Rumor Control - Corporate Vehicles

[Ricochet13]

Has anyone heard rumors regarding exclusive use of corporate vehicles at funded CAP activities?  No member owned vehicles to be used on ground sorties, etc.

[whatevah]

haven't heard that yet, but it's always been the case to use personal vehicles only when corporate vehicles were not available. Easier for insurance, easier to identify as CAP, radios pre-equipped, etc.

[Eclipse]

Nope, not true.

[lordmonar]

At missions all POVs must be approved by wing prior to their use.  They must be in WIMRs in order for you to get reimbursed.  Other then that there is no policy that I know of that you must use COVs like there is a policy for aircraft.

Having said that....I can understand and agree is such a policy were in force.  If we got COVs we should be using them for missions when ever possible.

[cap235629]

^^^^I agree, with one caveat.

Purchase vehicles that support ALL of our missions.
Our squadron currently has a corporate minivan.  We have 10 cadets so I understand, sort of.  I have been told that the vehicles are primarily for cadet transport, all other use is secondary.  We do however have it outfitted very well i.e comms and a soon to be installed mobile DF unit.

If you look at our vehicle use logs you will see that we use the vehicle more for missions than for cadet transport. 

here is the rub:

on every mission with the last 18 months this vehicle was on gravel or dirt roads the majority of the time.  Our part of the state goes rural VERY quickly.  The need for a vehicle with better off road capability (by of road I mean off "paved" road, I am not advocating 4 wheeling or mud bogging capabilities) becomes readily apparent the minute it rains.

Currently our wing has only 2 4 wheel drive equipped vehicles.  Both are at our wing headquarters in the most urban part of the state (another story...)  All squadrons are equipped with either a 12 passenger van or a minivan.  Though the 12 passenger van would be better than what we have, they are terrible off of a paved road as well.

Why not purchase a vehicle that bridges the gap?

Ford, GM and Chrysler all make SUV's that have 4 wheel drive and seating for 9.  Seems this would be a better choice.

Until then, I will continue to use my POV (a 4wd Explorer) any time it will be more appropriate (MOST OF THE TIME)

YMMV

[Eclipse]

At missions all POVs must be approved by wing prior to their use. 

Depends on the Wing. Certainly the POV has to be signed into the mission, but I've never had to have a POV's use approved.

7. Use of COVs, TUVs, and POVs.

b. Privately owned vehicle (POVs)
1) Use of POVs for transportation to and from CAP meetings, encampments, and other activities is solely at the risk of the individual CAP member and passengers. This is known as the "home-to-work-rule." CAP assumes no right of control, liability, or responsibility for such transportation.

2) The unit commander must approve, in writing, justification for use of a POV as official CAP transportation when adequate COVs are not available for such purposes. Approval is limited to unusual circumstances where lack of transportation or capability for CAP members adversely impacts important activities. Prior to granting such permission, the member is required to produce evidence of insurance coverage, state inspection (if required), and registration. The written approval for use of a POV will be kept on file in accordance with CAPR 10-2.

The question then becomes, what is "official CAP transportation"?  In my opinion this is different from simply using your POV for a mission.  I think "official CAP transportation" would be POV's designated by a CC or GTL, etc., as the vehicle for everyone to use, no choice, in lieu of a COV.

For one thing, not all missions have a muster at a central point.  Most, especially ELT searches, simply have assets going direct to the search area.  The transport to the area falls under 7-1 above, but whether continuing to use your vehicle makes it "official CAP transportation", is questionable.

We've got a fair number of COV's in my state, but rarely is there one between me and the mission, encampment, and other activity.  Its just a symptom of a big state.  So there's never been an issue with use of POV's for missions and other activities, nor reimbursements.

[LtCol Hooligan]

I think the main reason why they purchase vans is that 4x4s cost more and carry less people and equipment.  A 15 pax, although huge carries a lot of gear.  I too wish that we had 4x4s for missions, but at the same time, I have used 15 and 12 pax in prety rural and pretty snowy places and have not really had issues.  I think I got stuck 2x in 11 years of driving CAP vans in ND.  In all honesty, we can get to most of the places we need to with the vans, and really we probably shouldn't be there if we need 4 x 4.  Before I get flamed for that, as an IC, I have made the decision to have a 4 x 4 follow the GT into the field before on a just in case basis.  It was raining for many days and the roads were soaked.  They didn't get stuck, but just in case.

[Eclipse]

SUV's have their place, especially in rural areas, but they also tend to be a lot more expensive to maintain, especially for the hanger queen once-a-month use vehicles we have.

[RiverAux]

Our vans are fine for just about any county, city, or state maintained gravel road out there.  Now, if you want to go off on a minor Forest Service road or something like that, they will have some limitations, but that is not going to be a big concern most of the time. 

[lordmonar]

We need 4X4 for NIMS requirements....also we have had a couple of agencies say we had to have them if we were going to deploy.

