New Summer Flight Uniform

Started by DG, July 25, 2008, 12:45:22 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

IceNine

Lets ask the Govenor what he thinks shall we?

"Hey Governator Schwarzenegger I know you have a budget and making that work out is always a good thing.  We have these awesome helicopters over here that cost $1100 per hour flown by guys in flight suits, or we have these nicely maintained, aircraft flown by highly trained pilots, and they cost less that $100 an hour.  Which would you like us to use today?  Remember sir that we could need these assets for several days, and we have a fixed budget for this search"

In the recession that we are in/heading to any governor or state official that makes poor choices like blowing 10 times more money that is necessary, will be taking care of their next election potential all by themselves.  Especially if this kind of thing leaked from a loose lipped PAO ;)
"All of the true things that I am about to tell you are shameless lies"

Book of Bokonon
Chapter 4

DNall

If I'm not mistaken, the buy-in for reapers is closer to 40mil. At least that's what CBP paid, and then asked for after they oversped their bird & lost sat lock on the spin.

It doesn't matter though. You're not factoring the cost of CAP birds cause they're provided by the govt for their own purposes & the cost is not passed on to the customer. Likewise, the predators are being purchased for their combat application, and placed with the guard to use domestically, so they are equally free to the customer.

You also mentioned 100/hr again. I've said half a dozen times that the per hour cost is in every way meaningless. They aren't buying your flight time!! They are buying a POD per dollar and how long it takes to reach that level. If I can reach 90% POD in one sortie, then your visual-only search is going to cost more & take many times longer.

Now I can keep arguing about UAVs, but that's not the point. They really can do the job cheaper & the govt is proceeding in that direction with the assumption the flight restrictions will go away, and will operate in the interm as I said with a combination of TFRs & escort. Even with escort they believe they can do the mission cheaper & more effectively. I don't know if they really got us beat, but I think it's pretty close to a dead heat.

That isn't the point though. I can just as well fly that mission with manned birds that don't have the restriction problems. CBP is flying 182s & 206s right now with FLIR installed at the Cessna factory by their special operations division (got a pic around here I'll try to find for ya later).

As technology continues to advance & get cheaper, how long can visual-only search remain an acceptable standard? Do we wait till we become obsolete & then try to figure out what to do & claw our way back? Or, do we embrace change & expand our missions into the future?

I've honestly never had anyone argue with me that we should remain less capable just cause we don't want to change, or cause our members can't handle anything hard. I don't accept that at all.

IceNine

Those are all really well put together thoughts, to bad we aren't talking about UAV's here.

I was simply arguing the fact that at the end of the day if it comes down to hiring a group of knee high wearing trained pilots vs a zipper suited sun god flying a chopper we are going to win.  The economy will help us out on that.

You can argue UAV or whatever you want in a thread that has to do with UAV vs manned searches but you're gonna have to create it.

Now if we are bringing things closer to home and comparing to other organizations that fly similar aircraft in size and operating cost, but then add advances technology we won't win.

My point put more bluntly CAP wearing shorts and white shoes is not going to lose business.  Our lack of technology will, no argument there
"All of the true things that I am about to tell you are shameless lies"

Book of Bokonon
Chapter 4

DNall

^ okay, I apologize...

Quote from: IceNine on August 04, 2008, 06:05:20 AM
Now if we are bringing things closer to home and comparing to other organizations that fly similar aircraft in size and operating cost, but then add advances technology we won't win.
This is my point... well, with the caveat that you can do it with airframes that cost even twice or three times as much & the sensors make up the difference by getting it done on fewer sorties. Details got us sucked in a little deep.

QuoteMy point put more bluntly CAP wearing shorts and white shoes is not going to lose business.  Our lack of technology will, no argument there
My point before that was... we got enough problems already. Our per hour cost is not what customers buy. It's the POD per dollar... etc, just explained that. In other words, we're already not nearly as good a buy as we think/say we are, and a lot of customers already know it. That situation doesn't get better as more tech comes along & it continues to get cheaper. In other words, there is no reason we absolutely have to wear shorts/present that image. What it costs us in credibility is not worth any potential gain. The economics are not so great as to let us act like fools. I think the numbers are actually tight enough that people need to see them in the rear view & get their butts in gear, not think they can slack further off.


