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".

[a2capt]

It's not the vehicle is commercial, it's that it's being operated by a non-profit, which usually puts it in a commercial environment. "Non-profit" does not mean "we don't make profits", and certainly does not mean "we don't make money". CAP was operating under an assumed exemption in that, and all of a sudden it became a thorn that reared it's head.

..and it's no so much that we are what we are, it's that when a church bus has to have a CDL operator, and they find out that CAP is pretty much the same type of activities - transporting large amounts of children, that it becomes hard to justify an exemption for us, and not for them.

10 or more,  but less than 15 - when operated for a non-profit, means you gotta get the license.
15 or more, you have to have it, period.

[FastAttack]

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.

I completely agree on the under power department.
plus the most uncomfortable aircraft to fly period.

btw how did we go from airvan's to cap vans? lol

[dbaran]

btw how did we go from airvan's to cap vans?

We were talking about very slow, box-like methods of transportation...CAP van and Airvan are similar in that regard. 

I neglected to mention that the other problem with the Airvan is that the designer stuck a support post right behind the pilot and copilot seats, so they can't go back very far.  I'm just a bit over 6 feet tall and I can't even get into a front seat comfortably.   

In terms of positives, it seems to a beautiful airplane if the engine quit and you had to land in a cornfield and the 480 in the panel is nice.

[PHall]

The GA-8 has the same engine as the C-206. Is there an STC out there to put a three blade prop on the beast like the 206 has?
Could do nothing but increase the performance.

[Major Lord]

It's not the vehicle is commercial, it's that it's being operated by a non-profit, which usually puts it in a commercial environment. "Non-profit" does not mean "we don't make profits", and certainly does not mean "we don't make money". CAP was operating under an assumed exemption in that, and all of a sudden it became a thorn that reared it's head.

..and it's no so much that we are what we are, it's that when a church bus has to have a CDL operator, and they find out that CAP is pretty much the same type of activities - transporting large amounts of children, that it becomes hard to justify an exemption for us, and not for them.

10 or more,  but less than 15 - when operated for a non-profit, means you gotta get the license.
15 or more, you have to have it, period.

Commercial Vehicles are not commercial vehicles based on who owns them. The designation comes from whether compensation is involved. There is case law on this:

Commercial motor vehicle is defined as any self-propelled or towed vehicle used on the highways in interstate commerce to transport passengers or property that was designed or used to transport more than 8 passengers (including the driver) for compensation. Walters v. Am. Coach Lines of Miami, Inc., 575 F.3d 1221 (11th Cir. Fla. 2009)

If our van usage is "commercial" by virtue of being operated by a 501 Corporation, then our aircraft would be too, and we had better start upgrading our pilots licenses too! I don't believe that any other Wing has gone to commercial tickets for vans or planes, so I suspect that it is an anomaly of legal opinions coming from ex-cops instead of NHQ legal staff.

Major Lord

[JeffDG]

It's not the vehicle is commercial, it's that it's being operated by a non-profit, which usually puts it in a commercial environment. "Non-profit" does not mean "we don't make profits", and certainly does not mean "we don't make money". CAP was operating under an assumed exemption in that, and all of a sudden it became a thorn that reared it's head.

..and it's no so much that we are what we are, it's that when a church bus has to have a CDL operator, and they find out that CAP is pretty much the same type of activities - transporting large amounts of children, that it becomes hard to justify an exemption for us, and not for them.

10 or more,  but less than 15 - when operated for a non-profit, means you gotta get the license.
15 or more, you have to have it, period.

Commercial Vehicles are not commercial vehicles based on who owns them. The designation comes from whether compensation is involved. There is case law on this:

Commercial motor vehicle is defined as any self-propelled or towed vehicle used on the highways in interstate commerce to transport passengers or property that was designed or used to transport more than 8 passengers (including the driver) for compensation. Walters v. Am. Coach Lines of Miami, Inc., 575 F.3d 1221 (11th Cir. Fla. 2009)

If our van usage is "commercial" by virtue of being operated by a 501 Corporation, then our aircraft would be too, and we had better start upgrading our pilots licenses too! I don't believe that any other Wing has gone to commercial tickets for vans or planes, so I suspect that it is an anomaly of legal opinions coming from ex-cops instead of NHQ legal staff.

Major Lord

That's a Florida ruling based upon Florida's definition of a commercial vehicle.

