Why no CA Airvans?

[simon]

I am curious why there are no Gippland GA8 Airvans in the large state of California.

I read CAP has 15. Where are they?

The ARCHER system is interesting. Has anybody reading this used it? SAR, recon or CD? How effective is it?

[lordmonar]

They were not using them.

CAWG's GA-8 is in NVWG at this time.

[dbaran]

I believe 2 GA8s were allocated to each region.  One of the PCR planes was in Alaska, and the other one was at Van Nuys.

The GA8 was moved to Nevada to somehow support Surrogate Predator.  We didn't do much with it in CA other than standby for space shuttle landings.

ARCHER has its uses - unfortunately, SAR isn't one of them.  If you've got a tree beetle infestation, it's a great solution.  Pollution measurement in some areas, too.

http://rmgsc.cr.usgs.gov/awg/

National recently upgraded the software which can turn out decent aerial images now, and in a format that customers can actually use.  Unfortunately, the airplane is now so far away that I can't demo it to the bay area HLS people that are interested.

[bosshawk]

Simon: when we are at the MFC, I can fill you in on the tests involving ARCHER that we did two years ago concerning it lack of usefullness for CD.  Put simply, it failed miserably.  Over a year ago, I suggested to the Region Commander that we give the plane to another wing: maybe he listened.  More likely, the plane wasn't getting the necessary hours, so another Wing got the plane.

There were lots of other issues with the GA-8, but I won't go into them here.

[simon]

Interesting. Sounds like a failed experiment.

Opinion question: Three up, do you think it would make a better high altitude SAR plane than the G1000 182's? Do these planes ever get called in on overdue aircraft? How much do they get used? Are they fine for drifting down canyons or are they kind of overkill with their size?

The G1000's with 1050lb useful load don't have a whole lot of oomph in the high Sierra with three hefty CAP seniors on board.

[Mustang]

Consider yourselves fortunate. I'd trade our Airvan for one of your 206s in a New Yawk Minute.

[FastAttack]

I know its a little bit off topic , but to me the airvan is the biggest waste of $$

As far as cali goes maybe a better platform would be a 206 turbo'd

[Major Lord]

Looking up the spec's on the airvan, it looks like it has 8 seats and 310 horsepower, so it would not be a "high performance" aircraft. Now some might say, " we won't fly it with 8 souls on board!" or " We took the seat out and installed a worthless bit of pointless electronics kit!"  But CAWG also grounded 15 PAX vans on the tenuous legal theory that a Class B license is required to drive them, since they can carry more passengers than a commercial vehicle can carry without having one. The old prohibition about merely not loading more then  10 passengers was shelved. Only CAWG can so successfully argue for their limitations.....

Major Lord

[Eclipse]

But CAWG also grounded 15 PAX vans on the tenuous legal theory that a Class B license is required to drive them, since they can carry more passengers than a commercial vehicle can carry without having one. The old prohibition about merely not loading more then  10 passengers was shelved. Only CAWG can so successfully argue for their limitations.....

Wait, seriously?

All the 15 PAX were turned into mandatory 11 PAX with the removal of the last row of seats several years ago (rollover hazard) - are you saying CAWG doesn't use them at all, despite that?

[tsrup]

Looking up the spec's on the airvan, it looks like it has 8 seats and 310 horsepower, so it would not be a "high performance" aircraft.

How would the 8 seats affect the fact that the aircraft has over 200 hp? 

[bosshawk]

I suspect that if you filled all eight seats with typical CAP folks and filled the fuel tanks, you might have an issue even getting out of the parking space, never mind taking off.

Flying a G1000 C182 with more than two typical CAP folks is also problematic: most of the pilots that I know who fly them(I don't) don't fill the fuel tanks all the way.

[jayleswo]

All the 15 PAX were turned into mandatory 11 PAX with the removal of the last row of seats several years ago (rollover hazard) - are you saying CAWG doesn't use them at all, despite that?

Doesn't matter. If the vehicles were designed with seating for 15 it requires a Class B license with [P] endorsement.

California Vehicle Code References
•   15278.  (a) A driver is required to obtain an endorsement issued by the department to operate any commercial motor vehicle that is any of the following:
1.   A double trailer.
2.   A passenger transportation vehicle, which includes, but is not limited to, a bus, farm labor vehicle, or general public paratransit vehicle when designed, used, or maintained to carry more than 10 persons including the driver.

•   12804.9.  (a) (1) The examination shall include all of the following:
(2) Class B includes the following:
(A) A single vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 26,000 pounds.
(B) A single vehicle with three or more axles, except any three-axle vehicle weighing less than 6,000 pounds.
(C) A bus except a trailer bus.
(D) A farm labor vehicle.
(E) A single vehicle with three or more axles or a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 26,000 pounds towing another vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less.
(F) A house car over 40 feet in length, excluding safety devices and safety bumpers.
(G) The operation of all vehicles covered under class C.

[Major Lord]

My thoughts on the horsepower issue are based on the 60 HP per person guideline; I have no idea if this is what CAWG is really thinking or not ( the only way to tell for sure what they are thinking is to saw them in half and count their rings.....wait, that's trees.....hard to tell sometimes!) 8/310=38.75 HP per person. Anywhere you fly in CA, there are mountains just waiting to swat you....our member have dented lots of mountains, although I am not sure how much of the problem came from aircraft performance limitations.

CAWG did not fully ground the vans. You just have to get a Class B driver's license to drive one. The result is somewhat similar.

Major Lord

[lordmonar]

All the 15 PAX were turned into mandatory 11 PAX with the removal of the last row of seats several years ago (rollover hazard) - are you saying CAWG doesn't use them at all, despite that?