IceNine

And that is a ship that I am fully aboard.

I would love it if we stopped trying to be elite (ARCHER) and focused more time on just keeping up, and equiping ourselves with useful technology

"All of the true things that I am about to tell you are shameless lies"

Book of Bokonon
Chapter 4

Frenchie

Quote from: mikeylikey on August 04, 2008, 04:16:03 AM
^ ummm  a quick 2 second search for "Nomex Experiment" will result in hundreds of research papers, experiment thesis and results by various people, agencies and countries.

Requiring Nomex is based on a good reason.  We take data from the military which says "nomex saves lives" and pass that on to members.  I strongly believe Nomex and only Nomex flight suits should be the CAP flight crew uniform.  For Cadets on O-Flights as well.

What CAP does and what the military does are two different things.  Taking what the military does and blindly applying it to CAP makes as much sense as saying all drivers need nomex suits and helmets because race car drivers have them.  As someone else said, the military uses helmets also.  They have a good reason for doing so.  That doesn't mean CAP needs to also.

CadetProgramGuy

Quote from: DNall on August 04, 2008, 06:24:50 AM
My point before that was... we got enough problems already. Our per hour cost is not what customers buy. It's the POD per dollar... etc, just explained that. In other words, we're already not nearly as good a buy as we think/say we are, and a lot of customers already know it. That situation doesn't get better as more tech comes along & it continues to get cheaper. In other words, there is no reason we absolutely have to wear shorts/present that image. What it costs us in credibility is not worth any potential gain. The economics are not so great as to let us act like fools. I think the numbers are actually tight enough that people need to see them in the rear view & get their butts in gear, not think they can slack further off.

DNALL, Thanks for saying what I didn't.

I fully agree with this statement.  Its all about credibility, nothing else

isuhawkeye

Why would the uniform worn affect your tasking. 

We already have members fly in all kinds of "uniforms".  Your post is a little extreme, and reactionary

Hawk200

#148
Quote from: isuhawkeye on August 04, 2008, 11:55:02 AM
Why would the uniform worn affect your tasking. 

We already have members fly in all kinds of "uniforms".  Your post is a little extreme, and reactionary

I wouldn't think so. A polo shirt and slacks is a uniform. A casual one, but at least an attempt at some type of business like appearance.

Aviator combo.....should be pretty obvious. The appearance is more airline corporate, but it works.

Blues? Sure, why not. Not would I would choose to fly in, because I'm extremely picky about my appearance in blues. I'm not going to be the one checking the tanks if I'm wearing them.

BDU's? They would work. A lot of the pilots I know actually wear either a BDU type pant, or something with the same configuration (the same covered thigh pockets, looser hip pockets, sometimes a calf pocket on them too).

Flightsuits are pretty much the ultimate utility uniform. Pockets in the right places, loose, and comfortable. When worn properly (meaning not looked like you were stuffed into it), they present an appearance that pretty much tells the onlooker that it's a well organized outfit.

Heat injury in a flightsuit while flying? Let's see how many times I've had to deal with that: Hmmm, carry the two....yep, still adds up to zero. And I'm not wearing just the suit, I've got on gloves, collar up, survival vest, and a helmet. The only part you see that's me is the lower part of my face, and that won't be visible before long.

The "heat injury" argument is rather baseless. If it's such a problem, how about showing some statistics on how many heat injuries our aircrews have had wearing just the suit itself. Some numbers that are only about how the Nomex is the sole factor. I doubt many people can provide such numbers. If heat is such an issue, then someone should be able to back it up.

Now, show up wearing shorts to a mission. Probably be the last time that we get called. There is a major disagreement among our members here on whether or not it's professional. Does any one think the public at large is clueless? That they won't form any opinions based on our appearance?

This change isn't about safety. Safety directives are about erring on the side of caution. Shorts are not an example of this. It is about comfort and accomodating some that don't choose to take think things through, not safety. People can argue the "heat problem" all they want, but it doesn't hold a lot of water.

mikeylikey

And we shall begin rounding the circle again for the twelfth time.  Bring your own dead horses to beat! 

This was probably over at the beginning of page 7   :clap:
What's up monkeys?

MIKE

This thread is hamburger, and DNall going off on his UAV tangents doesn't help matters. 
Mike Johnston