Wing Aircraft Losses Due To Reassignments

Started by RADIOMAN015, January 24, 2010, 04:04:35 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RADIOMAN015

Looks like our wing is loosing 2 Cessna 172's which I think are going to PA wing.  Anyone else loosing aircraft?

I'm sure the economy hasn't helped with some members on reduced hours, unemployed, or just concerned with saving money for "just in case" unknown potential future situations. 
RM

Spike

If you aint flying you get to start drivin.  Welcome to how CAP operates. 

WT

Actually, word is we lost a brand-spakin-new C-182T in order to get those two very used C-172s.  Also, we have already lost 7 aircraft in the last couple years.  Welcome to CAP!

Al Sayre

There are some new formuale for aircraft distribution.  Area in Sq miles fugures heavily into that.
Lt Col Al Sayre
MS Wing Staff Dude
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
GRW #2787

WT

We keep hearing conversations eluding to that, but what exactly are the formulae, or is this "secret squirrel" stuff??

Eclipse

The only "formula" I've ever heard is 200 hours per airframe (not average, but actual per plane).  Anything less risks the plane and requires a good explanation.

Beyond that its up to the wing staff to put the plane(s) in a place where those hours will be flown, and to rotate the aircraft to insure the lower-time planes get used and everyone gets a fair shot at newer toys.

"That Others May Zoom"

Al Sayre

Quote from: WT on January 25, 2010, 03:00:36 PM
We keep hearing conversations eluding to that, but what exactly are the formulae, or is this "secret squirrel" stuff??

AFAIK it's no secret, It was discussed at the SER Ops conference this weekend,  I think I have it in my notes.  I'll look when I get home tonight.
Lt Col Al Sayre
MS Wing Staff Dude
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
GRW #2787

DG

Quote from: WT on January 25, 2010, 03:00:36 PM
We keep hearing conversations eluding to that, but what exactly are the formulae, or is this "secret squirrel" stuff??


John Salvador laid out the specific formula at NER StratOps last weekend at Westover AFB.

WT

And would someone have an illustration to share??

lordmonar

National's goal is that each aircraft get 200 hours on them each per year.

If Wing X....has 20 aircraft assigned and they average 200 hours then national/region is not going to be too worried about reassigning any aircraft....but region is going to look at the numbers for each aircraft and question if there are any that under utilised.

If wing X has a unit that is only flying 100 hours on its plane and does not have a good excuse of why (say long down time due to maintenance, closed airport, etc) then they may look at moving that aircraft to a unit that is flying more or a new unit that would like an aircraft.

By that same token if wing X is flying more then 200 hours on average they can go to region and ask for planes from other wings that may not be meeting this goal.

These are not hard and fast numbers.....that is you will not find any regulations that say "fly 200 hours or loose your plane".  The Wing Commander is responsible for placing his planes to ensure there is good mission coverage.  Let's take Hawaii for example.  It is spread out over wide area.  For response perposes the wing CC may assigned a plane to a unit that cannot fly it's 200 hours....but because it is too far away to respond to a search in a timely manner he may still choose to keep that plane there.

So there are two major issues at stake here.  Mission coverage and aircraft usage.  We want the planes to get used.  There are a lot more units then there are planes.  So a unit has a vested intrest to keep their numbers up or they loose it to a near by unit who will.  But there are isolated units that will/can keep their plane despite not keeping their numbers up due to geographical considerations.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Larry Mangum

Quote from: lordmonar on January 25, 2010, 08:21:07 PM
National's goal is that each aircraft get 200 hours on them each per year.

If Wing X....has 20 aircraft assigned and they average 200 hours then national/region is not going to be too worried about reassigning any aircraft....but region is going to look at the numbers for each aircraft and question if there are any that under utilised.

If wing X has a unit that is only flying 100 hours on its plane and does not have a good excuse of why (say long down time due to maintenance, closed airport, etc) then they may look at moving that aircraft to a unit that is flying more or a new unit that would like an aircraft.

By that same token if wing X is flying more then 200 hours on average they can go to region and ask for planes from other wings that may not be meeting this goal.