[wingnut55]

I took this from the USAF Budget it covers 2007 -2013
FY2007           FY2008             FY2009           FY2010             FY2011               FY2012            FY2013
$692,000        $869,000         $889,000       $910,000           $923,000         $941,000          $960,00

This is the Description

This program includes vehicles to support Civil Air Patrol (CAP) operational and management activities. The CAP program includes the procurement of vehicles to provide transportation for cadet and senior members attending meetings and functions of the AF auxiliary. Operational support applications include command and control for search and rescue, counterdrug, disaster relief, and training missions authorized as AF missions for their auxiliary. Failure to provide funding for these vehicles will increase safety risks for transportation of over 20,000 CAP cadets and numerous ground teams who travel multiple times per year in support of rescue/relief missions and cadet activities. Several CAP vehicles are at their life expectancy, which necessitates

So who keeps telling us these vehicles are only for Cadet operations, why purchase Vans only?? come on NHQ get on the ball we need some 4X4s out here and maybe some trucks.

For nay sayers here is the link

http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080204-086.pdf

[ELTHunter]

At missions all POVs must be approved by wing prior to their use.

I do not think this is true.  I couldn't find anything in 60-3 that required that use of POV's be approved.  If you know where it is, I'd like to know, as I have wondered this before.  In TN Wing, the SD will not approve reimbursement for a POV unless it is on WMIRS AND you have a letter from your commander or the IC approving it for use.  However, I couldn't find any basis for this in the regs and always assumed this was his policy.

They must be in WIMRs in order for you to get reimbursed.  Other then that there is no policy that I know of that you must use COVs like there is a policy for aircraft.

Agreed

Having said that....I can understand and agree is such a policy were in force.  If we got COVs we should be using them for missions when ever possible.

My problem with the policy is that we should "train like we fight"  The powers that be want to only use COV's because they want to keep the miles up on them to justify having them.  However, my POV, like many others, is better equipped for a mission than most of the COV's we have.  Additionally, they push to use COV's at SARX's, but when it's 0300 and it's time for a real mission, nobody wants to come out and give you the keys to a COV, so why don't you just drive your own.

I don't mind equipping my POV with all the required stuff that a COV has.  I don't mind driving it on a mission.  What I do mind is making me jump through all kinds of hoops and making it very inconvenient to drive it on a SARX and then when it's not convenient for them to have me drive a COV, well, go ahead and drive mine.

As you might have noticed, this is a little bit of a sore spot for me.

[ELTHunter]

I think there are only about four COV's within a 30 mile radius of my unit.  However, one of these is a suburban that, most of the time, stays hitched to a FEMA trailer for use as a "mobile command center" (even though it will not be used on 99.9% of missions).  Another of the four is assigned to some HLS officer from Region or National, and yet another is a 15 PAX van that is about three years old.  When we got it, we were forbidden to use it as a ground team vehicle.

That leave basicly one vehicle for four five units with maybe for ground teams and an IC staff between them.

[wingnut55]

Maybe a fraud, waste, and abuse complaint should be filed with your IG, if the USAF purchased the vehicles for CAP to use for search and Rescue and Sarex transportation . Not just for Cadet transportation. see my previous on USAF funding for CAP vehicles. If you ask for U.S. funding and then restrict the use well figure that out. What is that called?

Sorry I forgot, if you filed a complaint that went to National kiss your CAP career goodbye, at least you will not make it  to Group or wing commander.

[cap235629]

Our vans are fine for just about any county, city, or state maintained gravel road out there.  Now, if you want to go off on a minor Forest Service road or something like that, they will have some limitations, but that is not going to be a big concern most of the time. 

With respect, you have apparently never driven in rural Arkansas.  Our last ELT mission in our squadron required us to not only drive on a non improved roadway, but up a "private" road to the private landing strip out in the middle of the boonies.  This is more the rule than the exception.

Our area of responsibility is predominately rural (at least 1/2 is part of the National Forest system) and road "maintenance" in most parts of the area only includes running a grader down the road every couple of years or so.  The money just isn't there for much else

as far as costs for the vehicles

MSRP for 2009 Ford Expedition 4X4 $37050 
MSRP for 2009 Ford 12(11) PAX E150 Van $27635
MSRP for 2009 Chevy 15(12) PAX VAN $34115
MSRP for 2009 Chevy Suburban 4X4 $43215
MSRP for 2009 Dodge Durango 4X4 $31410
MSRP for 2009 Dodge Sprinter 12 PAX Van $42150

All this means is that the cost is more for a 4X4 but as mentioned we need 4WD to be NIMS compliant.

I am sure the actual price paid by government contract is substantially less and will be probably much lower in the future due to the massive bailout of the auto industry (any other veterans remember the millions of K-Cars DOD bought when Mr. Iacoca got his bailout?)

Maintenance may be an issue but only if major repairs are needed and then only on 4WD components (15 PAX vans are very expensive to work on as well)

[RiverAux]

Please don't make assumptions regarding someone else's experience.

[lordmonar]

If we want to become NIMS compliant we will have to get 4X4 vehicles.

[openmind]

If we want to become NIMS compliant we will have to get 4X4 vehicles.

Do you (or anyone...) have a cite to that NIMS requirement?  I haven't been able to find it in my initial searches.

