What plane should be the CAP standard?

[RiverAux]

Okay, the vast majority of CAP's planes are Cessna 172s and Cessna 182s and CAP seems to be moving towards making the entire fleet Cessna 182s with glass cockpits.

Regardless of the glass cockpit issue, is the 182 the right plane for CAP? 

(yes the idea for this thread came from a complain in a uniform thread).

[jimmydeanno]

It depends on the function.  IME, the standard aircraft is good as a 182.  With the additional HP etc, it actually enables us to have 3 person aircrews instead of leaving the scanner on the ground because the W&B doesn't pan out.

[Al Sayre]

Although we still have a need for the 206's, Beavers, and GA-8's in some areas/applications

[jimmydeanno]

Okay, the vast majority of CAP's planes are Cessna 172s and Cessna 182s and CAP seems to be moving towards making the entire fleet Cessna 182s with glass cockpits.

Regardless of the glass cockpit issue, is the 182 the right plane for CAP? 

(yes the idea for this thread came from a complain in a uniform thread).

Another note, I don't believe they are trying to make the entire fleet a single type of aircraft, but phase out the 172s and replace them with 182s...

[SarDragon]

It depends on the function.  IME, the standard aircraft is good as a 182.  With the additional HP etc, it actually enables us to have 3 person aircrews instead of leaving the scanner on the ground because the W&B doesn't pan out.

Not always. I missed out on a scanner ride the other day when the front seats were "well packed", and I only weigh 190 with all my gear.

[flyerthom]

There is a need to define the mission the aircraft is to fulfill.  A Beaver may not be needed in New Hampshire but is sure is in Alaska. A 182 is a minimum in Nevada.
Pacific Region has a 60 horsepower per person supplement for safe mountain flying.
While the Poconos in Pennsylvania are hardly the Sierras the extra safety margin is not a bad thing.  It makes sense from a risk management point of view.

Standardization of most aircraft also offer cost savings. That money can be used to fly more missions. It makes sense from an economic point of view.

Standardization makes it easier to use air crews from other areas. If the air crews are using the same aircraft they can get into action in a Katrina like situation quickly allowing for better crew rest and utilization. It makes sense from an operations point of view.

The C-182 is not Archer capable. It is bested for hard long range winter ops in Alaska.

So while standardization makes sense on the wide scale, there also needs to be flexibility. Using the C 182 as the main airframe while retaining specialty planes seems to be the best path.

[c172drv]

It depends on the function.  IME, the standard aircraft is good as a 182.  With the additional HP etc, it actually enables us to have 3 person aircrews instead of leaving the scanner on the ground because the W&B doesn't pan out.

Not always. I missed out on a scanner ride the other day when the front seats were "well packed", and I only weigh 190 with all my gear.

What kind of fuel load were you carrying.  I can't imagine leaving someone behind with a normal fuel load, not full tanks.

John

[SarDragon]

Not sure on the fuel load. Probably close to a full bag. These guys were pretty hefty. It  wasn't a real mission, so geting left behind wasn't a big deal.

[Eclipse]

The C-182 is not Archer capable. It is bested for hard long range winter ops in Alaska.

Why?

[Jolt]

If they begin phasing out the 172s, I really hope they start allowing primary flight training to be accomplished in the 182s.

[wyocop]

The C-182 is one of the best choices. However I would prefer a C-206. It my understanding that the  Glass panel plane is the only one Cessna produces. If one wants a dial gaged plane it cost more, I wonder why?

[RogueLeader]

/\/\/\ Programing is alot more expensive than mechanical.

[sparks]

Two issues pop up before a decision can be made. One has already been mentioned, what's the mission. Next is who's paying for the aircraft and flight time. Standardization is also an important consideration both for safety and flexibility. If pilots are trained in a 172 they can't fly a 182. Also a CAPF 5 in a 182 doesn't count in a 182T NAV III (glass. Of course the GA8 is another issue. 

The current mix of 172 and 182 airframes works East of the Rockies. Turbo 182's and 206s come into the picture West of the divide and Alaska is it's own on going experiment. The Air Force needs many airframes to accomplish their missions and so does CAP. My wing knows the new 172 and 182 models are three passenger aircraft is the tanks are full. The only option for a full crew is to burn off the fuel or off load it. Some FBO's have the capability of reversing the fuel pump and taking fuel out (yes there is a credit).
 
