CAWG moving 4 aircraft to NVWG & AZWG

[calguy]

I understand that CAWG has modified it's MOU with Nevada Wing so NVWG will cover all of the CAWG east of the top of the Sierras down to Barstow and over to Needles.  AZWG will cover all of CAWG's Imperial County and Riverside County from the Colorado River to an area near Desert Center.  In exchange, CAWG will lose 4 aircraft, 2 to AZ and 2 to NVWG.  I guess the whole secret MOU came to lite from the Fossett search.  Also, ORWG will cover much of Northern California and the Wing will lose possibly 1 aircraft to ORWG.  The reason is that CAWG has been unable to find crews to fly its aircraft on missions in those areas as well as being unable to find crews to fly in the LA basin.  I am told at least 3 aircraft, Brackett, Hemet and Fallbrook will be moved out of the wing.  Anyone hear who is #4?  I was told they picked those 3 because they have flown less than 2 A-1 missions in the last year and the same for the previous year.  I also have been told the sheriff's are flying many of our missions now because we cannot find crews.

[SoCalCAPOfficer]

As the Squadron Commander for Hemet, I am totally unaware of any such move by wing to take our aircraft.   Furthermore, our aircraft has been used in many A-1 and other funded missions every year.   I myself have flown a number of A-1's this year, so your information is incorrect.   Our aircraft was used both by our  own squadron members and other squadrons on the Fosset Search.  We have done many ELT and real missions every year.   So your facts are wrong.  I hope the rest of your information on the loss of CAWG aircraft is also wrong.

[SARPilotNY]

I am glad to see that the Wing is finally taking action to move aircraft that won't carry their weight.  When I was in CAWG they were always begging for aircraft and nobody would respond.  With over 200 mission is SO CAL, it was known that several units NEVER responded.  I really wonder exactly how many Brackett, Hemet and Fallbrook did do?  Palm Springs was always getting criticized for "taking" all the missions when all they were were bottom feeders.  They took the missions when nobody else would.  I remember hearing of ELTs being found in CAP Flights at the airport and some guy would have to drive one hundred miles, through three groups, pass at least  10 squadron to turn an ELT on in a CAP aircraft or next to a CAP aircraft.  Pretty sad.  Hemet?  How many times did Palm Springs fly past you to get to a mission?  How many ELTs have been shut off at your airport but somebody from another unit?  How many of those A-1 missions were when your members were already at the airport for a B or C mission when they responded?  How many were after midnight? 
I think you wing commander looked at all the "real" numbers when he made his decision.  Going to a mission when it is convenient just for your members is disrespectful to the rest that have to drive  or fly to or through your area of operation to turn an ELT off.

I think those are the facts. 

Am I wrong?

BTW...what is the difference between an ELT mission and a real mission?

[SoCalCAPOfficer]

Since I do not know who you are SARPilotNY I will withhold any comments.  However, in answer to your question what is the difference between an ELT mission and a "real" mission.   I will say this, I consider all missions "real" in that they need to be responded to.  However, what I meant in my post when I said "real mission" was a downed aircraft. 

I cannot say enough good things about the Palm Springs squadron.  They are great and do more than their share of missions.   However, we at Hemet do our part also.   When the airplane went down in the mountains above Palm Springs a year or so ago, it was our airplane with myself and Maj. Adams that were trying to find it in winds so high, we finally had to abort and RTB.  If you were in the California Wing at that time I am sure you heard of the incident.   

Our plane and pilots very often fly a type of mission that OPSEC will not allow me to talk about here.   Our pilots have also been very active in the Cadet O Ride program.   There are many uses for the corporate airplane beyond "A" Missions, although we do those too when possible and given the chance.  As a matter of fact, I just checked our records and so far for 2007 we have completed  (4) A-1 Missions totaling 43.1 hours, and (5) A-3 Missions totaling 67.8 hours.  Thats 110 hours on A Missions and the year is not over yet.  Hemet is a great Squadron and I resent any implication that we are not doing our part.   

That being said, we can and will do better.  We have just recently had two of our pilots get thier CFI rating, done in our airplane at their own personal expense.   They have done this so they can train future Mission Pilots.   With more pilots available we can do more missions.  We always have Scanners and Observers available, but we need more mission pilots that can take off work during the week and we are working on that.
 
While I respect your point of view, when you put these type of comments on an open forum, they hurt the good work we are trying to do.  Check the facts and you will see that Hemet's airplane's use is on the upper end for hours this year.   

I will be attending a meeting of Unit Commanders from our group with the Interim Wing Commander next weekend.   When I hear it from him, then I will believe it, until then, its just a rumor.

[SarDragon]

Fallbrook currently shares its plane with the San Diego unit, one week out of four. We put more hours on iy during our week than Fallbrook usually puts on it in their three. We are trying to get a 50-50 deal going, but the details haven't been hammered out yet. Maintenance is one issue, period length is another.

I have not heard anything at all about it leaving the wing. It is only one of two or three a/c in our group, and the farthest south asset in the wing.

[SoCalCAPOfficer]

Taking away the Fallbrook and Hemet Aircraft makes no sense.  San Diego has no aircraft other than the one at Fallbrook and I have already discussed my opinion on the Hemet airplane.     This would leave most of the South part of Southern California to be covered by Palm Springs.   They already do more than their part, so this would not be a good move.   I continue to believe this is just a rumor and there is no need to get upset until someone in authority confirms it.

