Wing Aircraft Losses Due To Reassignments

[RADIOMAN015]

Looks like our wing is loosing 2 Cessna 172's which I think are going to PA wing.  Anyone else loosing aircraft?

I'm sure the economy hasn't helped with some members on reduced hours, unemployed, or just concerned with saving money for "just in case" unknown potential future situations. 
RM

[Spike]

If you aint flying you get to start drivin.  Welcome to how CAP operates. 

[WT]

Actually, word is we lost a brand-spakin-new C-182T in order to get those two very used C-172s.  Also, we have already lost 7 aircraft in the last couple years.  Welcome to CAP!

[Al Sayre]

There are some new formuale for aircraft distribution.  Area in Sq miles fugures heavily into that.

[WT]

We keep hearing conversations eluding to that, but what exactly are the formulae, or is this "secret squirrel" stuff??

[Eclipse]

The only "formula" I've ever heard is 200 hours per airframe (not average, but actual per plane).  Anything less risks the plane and requires a good explanation.

Beyond that its up to the wing staff to put the plane(s) in a place where those hours will be flown, and to rotate the aircraft to insure the lower-time planes get used and everyone gets a fair shot at newer toys.

[Al Sayre]

We keep hearing conversations eluding to that, but what exactly are the formulae, or is this "secret squirrel" stuff??

AFAIK it's no secret, It was discussed at the SER Ops conference this weekend,  I think I have it in my notes.  I'll look when I get home tonight.

[DG]

We keep hearing conversations eluding to that, but what exactly are the formulae, or is this "secret squirrel" stuff??

John Salvador laid out the specific formula at NER StratOps last weekend at Westover AFB.

[WT]

And would someone have an illustration to share??

[lordmonar]

National's goal is that each aircraft get 200 hours on them each per year.

If Wing X....has 20 aircraft assigned and they average 200 hours then national/region is not going to be too worried about reassigning any aircraft....but region is going to look at the numbers for each aircraft and question if there are any that under utilised.

If wing X has a unit that is only flying 100 hours on its plane and does not have a good excuse of why (say long down time due to maintenance, closed airport, etc) then they may look at moving that aircraft to a unit that is flying more or a new unit that would like an aircraft.

By that same token if wing X is flying more then 200 hours on average they can go to region and ask for planes from other wings that may not be meeting this goal.

These are not hard and fast numbers.....that is you will not find any regulations that say "fly 200 hours or loose your plane".  The Wing Commander is responsible for placing his planes to ensure there is good mission coverage.  Let's take Hawaii for example.  It is spread out over wide area.  For response perposes the wing CC may assigned a plane to a unit that cannot fly it's 200 hours....but because it is too far away to respond to a search in a timely manner he may still choose to keep that plane there.

So there are two major issues at stake here.  Mission coverage and aircraft usage.  We want the planes to get used.  There are a lot more units then there are planes.  So a unit has a vested intrest to keep their numbers up or they loose it to a near by unit who will.  But there are isolated units that will/can keep their plane despite not keeping their numbers up due to geographical considerations.

[Larry Mangum]

National's goal is that each aircraft get 200 hours on them each per year.

If Wing X....has 20 aircraft assigned and they average 200 hours then national/region is not going to be too worried about reassigning any aircraft....but region is going to look at the numbers for each aircraft and question if there are any that under utilised.

If wing X has a unit that is only flying 100 hours on its plane and does not have a good excuse of why (say long down time due to maintenance, closed airport, etc) then they may look at moving that aircraft to a unit that is flying more or a new unit that would like an aircraft.

By that same token if wing X is flying more then 200 hours on average they can go to region and ask for planes from other wings that may not be meeting this goal.

These are not hard and fast numbers.....that is you will not find any regulations that say "fly 200 hours or loose your plane".  The Wing Commander is responsible for placing his planes to ensure there is good mission coverage.  Let's take Hawaii for example.  It is spread out over wide area.  For response perposes the wing CC may assigned a plane to a unit that cannot fly it's 200 hours....but because it is too far away to respond to a search in a timely manner he may still choose to keep that plane there.