Last but not least is the $$$$. The cost to fly a new 182 is close to $100/hour. If members pays the bill there is going to be less flying than in  a 172. If Cooperate or the Air Force pays, flight times won't suffer.

I like the 172 for modest crew loads and mission lengths. It's cheaper to run and more pilots are qualified to fly them.

The 182 is for long leg missions and heavier crews.

So, I choose a mix of what we have. The percentage depends on what the mission is. We can all hope that will be clearly stated someday.

[Mustang]

My wing recently received its first glass cockpit bird, and with the turbocharger, O2 system and all the CAP goodies, its full-fuel payload capacity is under 500 lbs, rendering it effectively a two-person airplane, unless you've got exceptionally skinny and/or small people aboard.  Keeping the fuel at the tabs helps a bit, but not much.  We're hoping CAP will buy some turbo 206s for the mountainous wings to restore some of this lost lift capacity.

[flyguy06]

Can you do O-rides and cadet flight training in a 182? Thats not advisable to me. I think they should keep the 172s.

[RogueLeader]

Can you do O-rides and cadet flight training in a 182? Thats not advisable to me. I think they should keep the 172s.

Why couldn't you?  I don't know, and wish I did.

[jimmydeanno]

Can you do O-rides and cadet flight training in a 182? Thats not advisable to me. I think they should keep the 172s.

Was this for the 'standard CAP plane thread'?

[Al Sayre]

Can you do O-rides and cadet flight training in a 182? Thats not advisable to me. I think they should keep the 172s.

O-rides? Absolutely!  Flight training is debatable, but I don't see why not.  If someone learns with a constant speed prop and cowl flaps, they will see it as natural.  The only real problem I see is that the elevator force on the 182 is considerably heavier than the 172, and some cadets of small stature might have trouble keeping it in the correct position while taxiing.  YMMV 

[Jolt]

As I understand it, the reason that flight training isn't done in the 182s is because it's prohibited in the regulations.

I'll look around a little bit later.

[SJFedor]

Can you do O-rides and cadet flight training in a 182? Thats not advisable to me. I think they should keep the 172s.

Yes you can do O-rides in a 182. Not sure about the G1000 system, but once one gets assigned near me, I plan on finding out. Can't imagine why not, though. You're not really using the G1000 system to do o-flights, it's all visual maneuvers.

If they begin phasing out the 172s, I really hope they start allowing primary flight training to be accomplished in the 182s.

Please review CAPR 60-1.


Chapter 2, Section 4, Prohibited Use of CAP Aircraft

i. Instruction of cadet student pilots in float, ski, or complex aircraft for the purpose of obtaining a private pilot certificate. For instruction of cadet student pilots in high performance aircraft, see paragraph 3-3a(4)

Paragraph 3-3a:

(3) For high performance (per FAR Part 61), fixed landing gear aircraft, the pilot must have a minimum of 100 hours flight experience as a pilot and meet the requirements of paragraphs 3-3a(3)(a) –(c) below. Pilots who meet the 100 hours flight experience minimum and have a high performance aircraft endorsement or previous CAP qualification in high performance aircraft are not required to meet these requirements.
CAPR 60-1 (C1) 23 JANUARY 2007 21
(a) Successfully complete a CAP transition flight training program which will consist of:
1 A minimum of 25 takeoffs and landings which must include 10 takeoffs and landings in a crosswind of 5 knots or greater.
2 Five no-flap landings.
3 A minimum of 5 short field/soft field takeoffs and landing.
4 A minimum of 5 simulated engine failures to a full stop landing at an airport runway.
(b) Satisfactory completion of a CAPF 5 proficiency check administered by a CAP check pilot who has not conducted the transition training.
(c) The pilot must meet all FAA pilot requirements and have a pilot log book endorsement for PIC privileges as PIC for high performance aircraft.
(4) For a CAP cadet to fly high performance, fixed gear, aircraft in CAP, the cadet must meet the following requirements:
(a) Meet all FAA requirements for student flight instruction in a high performance aircraft.
(b) Cadet student pilots who have not received flight training in a high performance aircraft in a CAP structured training program must complete the transition training specified in paragraph 3-3a(3) and also meet all the requirements in paragraph 3-2b (CAP Solo Pilot).