[SARPilotNY]

Maybe they could move the Fallbrook aircraft closer to San Diego metroplex and the Hemet to AZ.  I know they have an aircraft at Riverside, Hemet could use or share that one.  Bracket and Cable are close, move one of those to NV.  Maybe that would encourage people to utilize the aircraft more often for SAR missions.  Hemet and Fallbrook are small towns away from the population centers.  Seems to make more sense having them closer to where the CAP masses are.  If the aircraft are being used mostly for planned missions and flights, a little drive time shouldn't be an issue.  I understand most pilots find Fallbrook and Hemet to be too far to go to get the aircraft for a SAR mission so they are rarely used.  Seems like a waste.  I don't recall either airport has ILS in place or towers.  The real issue is CAWG losing out on missions and flight hours because the aircraft are unavailable due to a lack of crews or interest by their units and having other wing carry CAWG's weight.

[SJFedor]

I know nothing of CAWG and how they work, where their assets are, etc., but....

...is it possible that they're keeping the planes down there where they are, and giving these 4 planes they're talking about from a completely different part of the state that has been lacking in usage? 

[SarDragon]

Maybe they could move the Fallbrook aircraft closer to San Diego metroplex and the Hemet to AZ.  I know they have an aircraft at Riverside, Hemet could use or share that one.  Bracket and Cable are close, move one of those to NV.  Maybe that would encourage people to utilize the aircraft more often for SAR missions.  Hemet and Fallbrook are small towns away from the population centers.  Seems to make more sense having them closer to where the CAP masses are.  If the aircraft are being used mostly for planned missions and flights, a little drive time shouldn't be an issue.  I understand most pilots find Fallbrook and Hemet to be too far to go to get the aircraft for a SAR mission so they are rarely used.  Seems like a waste.  I don't recall either airport has ILS in place or towers.  The real issue is CAWG losing out on missions and flight hours because the aircraft are unavailable due to a lack of crews or interest by their units and having other wing carry CAWG's weight.

BINGO! Hence the effort by my unit to get the Fallbrook a/c moved farther south to a much more convenient airport. I believe some of our folks actually did drive to Fallbrook to get the a/c for a mission. Dunno all the details, since I was chasing ELTs elsewhere.

[PHall]

I know nothing of CAWG and how they work, where their assets are, etc., but....

...is it possible that they're keeping the planes down there where they are, and giving these 4 planes they're talking about from a completely different part of the state that has been lacking in usage? 

More like someone is speculating about something they know nothing about.

[dbaran]

From looking in the NTC system  - It looks like 26 active aircraft - least used one had 121 hours on it, and the busiest had 552 hours.  8 of the aircraft had less than 200 hours on them.    Median was 223.

[SarDragon]

Over what period of time? When does the reporting year begin/end?

[dbaran]

Fiscal year; given when the reporting is done, it should be the last 12 months.

[SarDragon]

OK, thanks. I can't seem to get into that info any more.

[edit]Just tried -  I can get in again!

[SoCalCAPOfficer]

The Hemet airplane is N4810N check it yourself on NTC.  It has flown 236 total hours this year (2007).  This places us above the median, there are 17 aircraft in the Wing with less hours.   Our airplane has flown 138.8 Hours on A Missions; 45.6 on B Mission and 51.6 on C Missions.   

Contrary to what some have said about Hemet being a rural area, they must not have noticed the growth in Southwest Riverside County in the last ten years.  Our members come not only from Hemet, but from Temecula, Murrieta, Perris and Lake Elsinore area.   That is a population of hundreds of thousands of people.  In addition the Hemet airport has great weather most of the year.  Thats one of the reasons the Army Air Corps used it as a training base in WWII.   

[bosshawk]

Well guys, I am on the Wing Staff and have heard nothing about this "rumor".  Given that I also am the CD Officer, it is quite likely that I would have heard, since CD flies the hogs share of hours per year in this state.

Until I hear officially, it is an outhouse rumor.

[SoCalCAPOfficer]

Well guys, I am on the Wing Staff and have heard nothing about this "rumor".  Given that I also am the CD Officer, it is quite likely that I would have heard, since CD flies the hogs share of hours per year in this state.

Until I hear officially, it is an outhouse rumor.

Thank you Sir.

[Flying Pig]

I was a Riverside County Deputy Sheriff and a Hemet Police officer for 7 years.....There is nothing rural about it.

[SoCalCAPOfficer]

I am happy to report that this thread is a baseless rumor.  I have just met with the Acting Wing Commander and he finds it laughable.   First of all he said there is no MOU's between Wings for ER Services.  He said California OES has an MOU with the California Wing of the Civil Air Patrol for our services.   Nevada and Arizona do not have an MOU with the California OES.   While we have an agreement  in which Southern Nevada will take some missions in eastern California when the weather or lack of crews keep us from flying east of the Sierra's, it is not an MOU to take over all missions.

Second regarding losing four airplanes.  His response was, "why would we do that we fly more missions in California than almost any other Wing in the country.  If anything we need more airplanes".

So there you have it.   Another unfounded rumor causing unnecessary friction among the members.   In the future, it would behove all those who post here to please check your facts before posting, it will make life easier for all of us.

[Short Field]

So we shouldn't have went out and put down deposits on hanger space based on this thread