So there are two major issues at stake here.  Mission coverage and aircraft usage.  We want the planes to get used.  There are a lot more units then there are planes.  So a unit has a vested intrest to keep their numbers up or they loose it to a near by unit who will.  But there are isolated units that will/can keep their plane despite not keeping their numbers up due to geographical considerations.

Lord Monar, did a good job of explaining the metrics involved. If you have access to WMIRS, there is a report that shows how each wing is doing towards National's goal of 200 hours per aircraft. 

[DG]

National's goal is that each aircraft get 200 hours on them each per year.

If Wing X....has 20 aircraft assigned and they average 200 hours then national/region is not going to be too worried about reassigning any aircraft....but region is going to look at the numbers for each aircraft and question if there are any that under utilised.

If wing X has a unit that is only flying 100 hours on its plane and does not have a good excuse of why (say long down time due to maintenance, closed airport, etc) then they may look at moving that aircraft to a unit that is flying more or a new unit that would like an aircraft.

By that same token if wing X is flying more then 200 hours on average they can go to region and ask for planes from other wings that may not be meeting this goal.

These are not hard and fast numbers.....that is you will not find any regulations that say "fly 200 hours or loose your plane".  The Wing Commander is responsible for placing his planes to ensure there is good mission coverage.  Let's take Hawaii for example.  It is spread out over wide area.  For response perposes the wing CC may assigned a plane to a unit that cannot fly it's 200 hours....but because it is too far away to respond to a search in a timely manner he may still choose to keep that plane there.

So there are two major issues at stake here.  Mission coverage and aircraft usage.  We want the planes to get used.  There are a lot more units then there are planes.  So a unit has a vested intrest to keep their numbers up or they loose it to a near by unit who will.  But there are isolated units that will/can keep their plane despite not keeping their numbers up due to geographical considerations.

There is a new formula.

[Eclipse]

There is a new formula.

Perhaps...but there is no spoon...

[Larry Mangum]

From a slide deck:

NHQ Uses NEC Approved Formula for the Initial Allocation, so Mission Pilot and Mission Observer Data in Ops Quals:

• Qualified Mission Pilots: 40%
• Qualified Mission Observers: 35%
• Total Wing Membership: 15%
• Square Miles (of the wing): 10%

So there you go, no secret squirrel stuff!

[DG]

There is a new formula.

Perhaps...but there is no spoon...

Wise crack?

[DG]

From a slide deck:

NHQ Uses NEC Approved Formula for the Initial Allocation, so Mission Pilot and Mission Observer Data in Ops Quals:

• Qualified Mission Pilots: 40%
• Qualified Mission Observers: 35%
• Total Wing Membership: 15%
• Square Miles (of the wing): 10%

So there you go, no secret squirrel stuff!

That's it!

[RiverAux]

Those are components of a formula, but what is the formula itself? 

[Larry Mangum]

Unknown

[lordmonar]

It gives you a weighted system.

Large states with low member counts can still get aircaft.

Nevada:

Size=110,561x.10=11056.1
Members=827=124.05
MO=111=38.85
MP=54=21.6
for a total of 11240.5
With that number you then can multiply by 0.001 and come up with that Nevada needs 11.24 planes.

The .001 is arbitrary on my part...but is pretty close to what Nevada has. (we have 10 and 3 gliders).

So larger states get more planes simply by geographical area...where very large states with large poplulations will get even more.  Smaller states suffer from geographical area but can make up for it by having larger wings and more pilots and MOs.

COWG which is just a little bit smaller the Nevada but has twice the membership has 13 aircraft.

[RiverAux]

If that is how they're doing it, I don't see any way smallers states have a realistic chance at increasing their planes no matter how large their membership or number of pilots or observers.  Even at only 10% of the score, geographic area is going to win out most of the time.

In this case, 98% of Nevada's total points was due to its geographic area.