California defines the term differently.

[Major Lord]

I will grant you that CAWG defines it differently.

Major Lord

[JeffDG]

I will grant you that CAWG defines it differently.

Major Lord

My point is, the State of California defines it differently as well.

[Major Lord]

I understand your point. California's definition of a commercial vehicle differs largely in that the number of occupants of a commercial vehicle is different than the Federal Standards referred to in Walters. The reading of the CA Statute and the definitions within other portions of CA and Federal law show that we are not  engaging in commercial operation within the meaning of the Statute. In fact, the California Vehicle Code explicitly identifies the Class C driver's license as the correct class for non-profit groups operating "Van Pools". This is not an exemption; its a recognition of the status of the operators. (Although the legislature added the requirement for a medical clearance and a statement that the applicant is not a convicted criminal or has been involved in a serious crash.... recently.) Show me a statute that contradicts this, or an opinion from the CA Attorney General, and I will keep an open mind on the subject.

I hate to hijack the thread with this issue, since it was brought up to demonstrate the current and past mode of CAWG's ill-conceived regulatory process, and how it could have been applied to the Airplane. There is no special reason to believe that the two are related subjects.

Major Lord

[simon]

All very interesting. I would have thought the Airvan to be an excellent CAP aircraft but nobody seems to have a positive word to say about it.

Useful load can be an issue with the new planes that CAP is acquiring, which is why I raised the original question.

Load was never an issue with the 206's. With a useful load of around 1400lbs, one could take a full tank of gas (528lb), three hefty CAP aircrew (600lb), all their gear (60lb) and the safety gear (40lbs) and always be well under gross (This example works out to 1228lbs). With the old 182's, it was occasionally an issue but they still had a useful load of around 1225lbs. So in this example, you would be right on gross. A policy of filling the aircraft to the bottom of the collar in the 182, providing an addition 132lbs of payload, almost always eliminated that issue.

Enter the new G1000 182's. The one we fly has a useful load of 1050lbs. That is a huge drop from the old 182's - basically a full standard weight passenger. So now we really have to be careful with the fuel. Our plane is kept at the bottom of the collar - 66g - Which allows for three aircrew, but again, not three hefty people as in the example above. Even with the fuel at the bottom of the collar we'd still be 45lbs over gross. For a SAREX that is close to the aircraft's home base, I have chosen to take the plane up for a proficiency flight the night before so that when it turns up on the flight line, the fuel is at 55g or so. Still enough for a 3 hour sortie but it minimizes the chance that if the aircrew are big guys that we won't be over gross. Occasionally we get a 170lb crewman but it is usually an exception. (Of course one fix would be simply for all of us to shed a few pounds. I know my wife would appreciate it...)

I gather CAP is not buying 206's anymore? At around 200k more than the new 182's, I can see why not.

The ultimate here out West would of course be a Turbo 206, but that's not going to happen. In any event, although they would be great for high altitude work, I'm not sure how the engine longevity would be with all the power changes up and down amongst the mountains.

So that is why I wondered about the Airvan. But people are commenting that it is slow (True) and uncomfortable in the front seats (Never been in one). I just thought with the 1700lb load and the room in the back that it would be a good load hauler and well powered for the high Sierras with three people. But maybe not. Who knows. It's mission was to lug a ton of weight into the air between two short unmade strips, relatively cheaply (Compared to a Caravan). Perfect for Africa I guess. Maybe not for CAP?

I really don't know how you guys in the Midwest or out East run missions three up with gear in a 172. Your aircrew must be Oompa Loompas living on Lentil beans.

[Mustang]

The GA-8 has the same engine as the C-206. Is there an STC out there to put a three blade prop on the beast like the 206 has?
Could do nothing but increase the performance.

On our airplanes, a three-bladed prop actually decreases performance slightly, compared to a two-bladed one.

[PHall]

The GA-8 has the same engine as the C-206. Is there an STC out there to put a three blade prop on the beast like the 206 has?
Could do nothing but increase the performance.

On our airplanes, a three-bladed prop actually decreases performance slightly, compared to a two-bladed one.

Is that due to fixed pitch vs constant speed prop? There is a small power loss from running the pump for the prop.

[Short Field]

Theoretically, and all other factors being equal, 3 blades should give slightly better take-off performance while two blades should give slightly better cruise.  However, the other factors are never equal.