Long term viability of CAP as an air SAR/DR force

[RiverAux]

The latest Airman article has a good article on the AF Predator program http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0707/uav.shtml

If you pay attention you'll see that they're flying just about as many hours with the Predator as CAP flies on AF missions.  Sooner or later these hot wars are going to cool down and they're going to have a lot of excess capability and it will start cutting into CAP missions. 

Lets face it, the Predator is just more capable than CAP in some areas.  It is far superior to CAP in terms of aerial damage assessment, which has been one of our few growth areas (it seems).  It may be better for general visual search missions as well. 

Yes, prices are still very high for these things and availability is still limited, but that will change over time.

Frankly, I am not very optimistic about the long term viability of CAP as a primary provider of light aircraft services in disaster and SAR.  We're probably still good for another 5-10 years before really starting to get squeezed, but thats about it. 

Combine this with the fact that more and more local sheriffs departments are getting helicopters and the increasing restrictions on CAP's ability to actually do the low level flying needed to spot missing airplanes and the outlook is not good. 

Will the AF still want to fund corporate airplanes primarily used for cadet o-rides and occassional transport missions (which are also increasingly restricted)?  Or, will they begin to look harder at the CG Aux model using all private planes for which the CG Aux reimburses gas and some maintenance money?   

[ZigZag911]

Right now the Predators are too valuable in combat zones to use them much domestically.

Will that change some over the years?  Yeah, I'd think so....but I still see them being used sparingly:

1) in situations where you prefer not to risk human aircrew (marginal weather, mountainous terrain, forest fire recon)

2) in situations where there is a lot of territory to narrow down as soon as possible.

I'm not sure how good the UAVs would be on DFing, for instance.....I think that requires a human touch, hearing the signal firsthand.

[RiverAux]

By the way, I'm not forgetting the significant concerns voiced by AOPA about using UAVs in the airspace with other aircraft.  First, I think that concern will drop over time and second, the option is still available (to the FAA of course) to close the airspace over the search area to all but UAVs below a certain altitude. 

[ZigZag911]

I was not aware of AOPA's concern regarding UAVs....I guess in heavy traffic airspace it makes a great deal of sense....but that is not generally where I'd see UAVs used.

You now where they could really replace us big time is CD....

[RiverAux]

I'm not sure how good the UAVs would be on DFing, for instance.....I think that requires a human touch, hearing the signal firsthand.

Not really.  Some human judgement would be necessary to get a pinpoint location, but I'm confident a UAV could probably get more than close enough for ground teams to take it from there.  

But, as we all know, UAVs will not be the cause of decreasing CAP ELT missions -- that will be the change in ELT technology that will gradually eliminate a significant percentage of the missions we have now.  Thats the other hurdle our program faces.  

[RiverAux]

You now where they could really replace us big time is CD....

Some Wings aren't even doing the traditional pot hunting now and are just being used as aerial radio relay platforms for the NG helicopters flying at very low levels.  You can bet that the National Guard will want to use their new toys for this mission as well -- though their helicopter pilots aren't going to want to hear it. 

[floridacyclist]

I'm not sure how good the UAVs would be on DFing, for instance.....I think that requires a human touch, hearing the signal firsthand.

That would be easy enough by radio relay so that the drone operator and asst would hear exactly what a pilot and observer would be hearing.

[Flying Pig]

I have thought about this myself.  Especially in here in Ca.  It is very common to here that Law Enforcement has several aircraft of their own.  My Dept has an extremely organized and dedicated SAR team.  My Dept has 2 helicopters and a Stationair TC.  The PD has two helos and a 206, and the CHP has one helo and a 206.  And were all at the same airport.  Although the PD doesn't do SAR.
There are a lot of departments out there who have aquired aircraft through Homeland Security grants. 

[ZigZag911]

I'm not sure how good the UAVs would be on DFing, for instance.....I think that requires a human touch, hearing the signal firsthand.

That would be easy enough by radio relay so that the drone operator and asst would hear exactly what a pilot and observer would be hearing.

I'm still not convinced that one can do as effective a job 'wing nulling' and other tricks of the trade from 20+ miles away....time will tell, of course

[RiverAux]

You shouldn't need to hear the signal in order to DF it anyway. 

[Dragoon]

You shouldn't need to hear the signal in order to DF it anyway. 

Ahh, but it sure does help!  :-)


I've wondered about how UAVs will affect us.  I think they will end up cutting into what we do now.  So will satellite imagery, which is getting better in resolution and timeliness every day.

I can see a peacetime Army and USAF volunteering UAVs for searches because it provides great operator training. 

But my guess is we've got a decade or two to go before things really change.  It's just like the 406 ELT - I've been hearing for over 10 years about how it's going to put CAP out of the ELT hunting business within a few years.  And I'm sure eventually it will - but it's taking a HECK of a lot longer than the naysayers proclaimed.  These things normally do.

[SeattleSarge]

Now this is the type of topic I joined this blog to discuss...

In the Puget Sound area several law enforcement jurisdictions have formed an aviation consortium.  It's called the Puget Sound Regional Aviation Project. They have combined fixed and rotary wing resources and have much greater response time.