Doesn't matter. If the vehicles were designed with seating for 15 it requires a Class B license with [P] endorsement.

California Vehicle Code References
•   15278.  (a) A driver is required to obtain an endorsement issued by the department to operate any commercial motor vehicle that is any of the following:
1.   A double trailer.
2.   A passenger transportation vehicle, which includes, but is not limited to, a bus, farm labor vehicle, or general public paratransit vehicle when designed, used, or maintained to carry more than 10 persons including the driver.

•   12804.9.  (a) (1) The examination shall include all of the following:
(2) Class B includes the following:
(A) A single vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 26,000 pounds.
(B) A single vehicle with three or more axles, except any three-axle vehicle weighing less than 6,000 pounds.
(C) A bus except a trailer bus.
(D) A farm labor vehicle.
(E) A single vehicle with three or more axles or a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 26,000 pounds towing another vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less.
(F) A house car over 40 feet in length, excluding safety devices and safety bumpers.
(G) The operation of all vehicles covered under class C.

So the 11 pax are not kosher either.

[Eclipse]

I love California...

[Major Lord]

All the 15 PAX were turned into mandatory 11 PAX with the removal of the last row of seats several years ago (rollover hazard) - are you saying CAWG doesn't use them at all, despite that?

Doesn't matter. If the vehicles were designed with seating for 15 it requires a Class B license with [P] endorsement.

California Vehicle Code References
•   15278.  (a) A driver is required to obtain an endorsement issued by the department to operate any commercial motor vehicle that is any of the following:
1.   A double trailer.
2.   A passenger transportation vehicle, which includes, but is not limited to, a bus, farm labor vehicle, or general public paratransit vehicle when designed, used, or maintained to carry more than 10 persons including the driver.

•   12804.9.  (a) (1) The examination shall include all of the following:
(2) Class B includes the following:
(A) A single vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 26,000 pounds.
(B) A single vehicle with three or more axles, except any three-axle vehicle weighing less than 6,000 pounds.
(C) A bus except a trailer bus.
(D) A farm labor vehicle.
(E) A single vehicle with three or more axles or a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 26,000 pounds towing another vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less.
(F) A house car over 40 feet in length, excluding safety devices and safety bumpers.
(G) The operation of all vehicles covered under class C.

So the 11 pax are not kosher either.

If you accept the definition of CAP Vans ( owned by a non-profit Corporation) " as falling under the definition of a "Commercial Vehicle", yup.

Major Lord

[tsrup]

My thoughts on the horsepower issue are based on the 60 HP per person guideline; I have no idea if this is what CAWG is really thinking or not ( the only way to tell for sure what they are thinking is to saw them in half and count their rings.....wait, that's trees.....hard to tell sometimes!) 8/310=38.75 HP per person. Anywhere you fly in CA, there are mountains just waiting to swat you....our member have dented lots of mountains, although I am not sure how much of the problem came from aircraft performance limitations.

CAWG did not fully ground the vans. You just have to get a Class B driver's license to drive one. The result is somewhat similar.

Major Lord

Im tracking you now.  Thought you were calling in to question whether or not the GA-8 should be classified HP or not.
While fully loaded it's just a rock on the tarmac, the FAA still classifies it as High Performance.

[dbaran]

Interesting. Sounds like a failed experiment.

Opinion question: Three up, do you think it would make a better high altitude SAR plane than the G1000 182's? Do these planes ever get called in on overdue aircraft? How much do they get used? Are they fine for drifting down canyons or are they kind of overkill with their size?

The G1000's with 1050lb useful load don't have a whole lot of oomph in the high Sierra with three hefty CAP seniors on board.

Failed experiment - yes.  That's about as polite as it can be said.

The GA8 struck me as very underpowered.  I wouldn't want to take it anywhere near the mountains.  The NJ one was planning an 8 hour flight to get back there from Indiana.  The thing is so slow that it gets bird strikes from behind.

CA would be better off with turbo 182s or turbo 206es.

[Earhart1971]

SE Region keeps one in Naples, last I heard. Hangar Queen, and the Computers and stuff inside is so out of date. A real dog to fly I heard.  You could achieve a better cruise and useful load with a Cherokee Six, but no its a low wing!

[PHall]

All the 15 PAX were turned into mandatory 11 PAX with the removal of the last row of seats several years ago (rollover hazard) - are you saying CAWG doesn't use them at all, despite that?

Doesn't matter. If the vehicles were designed with seating for 15 it requires a Class B license with [P] endorsement.

California Vehicle Code References
•   15278.  (a) A driver is required to obtain an endorsement issued by the department to operate any commercial motor vehicle that is any of the following:
1.   A double trailer.
2.   A passenger transportation vehicle, which includes, but is not limited to, a bus, farm labor vehicle, or general public paratransit vehicle when designed, used, or maintained to carry more than 10 persons including the driver.

•   12804.9.  (a) (1) The examination shall include all of the following:
(2) Class B includes the following:
(A) A single vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 26,000 pounds.
(B) A single vehicle with three or more axles, except any three-axle vehicle weighing less than 6,000 pounds.
(C) A bus except a trailer bus.
(D) A farm labor vehicle.
(E) A single vehicle with three or more axles or a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 26,000 pounds towing another vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less.
(F) A house car over 40 feet in length, excluding safety devices and safety bumpers.
(G) The operation of all vehicles covered under class C.

So the 11 pax are not kosher either.

If you accept the definition of CAP Vans ( owned by a non-profit Corporation) " as falling under the definition of a "Commercial Vehicle", yup.

Major Lord

According to the DMV, they're "Commercial Vehicles".