Leasing CAP planes

[RiverAux]

In the latest issue of SARSCENE there is an article about part of the Canada's version of CAP buying an aircraft for SAR.  http://www.nss.gc.ca/site/ss/magazine/vol17_1/news_e.asp#1

The aircraft will be leased to the Nor' Western Flying Club which will provide NOASARA with a steady stream of revenue to meet the high costs of aircraft maintenance as well as operating a dedicated SAR hangar in Thunder Bay, Ontario.

Since most CAP planes spend most of their time sitting around doing nothing, might this be something we could consider?  Yes, a whole lot of hoops would have to be jumped through and lots of care would have to be taken in how it was done (CAP has priority use, of course). 

We definetly couldn't be in the business of directly renting out the airplane (for one thing we don't have people sitting around the airport to handle it, and that would definetely be getting involved in some business.  But, I could see leasing out the aircraft to a flying club, particular one associated with a military base.

Heck, we're basically considering doing this for the Air Force (allowing them to fly them as chase planes for UAV training missions) and this is basically what we do for CAP-USAF (state directors use them regularly). 

I see it as a way to potentially pay for paying for all our fixed maintenance costs. 

I'm fairly sure this will go over like a lead balloon, but thought the Canadian approach was interesting and worth thinking about. 

[Larry Mangum]

1. So you are proposing that we take aircraft funded and paid for by the USAF and lease them to flying clubs?  Hmm, wonder what Congress and taxpayers would feel about that?

2. How do you think the FBO's who rent aircraft and provide a lot of free services to CAP are going to feel about us then? 

3. Also since the majority of the aircraft have now been repainted to the corporate paint scheme, do we really want some bozo buzzing people or acting in some other reckless manner representing CAP?

[lordmonar]

1. So you are proposing that we take aircraft funded and paid for by the USAF and lease them to flying clubs?  Hmm, wonder what Congress and taxpayers would feel about that?

2. How do you think the FBO's who rent aircraft and provide a lot of free services to CAP are going to feel about us then? 

3. Also since the majority of the aircraft have now been repainted to the corporate paint scheme, do we really want some bozo buzzing people or acting in some other reckless manner representing CAP?

Those were more or less my thoughts.

[RiverAux]

1. So you are proposing that we take aircraft funded and paid for by the USAF and lease them to flying clubs?  Hmm, wonder what Congress and taxpayers would feel about that?

The federal government routinely charges for the use of various facilities so I don't see any philosophical problem with it.  If it helps reduce the amount they need to give us for maintenance costs, I think they'd be happy about it.  

2. How do you think the FBO's who rent aircraft and provide a lot of free services to CAP are going to feel about us then?  

Leasing to a flying club is a bit different than renting out to individuals as I mentioned.  If anything, it would help increase their fuel sales.  

3. Also since the majority of the aircraft have now been repainted to the corporate paint scheme, do we really want some bozo buzzing people or acting in some other reckless manner representing CAP?

A fair concern.  

[lordmonar]

1. So you are proposing that we take aircraft funded and paid for by the USAF and lease them to flying clubs?  Hmm, wonder what Congress and taxpayers would feel about that?

The federal government routinely charges for the use of various facilities so I don't see any philosophical problem with it.  If it helps reduce the amount they need to give us for maintenance costs, I think they'd be happy about it.

I think they would have a major problem with an AD squadron who was renting out their vehicles to Hertz.  Sure the DoD rents out assets all the time...(movies come to mind right off the bat)....but they are all controlled at the Air Staff level.

2. How do you think the FBO's who rent aircraft and provide a lot of free services to CAP are going to feel about us then?  

Leasing to a flying club is a bit different than renting out to individuals as I mentioned.  If anything, it would help increase their fuel sales.

Assume that there are 100 aero club members who have 5 air planes and rent 5 more on a continuous basis and fly say 1000 hrs/month.  If CAP leased them 5 air planes...they would not necessarily fly them any more than the original 1000 hrs/month.  So there would not necessarily be an increase in fuel sales.  But there would be loss of the 5 plane rented on a continuous basis.

3. Also since the majority of the aircraft have now been repainted to the corporate paint scheme, do we really want some bozo buzzing people or acting in some other reckless manner representing CAP?

A fair concern.

An additional problem with this idea...is the whole "flying club" mentality.  If our planes are part of the flying club....we only increase this mentality.