Long and short, cadets may now do primary training in a high performance aircraft. C182, C206, MT7, all high performance, and, by reg at least, may be used for primary training of cadets.


Personally, if we were going to go to 1 standard, I'd vote for the 206 across the board. Better weight carrying ability, long station time,  and generally more fun to fly  especially when you're light on passengers and that 300hp engine kicks in.

[flyguy06]

Thats my point. I wasnt talking so much about O-rides. You can do that in any aircraft. I was focusing on flight training for cadets. I dont know if a C 182 is the best equipment for that

[Mustang]

Can you do O-rides and cadet flight training in a 182? Thats not advisable to me. I think they should keep the 172s.

O-rides? Absolutely!  Flight training is debatable, but I don't see why not.  If someone learns with a constant speed prop and cowl flaps, they will see it as natural.  The only real problem I see is that the elevator force on the 182 is considerably heavier than the 172, and some cadets of small stature might have trouble keeping it in the correct position while taxiing.  YMMV 

The primary concern is that airspeed control--a skill most student pilots are notoriously poor at--is much more important in the nose-heavy Skylane; come in a little slow on short final and you can find yourself running out of sufficient elevator authority to prevent the aircraft from landing on its nosewheel and damaging the firewall.   

Also, powerplant management is more critical in a high performance aircraft as well; shock cooling isn't much of a concern in a 172, but can be a costly mistake in a bigger engine.

Bottom line, there's a REASON--several, actually--why flying high performance aircraft requires a separate endorsement.

[flyguy06]

Can you do O-rides and cadet flight training in a 182? Thats not advisable to me. I think they should keep the 172s.

O-rides? Absolutely!  Flight training is debatable, but I don't see why not.  If someone learns with a constant speed prop and cowl flaps, they will see it as natural.  The only real problem I see is that the elevator force on the 182 is considerably heavier than the 172, and some cadets of small stature might have trouble keeping it in the correct position while taxiing.  YMMV 

The primary concern is that airspeed control--a skill most student pilots are notoriously poor at--is much more important in the nose-heavy Skylane; come in a little slow on short final and you can find yourself running out of sufficient elevator authority to prevent the aircraft from landing on its nosewheel and damaging the firewall.   

Also, powerplant management is more critical in a high performance aircraft as well; shock cooling isn't much of a concern in a 172, but can be a costly mistake in a bigger engine.

Bottom line, there's a REASON--several, actually--why flying high performance aircraft requires a separate endorsement.

Which is exactly why I dont think its a goood idea to make the entire fleet 182's.

[Mustang]

I agree that CAP needs to maintain a relatively diverse fleet to meet the needs of pilots with equally diverse experience levels.  Just as every wing should have 172s for cadet training and pilot development for those not yet meeting the requirements for mission pilot, every region should have a complex aircraft for pilots seeking to earn commercial pilot or flight instructor certificates.  I personally believe that we should be training every CAP pilot to commercial/instrument as a standard; this alone will make for better, safer flight operations.

[flyguy06]

I agree that CAP needs to maintain a relatively diverse fleet to meet the needs of pilots with equally diverse experience levels.  Just as every wing should have 172s for cadet training and pilot development for those not yet meeting the requirements for mission pilot, every region should have a complex aircraft for pilots seeking to earn commercial pilot or flight instructor certificates.  I personally believe that we should be training every CAP pilot to commercial/instrument as a standard; this alone will make for better, safer flight operations.

I agree with that. As CAP pilots,we are "supposed" to be the image of a good General Aviation pilot. We are "supposed" to set the example of proper procedures and practices.

I dont know however about that having a complex plane in each Region.Thats  spreading it a little thin dont you think? I mean I am here in GA Iwould have to go all the way down to FL just to get a complex aircraft.

[arajca]

As for having 172's for cadet pilot training, CO only has 182's and a GA-8. 17'2 may work fine in West KansasEastern Colorado, but for the parts of the state where we need them, they don't work.

[Mustang]

I dont know however about that having a complex plane in each Region.Thats  spreading it a little thin dont you think? I mean I am here in GA Iwould have to go all the way down to FL just to get a complex aircraft.