Thanks!


openmind

[lordmonar]

Opps....misspoke.

http://www.nimsonline.com/resource_typing/Wilderness%20Search%20and%20Rescue%20Team.htm

4X4 are not required...but recommended.

I do know that the last time a county SAR director requested CAP ground teams...they required us to have 4X4's.

[cap235629]

it is a recommended standard until Type 1 then it is a requirement

[RiverAux]

And since for a variety of reasons (discussed in other threads) CAP is not likely to ever have any Type 1 teams, then we don't need to worry about this specific requirement. 

[cap235629]

touche

but in this part of the country, they really are a necessity

[321EOD]

  We do however have it outfitted very well i.e comms and a soon to be installed mobile DF unit.

Can I ask what 'mobile df unit' you are looking at? - Thanks!

[cap235629]

  We do however have it outfitted very well i.e comms and a soon to be installed mobile DF unit.

Can I ask what 'mobile df unit' you are looking at? - Thanks!

It is actually and old school L-Per.  We also just got a grant and purchased a new mini L-Per with all of the accessories

[N Harmon]

http://www.quigley4x4.com

Quigley Motor Company, located in Manchester PA, is the oldest, largest and most successful manufacturer of high quality four-wheel-drive conversions for full sized vans and "cut-aways" in the world. It has sold over 15,000 of its unique four-wheel drive systems for vans. Quigley also manufactures and installs right-hand drive conversion systems for full size vans.

Quigley Motor Company is an approved up-fitter for General Motors and is also a fully approved Ford Motor Company ship-thru account and benefits from access to the Ford, and General Motors shipping and distribution network. In fact, the Quigley "Quadra-Version" system can be ordered through any authorized Chevrolet, GMC or Ford dealer in the United States.

I think this is worth looking into for CAP ground transportation folks. The thing is, 4wd systems do require more maintenance so a host squadron would have to be willing to take on the extra costs. I'm not sure mine would.

[badger bob]

Last  year, NHQ put together a National Logisitcs Advisory Team to make some recommendations on the upcoming revisons to logistics regulations.

One of the teams struggles was to make a recommendation on vehicle purchases and vehicle distribution ( the table of allowances).

Currently, CAP has about 800 mission capable vehicles and another 100 vehicles that are generally special purpose vehicles- from some jeeps in Alaska that are used to move float planes from hangers to their takeoff points to communications vehicles and even a couple forklifs.

Current vehicle replacement funding authorizes appropriations for 30-35 vehicle replacements a year- giving a 30 year replacement cycle for the current fleet. It is unacceptable to depend on 30 year old vehicles or 200,000 mile vehicles to transport cadets and respond to emergency requests 24/7/365.

The Air Force Appopriated funds are to support the three missions of CAP, Emergency Services, Cadet Programs and Aerospace Education. What is the correct mix of and distribution of vehicles? Can we use the same formula for Alaska that is used for Texas and that is used for Conneticut? How many vehicles are needed in a wing?


Why does CAP have so many hanger queens? One wing took over 12 months to put a new 15 PAX van into service. Was that because 15 pax vans arent the most useful vehicle in the Rockies or was it a wing problem. Nearly 100 CAP vehicles do not show enough use to justify their current assignment. Are wings making use of the vehicle maintenace funds that are availalbe or is it simpler to sit back and [censored] about the way things are?

The good news is that NHQ recognizes that current funding for vehicles is inadaquete. A proposal was made to and approved by the December BOG to lobby for a increase in funding from 31 vehicles a year to 92 vehciles per year.

There is not yet a consensus on what vehicle to buy and how to distribute them.

The current vehicle purchase included 12/15 PAX vans, minivans, SUV's and crew cab 4x4 pickups. Your wing and region should have input on what type of vehicles they are requesting.

[RADIOMAN015]

Last  year, NHQ put together a National Logisitcs Advisory Team to make some recommendations on the upcoming revisons to logistics regulations.

One of the teams struggles was to make a recommendation on vehicle purchases and vehicle distribution ( the table of allowances).

Nearly 100 CAP vehicles do not show enough use to justify their current assignment.

There is not yet a consensus on what vehicle to buy and how to distribute them.

The current vehicle purchase included 12/15 PAX vans, minivans, SUV's and crew cab 4x4 pickups. Your wing and region should have input on what type of vehicles they are requesting.

In your opinion what is considered "adequate" usage of a CAP general purpose vehicle (e.g. van) on a yearly basis?  Isn't reporting by number of hours utilized (rather than milege) in the different major support categories?

Also I have to wonder whether CAP approach to volunteer drivers' personal/property liability may result in a shortage of CAP drivers.  (There's nothing in the current regulation that doesn't say they will not seek reimbursement from your personal insurance company, regardless of the accident circumstances).     So you may have the assets but not necessarily the drivers    
RM

[badger bob]

In your opinion what is considered "adequate" usage of a CAP general purpose vehicle (e.g. van) on a yearly basis?  Isn't reporting by number of hours utilized (rather than milege) in the different major support categories?