[Larry Mangum]

Think about the flying club member who takes the plane cross country for the weekend and the aircraft is needed for a Search. What happens then?

[FW]

Interesting academic discussion.  As a reality check.... "FAAgetaboutit"  
Some stuff to consider:
Our own members can't rent out the aircraft for personal reasons.
The Airforce owns title to the aircraft.
Our aircraft fly enough to "pay the freight", so
additional funds would go back to govt. (restricted income)
I don't want a non member's paws on "my aircraft"
Just my $.02  

[RiverAux]

I agree, pretty much an academic discussion, but...

FAA has trouble with private pilots getting paid which is their issue with CAP.  Don't think they would care otherwise.

CAP planes are registered to CAP as far as I know.  At least I've seen more than a few FAA accident investigation reports noting that the plane was registered to CAP rather than the AF. 

We already get money for flying from outside sources.  Never heard of it being sent to the federal government. 

---

Think about the flying club member who takes the plane cross country for the weekend and the aircraft is needed for a Search. What happens then?

If you want to get into all the nitty gritty of how it might be done, I suppose we can.  As I mentioned at the top, CAP would obviously have priority of use and obvioulsy there would need to be some extra restrictions that most flying clubs wouldn't have to deal with.  I would see the lease agreement shaping out to allowing the same sort of flying we let CAP pilots do as proficiency flying -- I don't believe they're allowed to take them out of state and never heard of a CAP pilot getting a release for an entire weekend.  I would see them having to go through the CAP FRO to get the release so that we would know who had it and when. 

Could there be a situation where it could be out on a flight by a flying club member and not immediately available for a search?  Sure.  But, the same thing could be said of a CAP member taking it out on a proficiency flight without a crew and all I've ever heard is people pushing pilots to do as much proficiency flying as possible.

Our aircraft fly enough to "pay the freight", so

Not everywhere.  Plenty of units that have problems meeting the 200 hour minimum they want on our planes. 

3. Also since the majority of the aircraft have now been repainted to the corporate paint scheme, do we really want some bozo buzzing people or acting in some other reckless manner representing CAP?

The more I think about it, this is probably the strongest argument against leasing.  So, therefor, lets modify my academic proposal to say that CAP could lease its aircraft to flying clubs made up only of current members of the Air Force, Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard.  This would keep it "in the family" pretty well and also serve as somewhat of a check on bozos doing something stupid.  I would hope these folks would at least be as good at not doing stupid things that would make CAP look bad as we are at avoiding stupid things that make the AF look bad. 

[FW]

You're right, the FAA doesn't care if we lease the aircraft out.  Our insurance agency probably will be smiling with the increased premiums we will need to shell out.  Of course, the income from the leases would cover the expense.

Our aircraft belong to CAP however, since they were purchased with taxpayer money, the govt. (USAF) holds title.  Every time we sell an aircraft, the cash goes into a fund,  when there is enough to purchase another aircraft, we buy one.  If we don't buy another aircraft, the USAF may take the money or reduce our budget for the next year.  Also, it is the AF who decides on reimbursement rates, etc.  

Money from outside sources(AFAMs) goes to O&M of the aircraft.  the rate is determined on a set formula; there is no "profit margin".    If we were to "lease" the aircraft to another organization, I suppose it would be to raise "additional funds" (profit).  Since, by law, all money derived from aircraft utilization must be used for aircraft expenses,  the "excess" would have to be given back or used to buy more aircraft.  But, since we are limited to 550 aircraft, we can't really do that so, we just will need to give the "excess" back.    

What we would need to do, if we really wanted to make this happen, is to change the existing law and negotiate a new S.O.W. and Cooperative Agreement.  However, I understand that is harder to do than have Hades freeze over.

[RiverAux]

The latest cooperative agreement says that any income generated by the program has to go back into the program (Article 11A).  Perhaps that is no longer the case.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on whether charging to cover basic maintenance costs is "profit".   

Since, by law, all money derived from aircraft utilization must be used for aircraft expenses,

Citation please.  I did look in the CAP statutes and didn't see anything along those lines. 

[FW]

River, we're on the same page. I'm just thinking out loud on the reasons for leasing our aircraft.  Why lease them out if money is not an issue?  In analyzing the fleet as a whole, we fly enough hours to pay for O&M.  If some aircraft are under utilized, some are over utilized;  this is more of a distribution problem and needs to be addressed.  Leasing/renting out aircraft just to put more hours on them doesn't make much sense to me.  But, that's only my opinion.  