No, they should be rotated amongst the wings within each region for a few months at a time for that very purpose.   I don't agree with resource hoarding by the "big" wings.  One needs only 10 hrs instruction in a complex aircraft, which is easily doable in 2 months with advance warning/preparation.

arajca:

So what.  That's the argument that's screwed cadets out of affordable flight training in every mountainous state.   So what if one aircraft out of ten isn't as capable a SAR platform as the rest?  It's still fine for the eastern half of the state, and there isn't a state in the nation that's solely mountainous terrain over 8,000 feet.  Besides, nobody said SAR was the only reason we have those assets.

[arajca]

I dont know however about that having a complex plane in each Region.Thats  spreading it a little thin dont you think? I mean I am here in GA Iwould have to go all the way down to FL just to get a complex aircraft.

No, they should be rotated amongst the wings within each region for a few months at a time for that very purpose.   I don't agree with resource hoarding by the "big" wings.  One needs only 10 hrs instruction in a complex aircraft, which is easily doable in 2 months with advance warning/preparation.

What is the point in training in a complex a/c if it not going to be constantly available. Each wing has it for two months and schedules training for it. Then they don't see it again for a year when it comes back for training. You've just spent you're trainig dollars on non-usuable training.

As for resource hoarding, each a/c is supposed to get 200 hrs flight time minimum annually. Failure to get the 200 hrs can and has led to a/c being moved to areas that will use it. For a couple years, CO had a C182 that was WY's. They couldn't maintain the 200 hrs on any of their a/c, so the region/cc moved one to CO - with the understanding that when WY has properly utilizing their a/c, they would get it back. They did about two years ago. CO did maintain the 200 hrs usage while it was in CO.

arajca:

So what.  That's the argument that's screwed cadets out of affordable flight training in every mountainous state.   So what if one aircraft out of ten isn't as capable a SAR platform as the rest?  It's still fine for the eastern half of the state, and there isn't a state in the nation that's solely mountainous terrain over 8,000 feet.  Besides, nobody said SAR was the only reason we have those assets.

True, but SAR is the main use of those assets. What would be the point of having an a/c that is not usable throughout the entire state? Also, how would you provide flight training in that a/c for the cadets on the west side of the state?

[RiverAux]

I think we got off track from my original question a bit....lets assume that there will always be a little room for regional variations that would allow deviation from the "standard".

My question remains... is there another model of aircraft other than the Cessna 172/182 that would meet our needs?  I am particularly concerned about the weight issue -- are there any new 4-seat high-wing airplanes being produced that would allow for carrying more weight (people and equipment) than the 182s we're committed to buying? 

[SJFedor]

I've actually been a proponent of getting a C-208 Caravan.

Imagine all the toys you could load in there.

And you could have your entire incident staff on board, mobile airborne ICP!

Actually, I heard of a high wing 4 seater from Canada, maybe? I don't remember, it was a few years ago, the price was better then a 172 and it held a bit more weight.

To me, it seems like Cessna kinda has a corner on the market for this category. Not many people are making high wings that suit our purposes anymore.

And besides, Cessna is US built, for the US CAP!

....by foreign parts....

[flyguy06]

I disagree that SAR is the main reason we have aircraft in CAP. There are those of us that have no interest inSAR but wan to share and teach youths about flying. That is my main purpose for beingin CAP and for using CAP aircraft to teach youths how to fly and to get their licenses. I do participate in SAR at a very minimal level.

[Mustang]

What is the point in training in a complex a/c if it not going to be constantly available. Each wing has it for two months and schedules training for it. Then they don't see it again for a year when it comes back for training. You've just spent you're training dollars on non-usuable training.

It's not non-usable training at all.  Operating a gear handle is no special skill.  The point is two-fold: 1) an increasing number of our operations require a commercial pilot certificate to fly, which requires 10 hrs training and the FAA practical test in a complex aircraft, even if you'll never touch a complex aircraft ever again, and 2) addition of a commercial ticket and an instrument rating can't help but make an individual a better--and safer--pilot.  Whether you've continually got access to a complex aircraft subsequently is wholly irrelevant;  the value is in earning that commercial ticket.

True, but SAR is the main use of those assets. What would be the point of having an a/c that is not usable throughout the entire state? Also, how would you provide flight training in that a/c for the cadets on the west side of the state?