Also I have to wonder whether CAP approach to volunteer drivers' personal/property liability may result in a shortage of CAP drivers.  (There's nothing in the current regulation that doesn't say they will not seek reimbursement from your personal insurance company, regardless of the accident circumstances).     So you may have the assets but not necessarily the drivers

My opinion is that the current vehicle table of allowances includes a minimum requriement of either miles driven per year, hours in operation per year, or times driven per year.


From CAPR 77-1

UTILIZATION CRITERIA TO JUSTIFY RETENTION OF VEHICLES
Utilization is calculated as an average monthly utilization over the course of a calendar year.
VEHICLE TYPE              TIMES HOURS MILEAGE
7 PASSENGER VAN        6 or 50 or 475
12/15 PASSENGER VAN 4 or 35 or 350
4X4 VEHICLE                6 or 35 or 450
PICKUP TRUCK              4 or 15 or 200
COMM, CARGO VAN       1 or 15 or 130
SEDAN                          4 or 15 or 400

I am not sure that the current categories reflect current vehicles availabe like a 4 door 6 passenger 4x4 pickup, but the annual mileage ranges from 4200 miles for a 12/15 PAX van to 5700 miles for a minivan.

I would suggest a general use category including all passenger type vehicles with a minimum annual useage of 4,000 miles per year and a special usage category with a annual mileage of 2000 miles per year. You need also need a times or hours criteria, because it should be easier for Texa to drive 4,000 miles per year then Rhode Island.

Sorry, but I think the insurance thing is a copout. What we need is for every senior member involved with cadet programs and ES programs to have a CAP drivers license- even if they are in a unit that is not assigned a vehicle. CAP uses appropriated funding for vehicles, aircraft and other property. As CAP members we must understand that we have a obligation to the US taxpayers to take care of the property entrusted to our care.

[BillB]

The 4000 mile minimum is unrealistic as you say comparing Texas to Rhode Island. But more important, what is the useage of the vehicle. Is it used to transport cadets in a cadet Squadron? Used for ES ground teams? How close is the nearest Corporate vehilcle to the Squadron with a vehicle?
CAPR 77-1 criteria for vehicle useage is  a fair list. Some Squadrons will put on 4000 miles transporting cadets to activities. Another Squadron might put on 1000 miles, all of which was for SAR and ES activity. Both meet the mission neds of CAP regardless of mileage. So how can you make any valid decision on vehicle useage using a blanket nationwide criteria?

[badger bob]

So how can you make any valid decision on vehicle useage using a blanket nationwide criteria?

Ultimately, we need to justify our needs to Congress at a time of budget shortfalls. How would you justify increasing appropriations? How many vehicles does your wing need to carry out its missions?

You need to have some formula if you are also going to hold wings accountible for their useage the same way that ops decided that a 200 hour minimum is an appropriate use it or lose it for aircraft.

[RADIOMAN015]

So how can you make any valid decision on vehicle useage using a blanket nationwide criteria?

Ultimately, we need to justify our needs to Congress at a time of budget shortfalls. How would you justify increasing appropriations? How many vehicles does your wing need to carry out its missions?

You need to have some formula if you are also going to hold wings accountible for their useage the same way that ops decided that a 200 hour minimum is an appropriate use it or lose it for aircraft.

I guess the question is do we get rid of our communities fire trucks if there's few fires each year?  Maybe the same approach should be taken by CAP.  Should we ensure that we have the appropriate ES response support capability (CAP vehicles), even if we don't get a lot of missions, but also can use that same vehicle for supporting the cadet & aerospace programs?

It seems to me that the CAP vehicle Table of Allowance is pretty liberal when applying how vehicles are justified.

The economy is in the dumper right now & gas prices are going up.  Units for the most part have to self fund much of their CAP vehicle usage (gas, oil, tolls).  Lets not be too quick to remove vehicles

RM
 

[Eeyore]

Should we ensure that we have the appropriate ES response support capability (CAP vehicles), even if we don't get a lot of missions, but also can use that same vehicle for supporting the cadet & aerospace programs?

We use our van far more for cadet activities than we do for mission support.

This year we have had no time used for mission support but have had 366 hours for cadet activities time.

Last year we only had 14 hours of mission support time versus 423 hours of cadet activities.

[arajca]

Vans are generally not appropriate for ES, particularly ground team work in CO. Yes, we make do, but there are areas we just can't get close to.

Our wing commander put out for units with vehicles to use them. If you're the vehicle custodian and need to run to the store for supplies for CAP, take the van. If you're going to a PD class, take the van. Etc, etc, etc. When you wash it, log the trip - that's one use for the month.

The usage requirements provided in 77-1 are not hard to meet. You only need to meet ONE of the three, not all. (full disclosure - the vehicle I am custodian of regularly blows all the minimums away. It's used by the unit as well as wing comms)

[davidsinn]

If you're the vehicle custodian and need to run to the store for supplies for CAP, take the van. If you're going to a PD class, take the van. Etc, etc, etc. When you wash it, log the trip - that's one use for the month.

This is why I never want a van in my unit. I wouldn't use a vehicle that get's maybe 60% of the mileage that my own does. I just can't afford to feed the thing.

