directed by Papa 1AF.  That I would love to see....the AF DIRECTING more training with helos whether we use them or not.  CAP already has enough directives and ICL's....it needs one more....MORE training with rotor wing to safely work with them other than the snippet we have in the taskbook.  I can safely say that, because it is!!

[Climbnsink]

My squadron has a bunch of helicopter pilots.  I'm certain that is an anomaly.  What would be really sad is CAP getting helicopters than having nonhelicopter pilots write the operational rules.  Once that was done the advantages over fixed wing would be regulated out of existence. 

[heliodoc]

Climbnsink

That in fact, would probably be what would happen.  Too many hands would be in the cookie jar that had NO real operational experience unless CAP had an AF General in its back pocket that KNEW the score with helos

But again CAP would be flat broke and their consolidated MX program could neither keep up with the MX nor the costs.  Parts alone could BUY a C182 G1000.

[Rotorhead]

From my perspective that is the ONLY reason rotors have not been used more in these operations: COST and a more thorough awareness.  If CAP had a better outreach as they claim to have had with GA, there probably MORE involvement with the rotor wing community.

Concur. Helicopters could have great value in our current missions, if they were seen as an asset that might be available to CAP instead of "too expensive."

Heck, I might get qualified as an MP if rotorwing was allowed.

[RiverAux]

Helicopters could have great value in our current missions, if they were seen as an asset that might be available to CAP instead of "too expensive."

Both parts of that student are true.  They are seen as a great asset for SAR, but they are too expensive for CAP.  Almost every missing airplane search I've been part of the staff for over the last few years has had some helicopter involvement from some agency or another. 

[PHall]

Helicopters could have great value in our current missions, if they were seen as an asset that might be available to CAP instead of "too expensive."

Both parts of that student are true.  They are seen as a great asset for SAR, but they are too expensive for CAP.  Almost every missing airplane search I've been part of the staff for over the last few years has had some helicopter involvement from some agency or another.

For SAR it's pretty much using the right tool for the job.

For stuff like route searches, electronic search and grid searches where there is no "target", then fixed wing with it's much greater endurance is the tool to use.

For high probability areas such as ridge lines, mountain peaks and areas where you have some pretty good intel that your search target in in a fairly small area, then rotary wing is probably the way to go.

The main factor here is the endurance, or lack of it that most rotary wing aircraft have.
We're talking stuff like R-22/44 and other small birds like that.

So what it comes down to is the fixed wing aircraft narrow down the area for the rotary wing aircraft so they can do their more detailed search of the terrain.

One type is not better then the other type, they just have different roles in the mission.

[sardak]

Seems to me that back in the 90s, helicopters weren't "prohibited" from CAP use, but were discouraged. Or at least not encouraged.

My feeling is, if someone wants to use their helicopter in a CAP search, we should welcome that, not turn them away.

From my post in another thread on helos in CAP:
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=6167.msg116677#msg116677

CAP allowed helicopters in the past. CAPM 55-1 "CAP Member-Operated Helicopter Operations" dates back to at least 1983, my earliest reference.  Per the manual:
"The mission of CAP member-operated helicopters is for search and rescue on emergency services missions. Helicopters can be used for concentrated search efforts, confirming sightings and recovery of victims when justified.  Member-operated helicopters will not be used for the sole purpose of transportation of personnel or equipment."  There were even Helicopter Mission Observer and Scanner ratings, as well as training for flight line personnel.

CAPM 55-1 was superseded by CAP Regulation 55-1 which still allowed member-operated helo ops for SAR, DR, CN (CD) and OPLAN 1000 missions. The manual and reg contained helicopter marshalling signals, LZ setup and a section on remote area helo ops. Member-owned helicopter ops were removed from CAPR 55-1 in the October 1998 revision.

Mike

[heliodoc]

Hey Mike!!

I forgot about the 'ol 55 series...... you're right... there was more than the current taskbooks and well, the 60-3

Anyway the 55 series had alot more graphics from what I remember

But you know CAP nowadays...thanks for the "blast from the past!"  I stand corrected for at least a moment.
CAP was "more practical" BITD

But again today's training...almost non existent

[Eagle 1]

Besides, given our mission profiles and need for extended loiter time, we should be using airships, not helos.

Well, we do have balloons...

[DC]

^ Yeah, but the wind isn't always conducive to doing a grid search...

[N Harmon]

Besides, given our mission profiles and need for extended loiter time, we should be using airships, not helos.

I've been checking these guys out:

http://www.minizepp.com/English_zepp.html