These are not hard and fast numbers.....that is you will not find any regulations that say "fly 200 hours or loose your plane".  The Wing Commander is responsible for placing his planes to ensure there is good mission coverage.  Let's take Hawaii for example.  It is spread out over wide area.  For response perposes the wing CC may assigned a plane to a unit that cannot fly it's 200 hours....but because it is too far away to respond to a search in a timely manner he may still choose to keep that plane there.

So there are two major issues at stake here.  Mission coverage and aircraft usage.  We want the planes to get used.  There are a lot more units then there are planes.  So a unit has a vested intrest to keep their numbers up or they loose it to a near by unit who will.  But there are isolated units that will/can keep their plane despite not keeping their numbers up due to geographical considerations.

Lord Monar, did a good job of explaining the metrics involved. If you have access to WMIRS, there is a report that shows how each wing is doing towards National's goal of 200 hours per aircraft. 
Larry Mangum, Lt Col CAP
DCS, Operations
SWR-SWR-001

DG

Quote from: lordmonar on January 25, 2010, 08:21:07 PM
National's goal is that each aircraft get 200 hours on them each per year.

If Wing X....has 20 aircraft assigned and they average 200 hours then national/region is not going to be too worried about reassigning any aircraft....but region is going to look at the numbers for each aircraft and question if there are any that under utilised.

If wing X has a unit that is only flying 100 hours on its plane and does not have a good excuse of why (say long down time due to maintenance, closed airport, etc) then they may look at moving that aircraft to a unit that is flying more or a new unit that would like an aircraft.

By that same token if wing X is flying more then 200 hours on average they can go to region and ask for planes from other wings that may not be meeting this goal.

These are not hard and fast numbers.....that is you will not find any regulations that say "fly 200 hours or loose your plane".  The Wing Commander is responsible for placing his planes to ensure there is good mission coverage.  Let's take Hawaii for example.  It is spread out over wide area.  For response perposes the wing CC may assigned a plane to a unit that cannot fly it's 200 hours....but because it is too far away to respond to a search in a timely manner he may still choose to keep that plane there.

So there are two major issues at stake here.  Mission coverage and aircraft usage.  We want the planes to get used.  There are a lot more units then there are planes.  So a unit has a vested intrest to keep their numbers up or they loose it to a near by unit who will.  But there are isolated units that will/can keep their plane despite not keeping their numbers up due to geographical considerations.


There is a new formula.

Eclipse


"That Others May Zoom"

Larry Mangum

From a slide deck:

NHQ Uses NEC Approved Formula for the Initial Allocation, so Mission Pilot and Mission Observer Data in Ops Quals:

  • Qualified Mission Pilots: 40%
  • Qualified Mission Observers: 35%
  • Total Wing Membership: 15%
  • Square Miles (of the wing): 10%


So there you go, no secret squirrel stuff!
Larry Mangum, Lt Col CAP
DCS, Operations
SWR-SWR-001

DG


DG

Quote from: Who_knows? on January 25, 2010, 11:29:55 PM
From a slide deck:

NHQ Uses NEC Approved Formula for the Initial Allocation, so Mission Pilot and Mission Observer Data in Ops Quals:

  • Qualified Mission Pilots: 40%
  • Qualified Mission Observers: 35%
  • Total Wing Membership: 15%
  • Square Miles (of the wing): 10%


So there you go, no secret squirrel stuff!


That's it!

RiverAux

Those are components of a formula, but what is the formula itself? 

Larry Mangum

Larry Mangum, Lt Col CAP
DCS, Operations
SWR-SWR-001

lordmonar

It gives you a weighted system.

Large states with low member counts can still get aircaft.

Nevada:

Size=110,561x.10=11056.1
Members=827=124.05
MO=111=38.85
MP=54=21.6
for a total of 11240.5
With that number you then can multiply by 0.001 and come up with that Nevada needs 11.24 planes.

The .001 is arbitrary on my part...but is pretty close to what Nevada has. (we have 10 and 3 gliders).

So larger states get more planes simply by geographical area...where very large states with large poplulations will get even more.  Smaller states suffer from geographical area but can make up for it by having larger wings and more pilots and MOs.