[PHall]

If you're the vehicle custodian and need to run to the store for supplies for CAP, take the van. If you're going to a PD class, take the van. Etc, etc, etc. When you wash it, log the trip - that's one use for the month.

This is why I never want a van in my unit. I wouldn't use a vehicle that get's maybe 60% of the mileage that my own does. I just can't afford to feed the thing.

Plus it's just another thing to get dinged on during Inspections.

[Eclipse]

If you're the vehicle custodian and need to run to the store for supplies for CAP, take the van. If you're going to a PD class, take the van. Etc, etc, etc. When you wash it, log the trip - that's one use for the month.

This is why I never want a van in my unit. I wouldn't use a vehicle that get's maybe 60% of the mileage that my own does. I just can't afford to feed the thing.

What do mean by "feed"?

All maintenance is paid for by the USAF, and lately that's included oil changes if properly submitted.

You only pay for the fuel you use, and if you're hauling a group, they should all kick in.

I'll grant you that its an additional page on the inspections, but its not that big a deal and having that
mini-bus can sure be handy when you need it.

[badger bob]

The industry estimated cost per mile for driving a vehicle includes not just fuel and oil changes- but also the cost of insurance, deprication and routine maintanance like tires and batteries. The Industry figures your total cost of driving to be about $0.60 per mile.

A 15pax right now is about $0.16 per mile at 15 mpg. Even if your personal vehicle gets 30 mpg, you are donating an additional $0.50 per mile to cover your personal vehicles depreciation, maintainance and insurance. Before you take 6 cadets across country in your personal vehicle on a 500 mile trip, ask your insurance man if he thinks saving $40 in gas merits using your personal vehicle and your personal insurance.

We are also trying to give Corporate Vehicles CAP Radio capability. That means that while you are driving cadets around, going to an encampment, or driving to a training exercise- you are still driving a CAP Emergency Response Vehicle

[RiverAux]

We should let the CAP van sit somewhere and drive CAP members in a personal vehicle to CAP events just in case the van is needed for emergency use?  If that is the strategy, we should start using member-owned aircraft for o-rides, proficiency flying, etc. and only use corporate for real missions. 

[SarDragon]

Love you, no stuff, GI! You buy me gas?

Your cost figures seem a bit low. I doubt that many 15 pax vans get 15 mpg. I track my 'Burb closely, and even on trips at 65 mph it only gets 13.5 mpg. In addition, your gas price seems a bit lower than mine. My last fill-up was at $2.79/gal.

Crunching the numbers with my gas price gives us 18.6 cents/mi at 15 mpg, and 20.6 cents/mi at 13.5 mpg.

I do agree, regardless of cost, that using the corporate vehicle whenever possible is the better way to go.

[LtCol Hooligan]

Your cost figures seem a bit low. I doubt that many 15 pax vans get 15 mpg. I track my 'Burb closely, and even on trips at 65 mph it only gets 13.5 mpg.

I have driven 3 different vans over the course of the last few years and they get exactly the same miles:

12 pax Chevy Express (2003)- 17
12 pax Ford (2006)- 17
15 pax Ford (2008)- 17

This was driving 75 miles per hour on the ND freeways- so no stopping, slowing, etc- just the wind beneath our wings.  We litterally stopped at a gas station and filled all 3 up together and they were within 10 cents of each other when the pumps stopped.

[ZigZag911]

I have driven 3 different vans over the course of the last few years and they get exactly the same miles:

12 pax Chevy Express (2003)- 17
12 pax Ford (2006)- 17
15 pax Ford (2008)- 17

CAP has vans built during this century?!? WOW!!!!

[LtCol Hooligan]

CAP has vans built during this century?!? WOW!!!!

I know- pretty awesome huh!!  If it helps, the previous van was a 1986 that we ran until 2003!!  Now talk about a gas hog!!  It had a 20 gallon tank- got 9 miles a gallon.  One time I was driving it back from Bismarck to Fargo (it broke down in Bismarck so we had to go back and get it) and I forgot to stop at the gas station that was 60 miles from Fargo and it was after 8 pm so i had to stretch it to 198 miles to the first gas staion in Fargo.  I seriously think the thing was on fumes!!

[badger bob]

Brings me back to my original question.

If we need to agrue for increased appropriations for the replacement of our old and in-efficient CAP corporate vehicle fleet, how many vehicles do we need and what critera should we use to modify the current table of allowances

[RiverAux]

Well, that was your original question, but not the original question of the thread...
but I'll give it a shot and say that our goal seems to have been to have a vehicle for every unit.  I'm not sure that is the way to go.  I would base it primarily on the ability of that unit to respond to ES work.  If they've got a ground team, then they've got a vehicle.  That should be the ground floor.  Additional vehicles above that could probably be disposed of and we could use member-owned transportation for routine non-ES travel. 

[badger bob]

How would you allocate for Cadet Programs?

[RiverAux]

I wouldn't. 

No other major national youth organization that I'm aware of buys vehicles for their local clubs to conduct routine activities.  They depend on parents and leaders to carpool.  Why can't we?  There is no organizational need that our cadets all travel in the same vehicle for routine events. 