Who said SAR is the "main" use of our aircraft assets?  Not the people who paid for them! What would be the point of having an a/c that is not usable throughout the entire state?  Flight training and pilot development!  You can use a 172 for primary training, even at high elevations, just fine.  I have flown a C-152 in and out of airports situated as high as 5600' in June/July without difficulty. Every wing has pilots not yet experienced enough to fly our high-performance aircraft, and to our discredit, rather than helping develop their skills, we simply tell them to punt and come back when they've got the hours.  But many of them don't bother to come back at all.

[Dragoon]

I recently noticed how the new 182 actually carry less than the 180HP 172s with full fuel.  Annoying. 

Since gas cost + environmental constraints have made defueling not feasible for most of us, our options are to accept the low payload or leave the plane partially fueled and deal with the increased risk of tank condensation.

I think a mix of aircraft is good, but at the same time it seems from what I've read that transitioning back and forth from glass to "steam" gauges ain't easy.  Might make sense to standardize Wings on glass one at a time, rather than spread the new planes out.

[SJFedor]

When they're fully fueled, yup, they don't hold too much. Cessna luckily realized this, and made a visible level in the fuel tank where you can fill it up to a "reduced fuel" load. It's become the standard around here that, with the newer 182's (and 172's), to only fill them to the reduced fuel load level, otherwise, they effectively become a 2 man aircraft.

[flynd94]

I recently noticed how the new 182 actually carry less than the 180HP 172s with full fuel.  Annoying. 

Do really need that much avgas.  At reduced fuel, you still have 5.5 hours of flight time.  I don't know about where you are but, in CA we don't have sorties that last that long.  Plus, my bladder won't hold out that long.  We have been keeping out C182Q (2950GW) at reduced fuel for 5+ years and, yet to have a water in the tank issue

[Spacecenter]

Someone complained about the cost. Let's see-$100 an hour for a G-1000 new 182 versus about $100 an hour for a 35yo 172 with unknown history and only FAA mandated maintenance by any A&P. The hourly rate for the new 182 we manage is less than the 172 it replaced.  It is not a mission of CAP to provide cheap airplanes for members to fly. Don't get me wrong-I do all I can to reduce costs for our members-including meals donated at training. I just have seen too many people come in just for a cheap plane to fly.


Someone mentioned cadet primary training-Can anyone provide a NHQ validated number on cadets that actually did all their training in a CAP airframe and got their private rating during the last fiscal year versus say 2003?

Fuel issue-yes there is one. We fill to the tabs and flight plan according. We also verify with a dipstick. We also match at times people to the (usually training) mission. 

Someone posted about high altitude ops in a 172. Well-add in density altitude and you have the potential for another NTSB Report. Then there was when our MCAS El Toro Aero Club lost an airframe on take-off at Tahoe due to density altitude.

Sometimes the 60hp rule is a pain when you want to do a flight out here. But it's something we know about, and live with. Sometimes you have to make rules for the lowest common denominator. I remember doing a medivac flight to the USS Independence on the hook in St. Thomas Harbor on a 4th of July around 1987. We we in a commercial Jet Ranger. As soon as we shut down the deck crew started chaining us down with huge chains. They were dead stop in the harbor! I thought that showed a lack of common sense. One of the pilots told me later that the rule is to always chain every airframe. You don't give someone discretion on a safety-related situation so that the maximum safety levels are maintained.

I don't agree that we need a diverse group of aircraft to meet the diverse training of our different pilots. We need our diversely experienced pilots to meet the training and operational needs of the CAP and CP aircraft.  Our requirements are pretty low (FAA PP for the most part) as are our time requirements.

And yes-we need 206's and Alaska (and maybe Hawaii) need some different aircraft but in CONUS we can all successfully and safely prosecute all of our non-Archer missions with a G-1000 equipped (or standard gauge) 182. The biggest problem I have seen in the transition is older (not necessarily age-related) pilots who chose not to make the transition-even when NHQ was funding 5 flight hours for training.

Just my opinions-I respect yours, just might not agree with you.

Matt Scherzi


Happy 4th!!!

[DKruse]

Someone complained about the cost. Let's see-$100 an hour for a G-1000 new 182 versus about $100 an hour for a 35yo 172 with unknown history and only FAA mandated maintenance by any A&P. The hourly rate for the new 182 we manage is less than the 172 it replaced. 