COWG which is just a little bit smaller the Nevada but has twice the membership has 13 aircraft.

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

RiverAux

If that is how they're doing it, I don't see any way smallers states have a realistic chance at increasing their planes no matter how large their membership or number of pilots or observers.  Even at only 10% of the score, geographic area is going to win out most of the time.

In this case, 98% of Nevada's total points was due to its geographic area. 

DG

#20
Delaware             1,953 square miles         440 members        7 a/c (incl. 5 182 NAV III)

Pennsylvania       46,058 square miles       2400 members       12 a/c (incl. 2 182 NAV III)

So what is more influential, formula or flight hours?

RiverAux

It also depends on if this forumula is first applied to determine how many planes a region needs and then run again to allocate those planes within the region.  Also, we would need to know for sure what the final multiplier is to determine ideal plane allocation. 

This is supposedly only the starting point and flight hours could swing things some either way.  You'd think they'd figure a way to add flight hours/plane into the equation so they could rebalanace each year. 

But, they had to have radically abandoned the official formula if Pennsylvania doesn't have more than twice as many planes as Delaware given that they must totally dominate in comparison across all categories.

lordmonar

Quote from: RiverAux on January 26, 2010, 01:31:00 AM
If that is how they're doing it, I don't see any way smallers states have a realistic chance at increasing their planes no matter how large their membership or number of pilots or observers.  Even at only 10% of the score, geographic area is going to win out most of the time.

In this case, 98% of Nevada's total points was due to its geographic area.

But smaller states do not have as much area they need to cover.

Nevada's AOR consists of six different Aeronautical Charts.  That's a lot of are we have got to cover.   Rhode Island or Delaware just don't have that much airspace they need to cover.

Having said that....they have a whole lot more air traffic in their AOR and need more aircraft to cover factor.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

RiverAux

I didn't say that geography shouldn't be considered, just that to give it that much weight makes the other factors mostly irrelevant. 

Eclipse

That's why its only 10%, and its not like this is a hard/fast B&W gateway.

In my scratch-pad of a couple states, it looks about right.

"That Others May Zoom"

Al Sayre

#25
Quote from: Al Sayre on January 25, 2010, 05:14:51 PM
Quote from: WT on January 25, 2010, 03:00:36 PM
We keep hearing conversations eluding to that, but what exactly are the formulae, or is this "secret squirrel" stuff??

AFAIK it's no secret, It was discussed at the SER Ops conference this weekend,  I think I have it in my notes.  I'll look when I get home tonight.

The slides I received say the same as DG already posted, but to add it also says: "NHQ uses NEC approved formula for the initial allocation" referring to the formula DG posted. 

Later in the package another slide says:

Quote
Region Commanders work with CAP/CC at MAy NEC to distribute aircraft each year
  *  Wing safety record is heavily considered for new aircraft
  *  New requirements formula used instead of "200 Hours per aircraft average"
        * 25% CAP Pilots
        * 25% Land area
        * 50% total flying hours for the past three fiscal years
  *  New Cessna 182T's for 2010 have not been assigned yet... CAP expects to buy 18 aircraft
  *  CFII factory training available with each aircraft
Lt Col Al Sayre
MS Wing Staff Dude
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
GRW #2787

Gunner C

Quote from: RiverAux on January 26, 2010, 01:31:00 AM
If that is how they're doing it, I don't see any way smallers states have a realistic chance at increasing their planes no matter how large their membership or number of pilots or observers.  Even at only 10% of the score, geographic area is going to win out most of the time.

In this case, 98% of Nevada's total points was due to its geographic area.
But, the region will look at the aircraft utilization each year.  If a wing isn't making the hours, region will move that a/c to another wing that is flying the paint off of them.  If the wings region wide aren't making their hours, then NHQ will move the aircraft to another region.  Each region CC and wing CC will do their best to protect an aircraft.  But if the hours aren't there, the result is inevitable.

RiverAux

Based on the quote in Al's post, the old formula is out. 