Our airplanes have a legitimate use as an integral part of the cadet program, but the same cannot be said for ground vehicles.  We aren't teaching kids about the joys of driving.

Radio and DF equipped vehicles are necessary for CAP ES work.  While some of that need certainly could be met by installing the appropriate equipment in personal vehicles, the logistics involved in doing that on a nationwide level just wouldn't work given membership turnover, mission availability, etc. 

Now, if we switched to an all ES-based allocation system we would start out with a lot of extra vehicles.  Those would be allocated to the units using them most for non-ES work.  As those vehicles wore out they wouldn't be replaced.  Over time total fleet size would drop to more in line with what the AF is willing to support. 

Is it handy to have a van together so that a bunch of cadets can ride down to encampment or the CAC meeting together?  Sure, but it isn't necessary. 

[NC Hokie]

No other major national youth organization that I'm aware of buys vehicles for their local clubs to conduct routine activities.  They depend on parents and leaders to carpool.  Why can't we?  There is no organizational need that our cadets all travel in the same vehicle for routine events. 

If NHQ were to go this route, I would hope that they would make it easier for squadrons to access funds locked away in the wing banker program.  Renting vans (as my squadron would have to do) is expensive, and not every squadron is blessed with members that can front rental fees in addition to fuel costs.

[Eclipse]

If NHQ were to go this route, I would hope that they would make it easier for squadrons to access funds locked away in the wing banker program. 

Funds are not "locked away" in WBP.

You want / need to buy something?  Present it to the committee, submit a check request and buy it.

[davidsinn]

No other major national youth organization that I'm aware of buys vehicles for their local clubs to conduct routine activities.  They depend on parents and leaders to carpool.  Why can't we?  There is no organizational need that our cadets all travel in the same vehicle for routine events. 

If NHQ were to go this route, I would hope that they would make it easier for squadrons to access funds locked away in the wing banker program.  Renting vans (as my squadron would have to do) is expensive, and not every squadron is blessed with members that can front rental fees in addition to fuel costs.

INWG just implemented a fleet fuel card for every vehicle.

[NC Hokie]

Funds are not "locked away" in WBP.

You want / need to buy something?  Present it to the committee, submit a check request and buy it.

Unfortunately, that's not the most efficient way to do things like pay for fuel (the amount cannot be pre-planned) or rent a vehicle (which requires a credit card).  In retrospect, "locked away" may have been a poor choice of words, but there's no denying that it has become harder for local units to spend their money since the advent of WBP.

INWG just implemented a fleet fuel card for every vehicle.

Nice.  If you try hard you might be able to feel the envy radiating from here. 

[LtCol Hooligan]

Unfortunately, that's not the most efficient way to do things like pay for fuel (the amount cannot be pre-planned) or rent a vehicle (which requires a credit card).  In retrospect, "locked away" may have been a poor choice of words, but there's no denying that it has become harder for local units to spend their money since the advent of WBP.

Ok- I'll bite on this one.  I am not a fan of WBS for similar reasons to what you are saying (harder to get funds when we have unexpected events happen), but I do think that prior planning can pay for gas and the rental vehicle if that is the way you go.  Simply develop a budget in writing and have the SQ finance committee review it.  They can then approve it and have a check issued to you prior to the event.  Save your receipts (VERY IMPORTANT) and from there, return any unused funds post event.  This should be done on rare occasions, but it is doable.  You just have to do a slight bit more pre-planning before the event.

[Eclipse]

Funds are not "locked away" in WBP.

You want / need to buy something?  Present it to the committee, submit a check request and buy it.

Unfortunately, that's not the most efficient way to do things like pay for fuel (the amount cannot be pre-planned) or rent a vehicle (which requires a credit card).  In retrospect, "locked away" may have been a poor choice of words, but there's no denying that it has become harder for local units to spend their money since the advent of WBP.

I'll deny it - nothing's changed except which bank the money is in. 

If you're not in a position to wait a week or so for a fuel reimbursiement, so be it, just don't pay for the fuel.  If its taking more than a week or so to get a properly submitted check, that's a local execution issue either at your unit or the wing, not a failing of WBP.

As to renting a vehicle, nothing has changed their either, I'd be curious why you are renting vehicles for squadron use, but regardless, few units had credit cards, and if you need one the system still allows for them.

[NC Hokie]

I'll deny it - nothing's changed except which bank the money is in. 

Nothing's changed except for the additional amount of time and paperwork that must must be dealt with to spend unit funds.  While this isn't necessarily a bad thing, it does make units far less agile when it comes to financial issues.

If you're not in a position to wait a week or so for a fuel reimbursiement, so be it, just don't pay for the fuel.  If its taking more than a week or so to get a properly submitted check, that's a local execution issue either at your unit or the wing, not a failing of WBP.

You're right about this being a local issue, but, from what I've been able to ascertain, there is no requirement to process reimbursements in a timely manner.  Absent that requirement, individual members can only be told that their check "will arrive when it arrives."

As to renting a vehicle, nothing has changed their either, I'd be curious why you are renting vehicles for squadron use, but regardless, few units had credit cards, and if you need one the system still allows for them.