The "law" I'm referring to is our Cooperative Agreement.  And, yes, program funds must go back into the program.  In this case, the funds generated must go back to aircraft O&M.  It's the reason we take all the unreimbursed flight income (B&C missions) from the wings less fuel and oil expense when they go on the "CMX" program.  I could go on but, my head is starting to ache.  

IMHO, if we can allow state directors to fly CAP aircraft for any reason, we should allow CAP members to do the same; especially if the member is paying for it.  If we did, at least this, flying hours would never be an issue.

[RiverAux]

With my tongue firmly lodged in my cheek...one could argue that leasing the CAP aircraft to flying clubs could address several of the official purposes of CAP (under the law under which we are incorporated):

1.  Encourage and aid citizens of the United States in contributing their efforts, services, and resources in developing aviation and in maintaining air supremacy.
2.  To encourage and foster civil aviation in local communities.
3.  To provide aviation education and training especially to its senior and cadet members.

Allowing members of the public an opportunity to fly and further develop their piloting skills would seem to be a part of 1 and 2.  Number 3 would be a bigger stretch.  The "air supremacy" argument would work even better if the leases were limited to military flying clubs. 

[Frenchie]

The thing about Canada is they have approximately the same land mass as the US, but only about 1/10th the population.  The vast majority of their citizens are also close to the US border.  They have a lot of vast remote areas, and I can only assume that they rely quite a bit on aviation for transportation in many areas just like Alaska does.  As such they probably need quite a few SAR aircraft specifically for SAR missions, but they probably don't have too many other missions for them as CAP does.  I can imagine they have quite a few aircraft that get very few hours put on them, so such a program may make more sense to them than it does to us.

[Larry Mangum]

One thing people reading the article probably did not notice, is the aircraft in question was not paid for using goverment funds.

[Flying Pig]

By RiverAux
FAA has trouble with private pilots getting paid which is their issue with CAP.  Don't think they would care otherwise.


Since when has the FAA cared about our pilots being reimbursed?

[FW]

^We operate under 2 FAA exemptions.  If we're caught violating them we risk losing the exemptions.  If we lose the exemptions, we can't get reimbursed for our flying.
I would consider that the FAA does care very much. 

[cap801]

By RiverAux
FAA has trouble with private pilots getting paid which is their issue with CAP.  Don't think they would care otherwise.


Since when has the FAA cared about our pilots being reimbursed?

Since the FAR's have said that no private pilot can operate an aircraft for reimbursement or compensation.  That's what the commercial license is for.  And as mentioned in the above post, CAP has two exceptions.

[a2capt]

For the flipside of this..

What happens to those that get sold off?

http://www.pacificcoastflyers.org/N98219.php

You know how handy that is now.. having an aircraft with an antenna set available? 

MI Wing took really nice care of this aircraft, too.

[Mustang]

CAP should really be "de-mil'ing" aircraft prior to sale.  What's the point of having a corporate livery if there are aircraft in that livery not under CAP control?   

[RiverAux]

Spend how many thousands of dollars to paint a plane we're trying to sell?  Not very sure that would be an efficient use of our money.  Taking off the stickers is good enough. 

[FW]

The plane stays red/white/blue.  However, the decals are removed.  No muss, no fuss or,
Wax on Wax off.

[Mustang]

I disagree.  A buddy of mine is an F-16 pilot who flew CAPs over the San Francisco Bay, and he said that in a "push comes to shove" environment, that paint job may be the only thing that keeps them from shooting one of our aircraft down.  With the paint job remaining on aircraft not under CAP control, we've lost that potential benefit.   (They sure as [poop] can't see the stickers.)

[FW]

If "push came to shove" in any aircraft,  I'd shoot it down; paint scheme or not.

When I had to fly into the D.C. ADIZ "inner ring", I needed to go through some tough checks and paperwork to get the permissions.  Any pilot who gets too close better know what to do when intercepted, or else.  I have no qualms on selling our aircraft to any legit buyer. 

[a2capt]

The aircraft was painted about 6 years ago. Before they decided to run out all the 172s. The interior plastic was beat but the rest of it was pretty decent. It made a nice addition to our fleet.

We're also looking at a previous 182 - though it has the older paint scheme, the one thats all straight lines and less blue.