The new formula is a little self-reinforcing since the flying hours is now such a big part of it.  Hard to get a lot of flying hours if you don't have a lot of planes to start with. 

But, I'm not worried about it enough to put together a spreadsheet to figure out what the best strategies are to game the system (all the data you need is available from the annual reports or the homeland security resources page). 

Eclipse

The formula quoted was for new aircraft issue and deployment, not retention.

Retention is based primarily on flight hours per aircraft, and again, its actual, not average.

"That Others May Zoom"

Al Sayre

Quote

Region Commanders work with CAP/CC at May NEC to distribute aircraft each year
  *  Wing safety record is heavily considered for new aircraft
  *  New requirements formula used instead of "200 Hours per aircraft average"
        * 25% CAP Pilots
        * 25% Land area
        * 50% total flying hours for the past three fiscal years
Lt Col Al Sayre
MS Wing Staff Dude
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
GRW #2787

Eclipse

I read that as new, not current, but K-SARAH-SARAH

"That Others May Zoom"

RiverAux

Well, at some point you're going to have to look at the overall balance to see if you're getting what you want for all aircraft. 

Personally, I don't think it makes much sense to use overall flying hours as a basis for putting out new aircraft or for initial assignments.  Don't get me wrong, flying time definetely should be a factor, but it needs to be broken down into what type of flying it is. 

We don't have aircraft to put flying time on them, we have aircraft to perform missions.  So, it should be flying time devoted to all our various missions that should be the deciding factor.  Proficiency and administrative flying time shouldn't factor in at all. 

I know it looks great if all the pilots in the unit are paying up to do proficiency flying as it ups your total flying hours, but I'd rather have that aircraft in a unit that is more likely to have to do some missions even if overall flying time is less. 

The incentives should be on "rewarding" units racking up the most mission hours.  And, I am including cadet o-rides, teacher flights, etc. as mission hours.  That might help encourage people to go out and work with the locals to get CAP more involved in local SAR/DR missions. 

RogueLeader

Then what about those areas that do not have a big ops tempo?  They still need to be trained and proficient for when the call does come.
WYWG DP

GRW 3340

RiverAux

If there ES-mission tempo is so low that it would negatively affect their total "mission flying hours", then they need to get on the stick and do develop more non-ES mission flying to make up the difference. 

And when it gets right down to it, if they happen to lose a couple of planes due to low ES ops tempo, if they do have a mission we can call in planes from other states for that mission.  No wing is an island (except HI and PR) and other resources are available if needed. 

lordmonar

Quote from: RogueLeader on January 29, 2010, 04:17:04 PM
Then what about those areas that do not have a big ops tempo?  They still need to be trained and proficient for when the call does come.
Hence the big land mass factor in the inital allocation formula.

As I said before....National and Regional does look at actual flying hours....but they do grant variances due to geographical considerations.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Eclipse

Quote from: RiverAux on January 29, 2010, 04:27:47 PM
And when it gets right down to it, if they happen to lose a couple of planes due to low ES ops tempo, if they do have a mission we can call in planes from other states for that mission.  No wing is an island (except HI and PR) and other resources are available if needed.

Not asking for help or passing a mission to another wing is constantly cited as a finding during evals.

"That Others May Zoom"

RiverAux

Quote from: Eclipse on January 29, 2010, 06:41:55 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on January 29, 2010, 04:27:47 PM
And when it gets right down to it, if they happen to lose a couple of planes due to low ES ops tempo, if they do have a mission we can call in planes from other states for that mission.  No wing is an island (except HI and PR) and other resources are available if needed.

Not asking for help or passing a mission to another wing is constantly cited as a finding during evals.
There is a big difference between asking for additional help during a mission because you don't have enough resources and turning down a mission entirely because you don't have the ability to carry out any mission.  If you turn a mission down because you don't have crews willing to fly, you darn should expect some consequences.  But, if the mission requires 10 planes and you've only got 5 in your Wing, NHQ can't blame you for asking for help assuming you're using all your resources wisely. 