Here is a link to the story:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002356419_helicopter03m.html

Our State Aviation Emergency Coordinator is using their assets more and more especially since CAP in Washington is having "organizational issues".

If CAP is to survive in this region, we must take aggressive action to get our own house in order.  Before this turns into a "if you can't beat em, join em" situation. 

-SeattleSarge

[Dragoon]

Now this is the type of topic I joined this blog to discuss...

In the Puget Sound area several law enforcement jurisdictions have formed an aviation consortium.  It's called the Puget Sound Regional Aviation Project. They have combined fixed and rotary wing resources and have much greater response time.

Here is a link to the story:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002356419_helicopter03m.html

Our State Aviation Emergency Coordinator is using their assets more and more especially since CAP in Washington is having "organizational issues".

If CAP is to survive in this region, we must take aggressive action to get our own house in order.  Before this turns into a "if you can't beat em, join em" situation. 

-SeattleSarge

Washington State has had problems with CAP  since at least 1995.  That's when I first corresponded with the State employee responsible for Air Search and Rescue.  I can't remember his name, but he truly had it in for CAP - I think he was an ex member.  It got so bad that when a CAP member crashed, he allegedly forbid CAP from participating in the search.  The poor pilot was found frozen to death, and CAP sent Doug Isaacson (the CP guy from National at the time) up to investigate.  He intimated that keeping CAP out of the search helped kill the guy!  Needless to say, this kind of rhetoric didn't exactly mend any fences.....

I believe that guy was at the heart of the creation of WASAR (http://www.eskimo.com/~c180tom/), which kind of eliminated CAP's monopoly on air search.  From the looks of the web page, things have gotten a little better.  I don't recall CAP being mentioned at all on the site in the past.

But yeah, if the sheriff's dept is willing to underwrite the cost of the helicopters, I'd use them before CAP fixed wing as well.  The cost is the only reason not too, and it seems like they've got enough bucks to take that objection off the table.

[Pumbaa]

Just an FYI.. You are going to find that UAV is going to be called UAS..

The emphasis is on 'System' rather than vehicle.

[RiverAux]

Well, it looks as if the overall assessment of the group is pretty pessimistic as to whether or not we're still going to be doing much air sar/dr in the future.

[sandman]

Will the AF still want to fund corporate airplanes primarily used for cadet o-rides and occassional transport missions (which are also increasingly restricted)?  Or, will they begin to look harder at the CG Aux model using all private planes for which the CG Aux reimburses gas and some maintenance money?   

If I were "suddenly in command" as national commander, I would prefer the CGAux air model, and lobby hard to reroute the same funding from airframe procurement, repair, and replacement to officer and cadet development, training, and "deployment" opportunities.

I agree that our corporate air force will become an obsolete entity shortly. Funds should be available to wings to dole out to squadrons for deployments, fuel reimbursements, repair, maintenence, membership development of individual skills and scholarships for cadets.

/r
LT

[Dragoon]

It might make sense to wait until the airfleet becomes obsolete rather than starve it while it's still needed.

I remember the "bad old" CAP when no two planes were the same, and a plane might sit on the ground all day because the owner/pilot wasn't around and didn't want anyone else flying his baby, and when many of the owner planes didn't have all the equipment we really need.

There are real advantages to having a standardized fleet of aircraft, all with GPS's, CAP radios, IFR instrumentation, etc.  Not something to throw out early.

[wingnut]

Gentleman

the current cost of one global hawk is 20 million dollars, and the cost of ground crew is more than 1 million plus per year ( 10-20 FTEs) fuel cost per hour is in-excess of $1,000 plus maintenance. Ops requires the use of an extensive Satellite High Speed Communications link (there is a charge for each second of data use) a close source tells me with all the costs a Global hawk is about $4,000 per hour to operate, can you see a global hawk doing a grid search (I don't think so). Besides they will be stationed at Bases such as several in a few California bases and they are not a 24-7 operation, those will have bombs on them if they do, well that would be a disaster have a bomb fall off a global hawk or one of its off spring, hit a US City, than again what a great way to eradicate the dope, NAPALM

As for the Local PDs getting homeland security money for Aircraft, that is true, but how long will it last, PDs get money for things and can't support it. I believe CAP is doing a week job of Liason with the Local Governments, we need people like the 'Flying Pig" to help us become more user friendly resouces to the Cities we live in.

[RiverAux]

You're forgetting that most States have tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars of airplanes and helicopters in their National Guards so high cost isn't an issue.  Right now distribution is limited, but it will not be that way for long.

Its ridiculous to think that they can only fly with rockets or bombs on them and they're certainly not going to be doing that within the US except when they're training specifically for that mission. 

[ZigZag911]

If I were "suddenly in command" as national commander, I would prefer the CGAux air model, and lobby hard to reroute the same funding from airframe procurement, repair, and replacement to officer and cadet development, training, and "deployment" opportunities.

This was the situation (use of privately owned aircraft) well into the 80s.

The problems included:

--limited aircraft availability
--aircraft not properly or fully equipped for SAR
--lack of aircraft standardization

As long as we have a flying role -- at least cadet orientation flights -- there will be a need for some corporate AC