I'm surprised to hear this figure about 172s.  Fuel must be significantly higher in CA than it is here in MN.  I just completed a CAPF5 checkride last weekend.  Logged 2.0 hours, showed 1.5 hours tach time, and spent a total of around $88.  That's fuel and maintenance charges combined.

There are many places in the country where it costs a lot more to operate the 182 over the 172.  Not that I'm complaining.  As soon as I have the required PIC time, I'll be transitioning to the 182.

[Spacecenter]

The 100 buck rate wasn't for a CAP airframe (even though our old 172 did run about that due to AF mandated maintenance reserve due to horsepower-about $20 more per hour than 182 Navlll). Avgas is over $4.25 a gallon self serve. Maint is what, about $41-44  (just changed), do the math.

Here is a link to renting some comparable aircraft from where we hanger our bird.  SoCal is not cheap. http://www.flyafi.com/aircraftrental/aircraftrental.html

on the subject of utilization, we are at about 400 hours in less than 11 months, plus we fly some other corp birds.

CYA

Matt Scherzi

[DKruse]

I see where you're coming from.

If you walk into an FBO around here, a 172 will cost $90-$100/hour depending on age of the aircraft and fuel surcharges.  Avgas at our airport is currently $4.29/gallon, so things looks to be on par with CAWG in that sense.

However, MNWG members only have to pay $20/tach hour for maintenance fees for a 172. 

It's interesting to see the differences between wings in these matters.

400 hours is impressive.  We've been getting between 250-300 hours/year on our bird.

[Mustang]

on the subject of utilization, we are at about 400 hours in less than 11 months, plus we fly some other corp birds.

That 400 hrs is for the G-1000-equipped bird, correct?  Similarly-equipped C-182s, if available for rental at all, are going for somewhere in the neighborhood of $165/hr.

[Spacecenter]

Correct-about 400 hours on a G-1000 picked up at Cessna in mid-Aug last year.

We pay whatever the AF set rates are for whatever aircraft. The last plane we had was N265HP-a 230HP 182 (I misposted 172 in original post) so it costs more to fly than the new 182 Navlll. We got that from a unit that wasn't flying due to high utilization of our aircraft. They pulled that one-gave us the N265HP to build up the hours until the NAVll was picked up.

Yeah, we fly a lot. Proficency, some DF, some WADS, CD, O-Rides and the occasional mission. Got a find a few months ago off what started out as an ELT mission. We also do a lot of training. We've done Spectral, Becker and are doing a SAREX in two weeks on Grid, ELT and Scanner-Observer-MP ratings. Plus when it was the only one in SoCAL the now x-wingCC asked us to fly it to display (no funding-we paid for it) to assist other units with recruiting. We also treat it as a National CAP asset, not a Squadron Aircraft. By that I mean any qualified (by CAP regs) pilot can fly it. We sometimes have to fly other aircraft for missions when "ours" is scheduled by someone else.

And it's not all in the G-1000. When we do O-rides we try and have at least one other aircraft flying. Same thing for certain other missions in the area south of us.We've got 4 aircraft scheduled for our next training. One G-1000 (only one we could get) 2 normal gauges 182s and a 206.

Well, that's it for now.

Be Safe.

Matt Scherzi

[SARPilotNY]

1.  no more airvans
2. 182s for flatlands
3.  turbos for the Rockies and Sierras and the like

[Sarge]

I really feel strongly that getting rid of 172s is a HUGE mistake. Cadet flying will come to a halt if we flush the Skyhawks. Call it biased, but I leared to fly 25 plus years ago as a CAP cadet in a C172 and could not even imagine doing it in a 182 as a newpie pilot. The 182 is great for SAR, but that's not our only mission. My suggestion stands as keeping a mix of late model 172Ps (180HP) 182Ts,182NAVIII and 206's. Airvans are cool in my humble opinion, but I just don't see them catching on. Do we need to buy some new SkyCatchers from Cessna for cadet flying and perhaps inexpensive adult flight ops in the name of currency options? I betcha that the Independence guys would cut us a heck of a deal on 50-75 of 'em! What a great way to truly promote GA!  What say you?