Mustang

Quote from: RiverAux on January 29, 2010, 04:27:47 PM
If there ES-mission tempo is so low that it would negatively affect their total "mission flying hours", then they need to get on the stick and do develop more non-ES mission flying to make up the difference. 
That's not always an option. ES is the chief reason why we have these airplanes, not non-ES mission flying.   Here out west, we have massive areas of land we're responsible for, and when a state the size of Montana has the same number of aircraft as Rhode Island or Delaware, that's a problem.  You don't take away the fire stations in a community simply because there haven't been any fires. 

CAP has been run like a flying club rather than an emergency response organization for far too long, and I for one am glad to see us getting away from the hours-on-airframes yardstick.
"Amateurs train until they get it right; Professionals train until they cannot get it wrong. "


Eclipse

Quote from: Mustang on January 30, 2010, 03:44:18 AMYou don't take away the fire stations in a community simply because there haven't been any fires. 

Actually, you might.

The location of fire stations are based on complex studies of population density, area covered vs. response time, and risk.  Less calls means less need, means less resources until the trend is the other way.  (I used to work for a local municipality).

Your other points are valid about the way we've been doing things, but in our case we haven't even really identified the customer properly.


"That Others May Zoom"

RiverAux

There is some validity to maintaining aicraft in places where they couldn't really be justified otherwise, but there is a crossover point where you don't either have the CAP membership or ES need for even that to make sense.     

Quite frankly, based on a quick look, RMR is already being pretty heavily subsidized in terms of aircraft assigned and flying hours.  Colorado seems to be the only state holding their own. 

Mustang

Quote from: RiverAux on January 30, 2010, 04:16:34 AM
There is some validity to maintaining aicraft in places where they couldn't really be justified otherwise, but there is a crossover point where you don't either have the CAP membership or ES need for even that to make sense.     

Quite frankly, based on a quick look, RMR is already being pretty heavily subsidized in terms of aircraft assigned and flying hours.  Colorado seems to be the only state holding their own.

Both of these statements rely heavily on the premise that flying hours ARE the means for justification, which is an invalid basis in my opinion. Aircraft should be deployed based solely on mission requirements.
"Amateurs train until they get it right; Professionals train until they cannot get it wrong. "


wingnut55

Assumptions are often illogical. Being  Objective tells us that we have many Squadrons with 2 Mission Pilots, and the aircraft is being flown by other squadrons. Logically you would expect some method of monitoring who is flying rather than just how many hours are flown. Realistically,  we can expect reshuffle because of a lack of actual crews or non-active support of ES missions. Remember that our AFRCC commitment is primary, yet I have seen CD flight that refuse to respond to a possible downed Aircraft ELT?? Is this bad for us?

The rule of thumb from National is we must have at least 5 aircrews to sustain one aircraft, in other words: Squadrons who can field a minimum of Five separate qualified and current aircrews can handle 24/7 Emergency call outs.

How many squadrons can do that, or are willing to make the recruiting and retention efforts to do so??

RiverAux

Quote from: Mustang on January 30, 2010, 06:43:37 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on January 30, 2010, 04:16:34 AM
There is some validity to maintaining aicraft in places where they couldn't really be justified otherwise, but there is a crossover point where you don't either have the CAP membership or ES need for even that to make sense.     

Quite frankly, based on a quick look, RMR is already being pretty heavily subsidized in terms of aircraft assigned and flying hours.  Colorado seems to be the only state holding their own.

Both of these statements rely heavily on the premise that flying hours ARE the means for justification, which is an invalid basis in my opinion. Aircraft should be deployed based solely on mission requirements.

No, they are based on the premise that flying hours REFLECT mission requirements.  If you are not flying very many hours towads any mission (not just ES) then it shows that there may not be as much of a need for an aircraft as there may be someplace else. 

But, as I said earlier, total flying hours is too crude a measurement for this purpose.

Wingnut is also on to something regarding who is flying the planes.  I know that it is common practice in my Wing to rotate planes in and out of the units that do the most flying from those that do the least so as to put as many hours on each airframe as possible.  If it weren't for this little shell game that is played in every Wing, I think we would have a much better idea of where there is a strong need for an aircraft (or even multiple aircraft) vs where we just can't support one.

