Quiet and Casual defunding of CD not being discussed

Started by Eclipse, July 03, 2019, 05:11:23 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Eclipse

Quote from: SarDragon on August 01, 2019, 10:33:53 PM
That's funny. We have a really active CD mission here in CAWG. My group does one weekend a month, and there are two other groups who also do the mission. There hasn't been any decline announced. The current schedule runs through October.

Yes, CAWG is one of the 6 wings still flying CD.

"That Others May Zoom"

lordmonar

Quote from: Eclipse on August 01, 2019, 09:14:09 PM
Quote from: OldGuy on August 01, 2019, 08:56:43 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 01, 2019, 05:52:10 PM
Except that in many cases CAP doesn't mention the real expense of the mission until afterwards,
and /or doesn't pre-qualify that the agency in question even has the funding to pay for CAP
costs, minimal though they may be, regardless.

So...now that what asserted, supported by data to begin with, has been confirmed by HEADCAP
where are the 30+ airplanes worth of hours going to come from?
I'd ask your wing CD officer. Captalk really is not the right venue for that discussion, in my opinion.

The what now? This isn't a mission any more in the majority of the wings. The spots are vacant
and they aren't re-qualing the aircews who were flying the missions.

CD's off the table, and UAV flights don't count.  At some point losing 10%+ of your flight hours
annually has to have a consequence of some kind, and that consequence is likely fleet reduction.
Or you can look at it as you have 10% more hours to fly other things.
If CD being reduced then that means the aircraft is available to fly Cadet Wings/O-Rides/Fly A teacher, hell even proficiency flying.   
I would not be going straight to the Doom and Gloom of "Oh!  They are going to take away our planes!"
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

etodd

Quote from: lordmonar on August 02, 2019, 03:55:31 AM

Or you can look at it as you have 10% more hours to fly other things.
If CD being reduced then that means the aircraft is available to fly Cadet Wings/O-Rides/Fly A teacher, hell even proficiency flying.   
I would not be going straight to the Doom and Gloom of "Oh!  They are going to take away our planes!"

For sure. My Wing has been begging people to get crews together and go fly paid proficiency profiles. Funding is there and not enough take advantage of it. Whats up with that? I flew a crew this week to keep us limbered up and ready for Missions. :)
"Don't try to explain it, just bow your head
Breathe in, breathe out, move on ..."

Eclipse

#43
Quote from: lordmonar on August 02, 2019, 03:55:31 AM
Or you can look at it as you have 10% more hours to fly other things.
If CD being reduced then that means the aircraft is available to fly Cadet Wings/O-Rides/Fly A teacher, hell even proficiency flying.   
I would not be going straight to the Doom and Gloom of "Oh!  They are going to take away our planes!"

The intention is not to be doom and gloom, but the situation shouldn't be ignored or glossed over, and if the majority of
the country is out of the CD biz, then the rhetoric should be reduced or removed in most of the marketing collateral in the
same way Green Flag, UAV escorts, etc., aren't really a realistic mission for the majority of the membership or potential members.

CD crews don't participate in Wings, O-rides, or Fly A Teacher TOPS flights, so those wouldn't be a 1-to-1 anyway,
so that's 2-3 members from each sortie who no longer get to play, and a lot of CD work was done during business hours,
which means specific people and circumstances.
Also, weekends and aircraft don't scale, there's still x-hours per day.
My wing is already pretty much maxed out weekend-wise in regards to all of the various types of flying.

About the only ting this might help alleviate is aircraft being down less in maintenance, but when it's do to
a significant reduction in flight hours, now you're having those "conversations" annually about why they didn't make
the magic (pretend) 200 per.

Also, CD is generally a pretty specific AO, sometimes requiring a specific airframe to be stationed in a specific place
to meet the need.  Without CD, the justification for having "x-plane at y-airport" may be lost,  making it even harder
for crews away from population centers to get proficiency (I'll grant, though, that sometimes this last point was as much
a PITA as a value due to having to artificially rotate airframes to maintain the "required" hours).

This doesn't even account for member spirit and initiative when they find out, off-handedly, that something
they've been doing on a regular basis just faded away with barely a mention and no replacement, so much for
the time and effort spent getting the extra clearances and quals, both initial and refresher.

"That Others May Zoom"

Blanding

Quote from: Eclipse on August 02, 2019, 05:06:05 AM
CD crews don't participate in Wings, O-rides, or Fly A Teacher TOPS flights, so those wouldn't be a 1-to-1 anyway,
so that's 2-3 members from each sortie who no longer get to play

Having flown CD flights when they were being conducted, and also regularly flying the "other" kinds of flights, I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. When CD flights were needed here I volunteered for them, and now that they're not required I fly the "other" missions.