The vehicle rental thing was in response to RiverAux's idea to remove vans from squadrons that are not active in ES.  If that were to happen, those units would either have to rely on POVs or rent vans for any trips they wish to take.

Now, since I've raised some issues with WBP it's only fair that I suggest some solutions.  Here goes:

1) Define reimbursement requirements in the regs so members KNOW when they can expect their reimbursement to arrive.

2) Provide a means to charge fuel and emergency maintenance in all corporate vehicles and aircraft.  Some wings already do, but my humble opinion is that all wings should do this.

3) Develop a way to submit reimbursement requests electronically.  This is faster and eliminates the possibility that the request might get lost in the mail.

[BTCS1 C/CC]

yup

[Eclipse]

3) Develop a way to submit reimbursement requests electronically.  This is faster and eliminates the possibility that the request might get lost in the mail.

If you're snail mailing anything, anywhere anymore for CAP, then its your own fault when they get lost. Any wing still requiring mailed hardcopies, or even faxes, needs to have a meeting and work it out.

This is 2009, folks.

If my wing has done anything right, and they do a lot more right than wrong, its accepting anything and everything via email.  National does as well.  Kudos to both, and 10 wet noodle smacks to anyone in between that doesn't.

[NC Hokie]

3) Develop a way to submit reimbursement requests electronically.  This is faster and eliminates the possibility that the request might get lost in the mail.

If you're snail mailing anything, anywhere anymore for CAP, then its your own fault when they get lost. Any wing still requiring mailed hardcopies, or even faxes, needs to have a meeting and work it out.

This is 2009, folks.

If my wing has done anything right, and they do a lot more right than wrong, its accepting anything and everything via email.  National does as well.  Kudos to both, and 10 wet noodle smacks to anyone in between that doesn't.

I suppose that I should have specified that I'd like NHQ to develop a standardized way to handle reimbursement requests electronically.  A national program ought to be managed the same way nationwide, right?

BTW, when did NHQ start accepting membership applications electronically? 

[Eclipse]

BTW, when did NHQ start accepting membership applications electronically?

Actually, they've been accepting cadet applications electronically for years.  The only reason
seniors need anything "wet" is the fingerprint card. 

[PHall]

BTW, when did NHQ start accepting membership applications electronically?

Actually, they've been accepting cadet applications electronically for years.  The only reason
seniors need anything "wet" is the fingerprint card.

And even that could be fixed if we could find a way to send the prints to National via Live Scan.

[Eclipse]

BTW, when did NHQ start accepting membership applications electronically?

Actually, they've been accepting cadet applications electronically for years.  The only reason
seniors need anything "wet" is the fingerprint card.

And even that could be fixed if we could find a way to send the prints to National via Live Scan.

Yep - I was going to include that in my comment, but figured I'd get 12 reasons why that can't happen.

Even a high-resolution scan of the FP card should actually be enough - that's all our friends at the FBI are doing when they get it.

Can we all agree that beyond initial application there's little, if anything, which still should go through the snail mail or fax machine?

[NC Hokie]

Can we all agree that beyond initial application there's little, if anything, which still should go through the snail mail or fax machine?

I'll co-sign this as long as you tell me how to handle sending payment for a cadet application to NHQ if I send the paperwork electronically.

[Eclipse]

Can we all agree that beyond initial application there's little, if anything, which still should go through the snail mail or fax machine?

I'll co-sign this as long as you tell me how to handle sending payment for a cadet application to NHQ if I send the paperwork electronically.

You pay with a credit card - we do it all the time.

[Eclipse]

Also, the Check 21 allows for banks to accept a facsimile (i.e. scan) of a check in stead of the actual check.
Even though C21 is about 6 years old, its only in the last year of so that banks have really started running with the idea.

I'm not saying NHQ is equipped today for that, but they could be.  I'm hoping to be able to set that up for encampment payments next year.

[davidsinn]

Can we all agree that beyond initial application there's little, if anything, which still should go through the snail mail or fax machine?

I'll co-sign this as long as you tell me how to handle sending payment for a cadet application to NHQ if I send the paperwork electronically.

You pay with a credit card - we do it all the time.

How?

[PHall]

There's also PayPal. California Wing started using it a couple of months ago with no problems.

[Eclipse]

Can we all agree that beyond initial application there's little, if anything, which still should go through the snail mail or fax machine?

I'll co-sign this as long as you tell me how to handle sending payment for a cadet application to NHQ if I send the paperwork electronically.

You pay with a credit card - we do it all the time.

How?

Send the form and call NHQ with the credit card info - I can't tell you how many times we've done that.

[billford1]

Where Corporate vehicles apply I can only comment from my ES experiences. We have had occasion to be on non paved roads after rain and snow. The rear wheel drive vehicles don't do so well in these circumstances compared to our FWD Dodge Caravan which has done well even on roads where a sign was posted that said only 4WD vehicles should be used. If we get a real mission where there's bad weather the extra carrying capability will be great as long as the vehicle doesn't have a problem getting traction. I've told more than one CAP/USAF Officer Evaluator that when it comes to disaster relief ELT and UDF missions in bad weather it would be great to have a crossover AWD vehicle that seats six. If there's snow the 15 passenger vans can be in trouble (stuck) where an AWD vehicle can at least be mobile.