We only have enough planes to put one at about a third of our units, so no matter how they are allocated most units are going to lose out. 

Gunner C

As a group commander, I had to keep in mind that SAR was not the only "mission" flying that we did.  We also had cadet O-flights and ROTC O-flights.  While school was in session, we had MANY more hours with that flying than we did with ES missions.  I had to take that into consideration with aircraft assignment.  There were aircrews who could support SAR missions, but didn't have as many as other locations. 

We need to take all missiosn into consideration.  All flight hours count. SAR isn't the only thing we do.

RiverAux

Quote from: Gunner C on January 31, 2010, 01:16:35 AM
As a group commander, I had to keep in mind that SAR was not the only "mission" flying that we did.  We also had cadet O-flights and ROTC O-flights.  While school was in session, we had MANY more hours with that flying than we did with ES missions.  I had to take that into consideration with aircraft assignment.  There were aircrews who could support SAR missions, but didn't have as many as other locations. 

We need to take all missiosn into consideration.  All flight hours count. SAR isn't the only thing we do.
No one has said only count SAR hours. I've said numerous times that all missions should count, just not administrative and proficiency flights.

Mustang

Other than keeping crews sharp, what's the point in "putting as many hours on each airframe as possible"? 
"Amateurs train until they get it right; Professionals train until they cannot get it wrong. "


DG

Quote from: Mustang on January 31, 2010, 11:59:09 AM
Other than keeping crews sharp, what's the point in "putting as many hours on each airframe as possible"?


Duh!

a statistical measure of activity.



If Delaware is flying 400 hours per year per aircraft,

and Massachusetts is flying 125 hours per year per aircraft,

Who is doing more flying?

And who should get a new airplane?

Remember, we all are following all rules and regulations and flying only CAP authorized* missions / sorties.

(CAP authorized* means authorized by CAPR 60-1.)

Mustang

Quote from: DG on January 31, 2010, 01:56:42 PM
Quote from: Mustang on January 31, 2010, 11:59:09 AM
Other than keeping crews sharp, what's the point in "putting as many hours on each airframe as possible"?

Duh!

a statistical measure of activity.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. 

So what makes flying hours a VALID measure, on which aircraft distribution should be based?   I assert that it is not, and it would appear that the Ops committee has begun to agree with me.


Quote from: DG on January 31, 2010, 01:56:42 PM
If Delaware is flying 400 hours per year per aircraft,

and Massachusetts is flying 125 hours per year per aircraft,

Who is doing more flying?

And who should get a new airplane?

A textbook non-sequitur, that.
"Amateurs train until they get it right; Professionals train until they cannot get it wrong. "


RiverAux

Flying hours does represent a measure of how much airplanes are likely to be used as a well as a measure of how much they are needed in a particular area.  There are certainly an abundance of other measures that could be used to get at similar information.  Just off the top of my head:
1.  Average number of days each plane is utilized per month.
2.  Total number of missions/sorties (could split down by type) per year (works best at Wing level).
3.  Average number of planes used per mission in previous year (works best for ES).
4.  Max number of Wing planes used per mission in previous year (works best for ES).
5.  Distance to nearest currently assigned aircraft (for squadron assignments).
6.  Number of times assets from other Wings were requested to assist in missions in previous year. 

flyguy06

Quote from: Gunner C on January 31, 2010, 01:16:35 AM
As a group commander, I had to keep in mind that SAR was not the only "mission" flying that we did.  We also had cadet O-flights and ROTC O-flights.  While school was in session, we had MANY more hours with that flying than we did with ES missions.  I had to take that into consideration with aircraft assignment.  There were aircrews who could support SAR missions, but didn't have as many as other locations. 

We need to take all missiosn into consideration.  All flight hours count. SAR isn't the only thing we do.

Amen

DG

Quote from: Mustang on February 01, 2010, 02:14:43 AM
Quote from: DG on January 31, 2010, 01:56:42 PM
Quote from: Mustang on January 31, 2010, 11:59:09 AM
Other than keeping crews sharp, what's the point in "putting as many hours on each airframe as possible"?

