Mission Capable Aircraft

Started by RiverAux, November 10, 2006, 08:01:22 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RiverAux

If any of you have gotten a password to access the WMIRS system, go in and take a look at the summary of fully mission capable, partly mission capable, and not mission capable corporate aircraft.  I'm not going to give the figures here, but it is downright embarrassing.  I don't know what the Air Force standard for aircraft availability is but I can't believe we're anywhere close to achieving it. 

I think CAP should be shooting for having at least 90% of our aircraft mission capable at any given time.  We're not close now. 

A.Member

90% is pretty high unless you were these guys last month  ;) :
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123028825

Although, I think the A-10's are usually in the mid-90's (consistently one of the best).

Here are some AF numbers:
http://www.comw.org/pda/afread02.html#table4

A couple months ago the AF Times had a break-out of readiness status by type.  A few were horrible - like in 50 - 60th percentile.    I don't recall for certain but I believe these were the B-1 and B-2 as well as one of the transports.

Checked...yep, one was the B-2:
http://www.whiteman.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123025535
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

RiverAux

Well, well, well.  I stand corrected.  Maybe our numbers are actually in line with the AF.  Disappointing, but at least they can't single us out too much. 

In light of those, 85% might be a better target. 

mawr

It seems you have not looked at the Wing by Wing listing of status.  This will show you why the aircraft is not mission capable.  You will note that the USAF is supposedly reducing the 569 aircraft listed to 530.  That would mean 39 aircraft are grounded pending sale.  I know Alabama wing has two in that catagory. 

Then you look at those aircraft that down for their 100 hr. inspection.  Every aircraft in the fleet will be down for this once or twice a year.  Then you have those which are recieving new paint jobs, interiors, avionics/comms.  Now you look at the ones that need actual repair for landing gear, airframe and powerplant.  I haven't even mentioned oil changes, corrosion treatment and such.

All of this is normal for any organization and considering the size of our fleet I think we are doing just fine.

Do you know how slow a powerplant replacement, airframe repair or paint job takes in the real world?  You can take a plane in for a new paint job and it will be down for two to four weeks depending on what prep is needed and the facilities quantity of business.  We have a premier facility here in Alabama that is so busy that any aircraft taken in will be sitting there for 6 weeks before they will have time to look at it.  As you can imagine, we are not able to use that facility. 

We do not have the luxury that the military has of having our own maintanance personnel and shops that work around the clock to repair aircraft.

NHQ is implementing a single point maintanace program where each Wing will use a single repair facility for the entire wing.  This will only slow things down more.  plus the new requirement that any a&I/a&p must have 1 million dollars liability insurance further limits the repair facilities that CAP Wings can use.

Overall, given our obstacles, I think we're doing a good job.
Rick Hasha, Lt Col CAP

Chris Jacobs

I would say that anything higher than 75% would be nice.  I know in Oregon it always seems that we have, at the very least, one airplane down for work.
C/1st Lt Chris Jacobs
Columbia Comp. Squadron

Psicorp

Quote from: Chris Jacobs on November 10, 2006, 09:31:16 PM
I would say that anything higher than 75% would be nice.  I know in Oregon it always seems that we have, at the very least, one airplane down for work.

Having a plane down for maintenance, repainting, etc is a heck of a lot better than having a hanger full of C-172 "Hanger Queens."
Jamie Kahler, Capt., CAP
(C/Lt Col, ret.)
CC
GLR-MI-257

DNall

Quote from: Psicorp on November 11, 2006, 03:50:51 AM
Having a plane down for maintenance, repainting, etc is a heck of a lot better than having a hanger full of C-172 "Hanger Queens."
yep. Real happy we're upgrading the fleet over time here, and look forward to an all 182 fleet (plus some 206's, GA8s, & a couple twins floating aorund, & whatever wierd thing they need to do in Alaska). Its slow & steady.