An anonymous Squadron Commander
Fmr C/WO (Ret)- Mitchell # lost in fire at NHQ
Lt Col, CAP
SMSgt, USAF

[SoCalCAPOfficer]

"Do we need to buy some new SkyCatchers from Cessna for cadet flying and perhaps inexpensive adult flight ops in the name of currency options?"

The new Cessna Sky Catcher would be a good idea.   The cadets and seniors could start flying them with a Sport Pilot license.  Good for the cadets and good for the older seniors who may not choose to renew their medical.   Plus it wont hurt the wallet so more proficiency flying could be done.

However, for SAR the 182 cannot be beat.

[SarDragon]

That would require a serious overhaul of the current regulations, toward what end?

If a pilot won't/can't renew his medical, he can't fly missions. Being an O-ride pilot has more stringent rules than CAP Pilot, so that wouldn't work. Just exactly what would these pilots with Sport Pilot certificates do for CAP?

IIRC, our aircraft are primarily ES assets and used for cadet flying on a secondary basis. We're not in the flight instruction business, and we're not in the recreational flying business, either.

On top of all that, some current aircraft remain underutilized for their intended mission(s). Why add more planes to the inventory that will not be usable for that primary mission stated above?

[edit] I just looked at the specs - it doesn't meet the 60 hp/person rule.

[flyguy06]

SARDragon, you are incorrect. I hav ebeen in CAP continuously since 1984 and I can tell you the primary reason for aircraft are to help inspire our cadets in aviation and aerospace. SAR is the secondary reaso. We can do SAR not only by air but by ground also but we can ONLY teach cadets about flying using aircraft.

SAR is important but cadet flying is equally as important

[SarDragon]

OK, given an equality in uses, the C-162, IMHO, still doesn't meet the regs, nor the requirements of the job.

[lordmonar]

SARDragon, you are incorrect. I hav ebeen in CAP continuously since 1984 and I can tell you the primary reason for aircraft are to help inspire our cadets in aviation and aerospace. SAR is the secondary reaso. We can do SAR not only by air but by ground also but we can ONLY teach cadets about flying using aircraft.

SAR is important but cadet flying is equally as important

Flyguy....I know what you are saying....however....reality just don't work that way.

Look how much money the wing gets for Cadet O-rides and flight academies......now compare that to the number of discounted hours you get for Proficiency Flying and SAREXs.

As for what plane should the CAP standard......the OV-10 Bronco!

[SarDragon]

As for what plane should the CAP standard......the OV-10 Bronco!

Yay-yuh!

Lotsa hp, two engines, might be able to configure for glider tow.

On the down side - ejection seats.

[lordmonar]

As for what plane should the CAP standard......the OV-10 Bronco!

Yay-yuh!

Lotsa hp, two engines, might be able to configure for glider tow.

On the down side - ejection seats.

20 minutes and a socket wrench and I can fix that little problem.  :angel:

[RiverAux]

I hav ebeen in CAP continuously since 1984 and I can tell you the primary reason for aircraft are to help inspire our cadets in aviation and aerospace. SAR is the secondary reaso.

In my Wing the amount spent on SAR training, which mostly goes towards the plane, is many times that spent on cadet o-rides and if you add actual missions in it isn't even close.  Only one unit really does any cadet flight training.

There just isn't any comparison between ES use of CAP planes and cadet-related use of CAP planes. 

[Hoser]

Helio Stallion

[Jayson777]

As for what plane should the CAP standard......the OV-10 Bronco!

OH HECK, YEA!!  Somebody else thought of it too!!  The Germans had an M model also, which had a plexiglas dome rear where another observer sat.  That would be cool! 

Tags - MIKE

[SarDragon]

As for what plane should the CAP standard......the OV-10 Bronco!

OH HECK, YEA!!  Somebody else thought of it too!!  The Germans had an M model also, which had a plexiglas dome rear where another observer sat.  That would be cool! 

Tags - MIKE

According to this:

The OV-10B model was produced for Germany to use as target tugs. A target towing pod was mounted underneath the fuselage. A clear dome replaced the rear cargo door. The rear seat was moved to the cargo bay to look backwards out the dome.

and my memory of servicing them at NAS Brunswick, ME, on their way to Germany in the early 70s, they were B models. None of my sources show an M model.