Do you think that CAP should get the Jet A or AVGAS version

[Eclipse]

Uh, why do we really care whether or not we are meeting some completely arbitrary goal for usage?

+1

[A.Member]

Uh, why do we really care whether or not we are meeting some completely arbitrary goal for usage?

Arbitrary or not, that's the metric NHQ is using to determine whether a unit receives/retains aircraft.  That's how it's presented down from NHQ and that's why we care about it.   

So, if most units aren't meeting the 200 hr minimum, is discussion around replacement really appropriate?  Seems such a discussion is putting the cart well ahead of the horse and ignoring the larger issue at hand.

[RiverAux]

So, if most units aren't meeting the 200 hr minimum, is discussion around replacement really appropriate? 

No, the discussion should be whether the metric makes sense in the first place.  Our goal is not to put 200 hours on each aircraft, it should be to make sure we have the aircraft where they are needed to meet our mission requirements.  Number of flying hours tells you nothing in that regard. 

[A.Member]

So, if most units aren't meeting the 200 hr minimum, is discussion around replacement really appropriate? 

No, the discussion should be whether the metric makes sense in the first place.  Our goal is not to put 200 hours on each aircraft, it should be to make sure we have the aircraft where they are needed to meet our mission requirements.  Number of flying hours tells you nothing in that regard.

So, you're in agreement because until there is a plan/vision you cannot know the other things.  Of course, you also can't know resource needs without knowing what you're solving for...and until that is known, making new acquisitions is pound foolish.

[RiverAux]

What makes you think that they're not doing just that?  I don't  think there is a need to totally re-examine CAP's framework to decide whether to replace a few old airplanes.  I'm fairly sure that they probably already know where the needs are for new airframes and that they've put a lot of thought into where they should go. 

I have no idea how much thought they've put into the fuel issue though. 

[Eclipse]

There are likely exceptions that prove the rule, but for the most part, units do not retain aircraft, wings do,
and in most wings it only through a lot of airframe wrangling to shuffle them around.

In fact it might be interesting to filter out administrative movement from those hours and see what the real
numbers are.  I be wiling to bet the average good sized wing is spending 50 hours a year moving airplanes
just to make the arbitrary "goals".

NHQ threatens every year to yank planes that don't make the numbers, but with non Wong rising to the top,
where are you going to send them?

Also, while the  last thing we need are a bunch of hangar queens, some aircraft are deployed for political or
mission reasons, and yanking planes won't increase hours. In fact it tends to make a bad situation worse.

[A.Member]

What makes you think that they're not doing just that?

There is no evidence they've done so.

I don't  think there is a need to totally re-examine CAP's framework to decide whether to replace a few old airplanes.  I'm fairly sure that they probably already know where the needs are for new airframes and that they've put a lot of thought into where they should go. 

You need to decide which side of the issue you want to argue.

[A.Member]

There are likely exceptions that prove the rule, but for the most part, units do not retain aircraft, wings do,
and in most wings it only through a lot of airframe wrangling to shuffle them around.

In fact it might be interesting to filter out administrative movement from those hours and see what the real
numbers are.  I be wiling to bet the average good sized wing is spending 50 hours a year moving airplanes
just to make the arbitrary "goals".

NHQ threatens every year to yank planes that don't make the numbers, but with non Wong rising to the top,
where are you going to send them?

Also, while the  last thing we need are a bunch of hangar queens, some aircraft are deployed for political or
mission reasons, and yanking planes won't increase hours. In fact it tends to make a bad situation worse.

Not exactly sure what you're saying with your last point but concur with the rest. I've said the same for awhile, if National wants to pull a plane where are they going to send it?  To another "under performer"?  To be very blunt, they need to put up or shut up on the issue.

[brent.teal]

some interesting tidbits from the cap vector.  Looks like av-gas is back in.

During the calendar year 2014 CAP accepted 11 new Turbo Stationair (Model T206H) aircraft, purchased with FY 13 procurement funds, and all have been distributed to the wings. The FY 14 aircraft buy consists of 21 Cessna 172s with glider tow package s installed. The final delivery dates are still to be determined, but we anticipate receiving the first of them in the spring of 2015. In early October General Vazquez, Don Rowland, John Desmarais and Gary Schneider met with members of Textron Aviation at their facility in Wichita, Kansas to discuss CAP aircraft and imagery acquisition strategy. A key topic for this meeting was Cessna's decision to discontinue avgas fueled engines in their 182T aircraft and replacing them with SMA compression ignition engines powered by Jet A. Following this meeting Cessna representatives agreed to reconsider their decision and to continue to offer CAP avgas fueled 182Ts.

[planenut767]

some interesting tidbits from the cap vector.  Looks like av-gas is back in.

During the calendar year 2014 CAP accepted 11 new Turbo Stationair (Model T206H) aircraft, purchased with FY 13 procurement funds, and all have been distributed to the wings. The FY 14 aircraft buy consists of 21 Cessna 172s with glider tow package s installed. The final delivery dates are still to be determined, but we anticipate receiving the first of them in the spring of 2015. In early October General Vazquez, Don Rowland, John Desmarais and Gary Schneider met with members of Textron Aviation at their facility in Wichita, Kansas to discuss CAP aircraft and imagery acquisition strategy. A key topic for this meeting was Cessna's decision to discontinue avgas fueled engines in their 182T aircraft and replacing them with SMA compression ignition engines powered by Jet A. Following this meeting Cessna representatives agreed to reconsider their decision and to continue to offer CAP avgas fueled 182Ts.

I wonder how much extra money Cessna is going to charge us to deviate from their production plans.

[JeffDG]

The Diesels are close to twice the cost for the engines and overhauls.

[bflynn]

I saw this topic and my reaction was "Yes, we should use one of them".

There's no reason to choose.  Each have advantages and disadvantages.  Neither fuel is going away and both are available on the east cost at every airport I've been at.  Embracing the "brilliance of and", CAP should evaluate both of them and choose the one that makes sense.

With a higher price and lower useful load, I'm challenged to embrace choosing JT-A, but it should be evaluated.