[PHall]

Where Corporate vehicles apply I can only comment from my ES experiences. We have had occasion to be on non paved roads after rain and snow. The rear wheel drive vehicles don't do so well in these circumstances compared to our FWD Dodge Caravan which has done well even on roads where a sign was posted that said only 4WD vehicles should be used. If we get a real mission where there's bad weather the extra carrying capability will be great as long as the vehicle doesn't have a problem getting traction. I've told more than one CAP/USAF Officer Evaluator that when it comes to disaster relief ELT and UDF missions in bad weather it would be great to have a crossover AWD vehicle that seats six. If there's snow the 15 passenger vans can be in trouble (stuck) where an AWD vehicle can at least be mobile.

They're not buying 15 pax vans for Ground Team use, they're buying them to transport people (cadets mostly) on paved roads.
Using a 15 pax van as a ground team vehicle, especially if you take it off road, is vehicle abuse plain and simple.

[Thom]

They're not buying 15 pax vans for Ground Team use, they're buying them to transport people (cadets mostly) on paved roads.
Using a 15 pax van as a ground team vehicle, especially if you take it off road, is vehicle abuse plain and simple.

Ummm, then what are we supposed to use as Ground Team Vehicles?  Not trying to be snarky, really, what is the answer if we consider the Vans as not suitable for Ground Teams and they are the only Corporate vehicles available?

Are we then saying that all Ground Team deployment would be in Personally-Owned Vehicles?  And, what would we do for CAP Radios in those POVs?  Handhelds just don't cut it.

And wouldn't that mean we could pull the CAP Radios out of those now 'Cadet only' Vans?

While I tend to agree with you that 15 Pax Vans are NOT ideally suited to Ground Team ES work, I don't think we should (nor will we, honestly...) say that we CAN'T use them for ES work.  If the only tool you have is a pipe wrench, you make do with a pipe wrench!

Thom Hamilton

[Eclipse]

They're not buying 15 pax vans for Ground Team use, they're buying them to transport people (cadets mostly) on paved roads.
Using a 15 pax van as a ground team vehicle, especially if you take it off road, is vehicle abuse plain and simple.

That's an interesting, unsupportable opinion, considering that transporting ground teams is one of the reasons we have them.

I'd also be curious what you consider "off-road".

This, isn't (some units have to drive roads like these just to get to their meeting places):


This is marginal:


And this is some place CAP probably doesn't belong at all, regardless of vehicle:

[SarDragon]

The third pic resembles the road we have to traverse to get to one of our repeaters, after a good rain, except this one is flatter. Fortunately, it doesn't get rained on like that too often.

[PHall]

They're not buying 15 pax vans for Ground Team use, they're buying them to transport people (cadets mostly) on paved roads.
Using a 15 pax van as a ground team vehicle, especially if you take it off road, is vehicle abuse plain and simple.

That's an interesting, unsupportable opinion, considering that transporting ground teams is one of the reasons we have them.

I'd also be curious what you consider "off-road".

This, isn't (some units have to drive roads like these just to get to their meeting places):


This is marginal:


And this is some place CAP probably doesn't belong at all, regardless of vehicle:

That gravel road? In many parts of the country that's considered an "all weather" road.
No problems with that, unless you drive like you're in NASCAR.

The hilly dirt road? Probably not a problem in dry weather, could be a bit tricky in wet weather in a 15 pax van.

And I won't even comment on that last road.

If you guys want "Ground Team" vehicles, then fill out a Vehicle Justification form asking for one and send it up through channels if that's what you need.

The 15 pax vans seem to be the "default" vehicles. If you don't express a preference, then that seems to be what you get.

Here's one question to ask yourself. If there was an accident, and you were appointed the investigating officer.
Using your best ORM skills, would using a 15 passenger van as a Ground Team vehicle, off road, be the safest course of action?
Or would this be a risk that could have been reduced by using vehicles that were built for use off road.

There's nothing in the regs that precludes you from using a POV on a Ground Team mission, especially if the POV is more suited for the job then a street van.

[Eclipse]

ORM and choice don't come into play here.  We aren't provided a motor pool of vehicles.

Of course anyone with a choice should choose the best vehicle available.  In my case I'm not going to drive
a van when my POV is a 4x4 pickup truck equipped with DF, CAP Radio, and other related toys, but if the only vehicle available is a van, you take the van.

It would be FW&A to have an ill-suited SUV sitting in the hanger unused when a unit needs a transport vehicle 80% of the time and an SUV 20% of the time.

The only place ORM comes into play is taking the vehicle someplace it doesn't belong.

[billford1]

Whether it's for transporting Cadets or others for non ES activities or SAR work sometimes a squadron has to do the best they can with one vehicle. It seems like any vehicle compromise should at least have front wheel drive. To stay with RWD vehicles means at times there are a lot of places you can't go. If you decide to go anyway you could be waiting a while for a tow truck.