Should I be upset that the organization's needs changed? Personally, I choose instead to appreciate the opportunities it offers.

The CAP corporation certainly doesn't owe me an explanation either. If they suddenly stopped the orientation flight program, what choice does the membership have but to comply with that directive?

PHall

Quote from: Eclipse on August 02, 2019, 05:06:05 AM

CD crews don't participate in Wings, O-rides, or Fly A Teacher TOPS flights.


That's a pretty broad statement there. Too bad there's not much to support it.
In CAWG at least some of our more active O-Flight pilots are also some of our more active CD pilots.
Our most active pilots tend to fly a bit of everything. That's why they're the most active.
In the past you could fly nothing but ES and stay busy. It's a different world today.

Eclipse

^ Crews

The other missions might share the pilots...might...but the crews aren't getting on those alternative flights.
That's 2-3 people potentially per sortie who don't get flights anymore, that's 12-18000 member flight hours lost per year
(at this point).

"That Others May Zoom"

etodd

Quote from: Eclipse on August 02, 2019, 03:07:49 PM

The other missions might share the pilots...might...but the crews aren't getting on those alternative flights.
That's 2-3 people potentially per sortie who don't get flights anymore. ....


Did those members join CAP just to fly in those CD Missions? Their version of "the flying club"?  As missions change, members have to find other interests and areas to work.
"Don't try to explain it, just bow your head
Breathe in, breathe out, move on ..."

Fubar

Quote from: etodd on August 02, 2019, 06:04:59 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 02, 2019, 03:07:49 PM

The other missions might share the pilots...might...but the crews aren't getting on those alternative flights.
That's 2-3 people potentially per sortie who don't get flights anymore. ....


Did those members join CAP just to fly in those CD Missions? Their version of "the flying club"?  As missions change, members have to find other interests and areas to work.

I believe the point Eclipse is making is that aircrews aren't allowed on o-flights and TOP flights. The whole point of those flights is to get people up in the air who are not part of aircrews (teachers and young cadets). So even if you replace CD flights with o-flights and TOP flights, the pilot might not see a reduction in flying, the aircrews (MO/MS) sure do.

Eclipse

#49
^ Correct, and there is also no way you can replace 6000+ hours annually
with TOPS flights (which for those scoring at home can be a huge PITA just to get approved by
the NOC, let alone all the wrangling of schedules), and O-rides or Wings flights.

So it's both a crew (non-pilot) issue and a fleet justification issue.

Adding UAVs into this mix, which has the potential to further reduce flight hours,
and that will just make it worse.

"That Others May Zoom"

etodd

Quote from: Eclipse on August 02, 2019, 06:15:40 PM

....no way you can replace 6000+ hours annually .....


So, if the budget is already there for 6000 hours ... and non-pilot aircrews are going to lose anyway .... why not slide that 6000 hours over to Cadet PPL candidates?


Quote from: Eclipse on August 02, 2019, 06:15:40 PM

Adding UAVs into this mix, which has the potential to further reduce flight hours,
and that will just make it worse.

Don't worry about the sUAS Program.  Once everyone interested is all trained, the sUAS gear will be sitting in the closet, next to the Garmin Virb,  collecting dust 90% of the time.
"Don't try to explain it, just bow your head
Breathe in, breathe out, move on ..."

Eclipse

Quote from: etodd on August 02, 2019, 06:43:59 PM
So, if the budget is already there for 6000 hours ... and non-pilot aircrews are going to lose anyway .... why not slide that 6000 hours over to Cadet PPL candidates?

The budget isn't there, that's why they aren't being flown anymore.  The customers are dying up,
and those still left don't want to pay.

Those hours are gone with no mission or other tasking to replace them, partially because of the nature
of the when and where they were flown.

"That Others May Zoom"

RiverAux

If there are only 6 Wings flying CD then this mission has fallen to niche status like a lot of other "cool" things we use to recruit people into CAP.  It will become increasingly difficult to manage CAP as a national organization as each state continues to become more and more unique in what it does.  I really do hope CAP can hold on to the operational missions but I keep getting more pessimistic. 

Not that there is anything wrong with it, but it just seems to me that before long CAP will have devolved so far into becoming a cadet-based organization that the AF will drop it in favor of AF JROTC.  Without the ES and other ops missions like CD there really is no need for us to be on our own. 

NIN



Quote from: Eclipse on August 01, 2019, 09:14:09 PM
At some point losing 10%+ of your flight hours
annually has to have a consequence of some kind, and that consequence is likely fleet reduction.

We never did CD. We're consistently in the top 10 wings for flying hrs. We'll fly the (wheel) pants off one of your planes.




Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

TheSkyHornet

Quote from: Eclipse on August 02, 2019, 07:07:38 PM
Quote from: etodd on August 02, 2019, 06:43:59 PM
So, if the budget is already there for 6000 hours ... and non-pilot aircrews are going to lose anyway .... why not slide that 6000 hours over to Cadet PPL candidates?

The budget isn't there, that's why they aren't being flown anymore.  The customers are dying up,
and those still left don't want to pay.

Those hours are gone with no mission or other tasking to replace them, partially because of the nature
of the when and where they were flown.

Okay, so if that mission is disappearing, is this a concern about "What do we do with all the existing crews we have?"

I'm still not really understanding what the problem is here. What is the issue that we are looking for answers or resolution toward?

PHall

Quote from: TheSkyHornet on August 05, 2019, 05:15:32 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 02, 2019, 07:07:38 PM
Quote from: etodd on August 02, 2019, 06:43:59 PM
So, if the budget is already there for 6000 hours ... and non-pilot aircrews are going to lose anyway .... why not slide that 6000 hours over to Cadet PPL candidates?

The budget isn't there, that's why they aren't being flown anymore.  The customers are dying up,
and those still left don't want to pay.

Those hours are gone with no mission or other tasking to replace them, partially because of the nature
of the when and where they were flown.

Okay, so if that mission is disappearing, is this a concern about "What do we do with all the existing crews we have?"

I'm still not really understanding what the problem is here. What is the issue that we are looking for answers or resolution toward?

We really need to do a study of exactly what missions are we doing now and how many aircraft and crews are needed to perform them.
Over the past 10 years we seem to have moved from hunting ELT's to providing pictures for Disaster Relief operations.
And some of that has the potential of being performed by sUAS's.
So do we really need 550 aircraft? Is the current mix of aircraft suitable for what we want to do? What does the Air Force think?
Times change and so do the missions that we perform. I remember back in the 1970's when one of our missions was Ground and Aerial Radiological Monitoring.
That "mission" went away in the 1980's...

RiverAux

Essentially losing one of our moderately important operational missions seems like a pretty big deal to me.  We are dependent on aircrews to perform many of our missions and losing out on any opportunities to use those skills in the "real world" is going to reduce motivation to train and reduce operational proficiency. 

What is the "optimal" operational tempo across all our missions?  Well, there are some goals in the eservices Commander's Dashboard for that, but with the vast majority of Wings flying less than 200 hours/aircraft in FY18, it seems likely we aren't where we want to be in terms of flying hours, and losing any is a problem. 

I don't know where to find hours to replace those and I've continued to become more dubious of the long-term prospects for airborne CAP operational missions and with our failure to really develop ground-based mission opportunities, things aren't looking up for OPs. 

Larry Mangum

CD flights at one time was important in some wings for reaching the annual goals of 200 hrs per aircraft. Washington Wing at one point in its past use to generated somewhere between 800 and 900 hrs of flight time every year, just due to the CD mission.

Which was great for the fleet. However what most people did not realize was that that 800+ hrs went to a very small select group of people, as not any and all pilot could fly the mission. I ran ES at the time for the wing and I am willing to bet that less than 10% of the rated mission pilot in the wing actually flew those missions.  I am also willing to bet that was true for all of the wings that flew a lot of CD. So while it did help the wing meet annual hour requirements, it did not result in a high number of pilots and observers maintaining their qualifications. A heavy ES training schedule and real world missions did that.
Larry Mangum, Lt Col CAP
DCS, Operations
SWR-SWR-001

etodd

Quote from: PHall on August 05, 2019, 06:04:55 PM

So do we really need 550 aircraft?

Quote from: RiverAux on August 05, 2019, 06:08:49 PM

..... things aren't looking up for OPs.


^^^ Yep.    In the last few months I've posted a few times of how I don't think we'll recognize CAP 20 or 30 years from now, will be so different. But when "I've" said it, all heck breaks loose with responses, such that the thread winds up getting closed.   >:D >:D >:D
"Don't try to explain it, just bow your head
Breathe in, breathe out, move on ..."

etodd

Surely it'll be a gradual change, more evident in some Wings than others. We are so different. Some still doing lots of actual SAR, while mine for example, is more Disaster Photos.  My Wing has been flying Army ATC missions every month. That gives us 400ish hours a year. But obviously not every Wing has that opportunity. Syracuse stays busy with their mission.  Other Wings have their specialties. The Wings that can find a niche will likely keep their planes longer than those who cannot, or do not, sell themselves locally.  (To state the obvious)
"Don't try to explain it, just bow your head
Breathe in, breathe out, move on ..."