Duh!

a statistical measure of activity.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. 

So what makes flying hours a VALID measure, on which aircraft distribution should be based?   I assert that it is not, and it would appear that the Ops committee has begun to agree with me.


Quote from: DG on January 31, 2010, 01:56:42 PM
If Delaware is flying 400 hours per year per aircraft,

and Massachusetts is flying 125 hours per year per aircraft,

Who is doing more flying?

And who should get a new airplane?

A textbook non-sequitur, that.


LOL

RogueLeader

So, if my unit has 4 full crews, but only receives 1 actual mission a year, how am we supposed to stay proficient,  when we can't keep an aircraft if admin flights are out?
WYWG DP

GRW 3340

Spike

^ Yup.  Welcome to the "real" CAP.

At least it is not 15 years ago when planes and vehicles were assigned based on NOTHING at all. 

RogueLeader

answer the question, or is your answer: "you're not."?
WYWG DP

GRW 3340

Larry Mangum

Quote from: RogueLeader on February 01, 2010, 08:01:56 PM
So, if my unit has 4 full crews, but only receives 1 actual mission a year, how am we supposed to stay proficient,  when we can't keep an aircraft if admin flights are out?

The discussions on this subject are rather interesting, but rather short sided in a lot of cases. If your unit is succeeding in putting 200 hrs a year on the aircraft; your availability is good, when asked to participate in o-rides, etc; and the aircraft is being maintained properly by the unit (washed, waxed, etc) then you have a very good case and chance of keeping the aircraft.  Remember as alluded earlier in this thread and in other similar threads, there is a lot that goes into aircraft placement and assignment then just the number of pilots in a unit.
Larry Mangum, Lt Col CAP
DCS, Operations
SWR-SWR-001

DG

Quote from: RogueLeader on February 01, 2010, 08:01:56 PM
So, if my unit has 4 full crews, but only receives 1 actual mission a year, how am we supposed to stay proficient,  when we can't keep an aircraft if admin flights are out?

Request for clarification.

By proficient, do you mean:

(1)  flying proficient, or

(2)  mission proficient?

RiverAux

Quote from: RogueLeader on February 01, 2010, 08:01:56 PM
So, if my unit has 4 full crews, but only receives 1 actual mission a year, how am we supposed to stay proficient,  when we can't keep an aircraft if admin flights are out?
Keep in mind that I am suggesting that all missions other than admin count, not just ES stuff.  So, if you're only getting 1 ES mission a year, you better focus on other missions -- o-rides, CD, teacher flights, etc. 

lordmonar

#57
Quote from: RogueLeader on February 01, 2010, 08:01:56 PM
So, if my unit has 4 full crews, but only receives 1 actual mission a year, how am we supposed to stay proficient,  when we can't keep an aircraft if admin flights are out?

That's what SAREXs are for.

Or you can schedule proficency flying.

If you got four full crews...and you are expected to fly 200 hours...thats about 50 hours per crew....that's about four hours (and a bit) per month per crew.

If you add in about 20 hours or so per year for O-flights, 8 or so for form 5s, 12 hours for maintenance....should be easy to keep up those sort of hours.

Even if the members had to pay for the hours themselves....you spead that $400 over three people and you are looking at $134 per person per month at the most (assuming no missions, SAREX, CD, O-rides or other funded missions).

Increase the number of crews to 8 and then they only have to fly every other month to keep the hours on the plane.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Gunner C

Quote from: RogueLeader on February 01, 2010, 08:01:56 PM
So, if my unit has 4 full crews, but only receives 1 actual mission a year, how am we supposed to stay proficient,  when we can't keep an aircraft if admin flights are out?
In your wing, aircraft are assigned in this order:
Raleigh
Charlotte
Wing Headquarters
Everywhere else

RogueLeader

Quote from: DG on February 01, 2010, 10:36:06 PM
Quote from: RogueLeader on February 01, 2010, 08:01:56 PM
So, if my unit has 4 full crews, but only receives 1 actual mission a year, how am we supposed to stay proficient,  when we can't keep an aircraft if admin flights are out?

Request for clarification.

By proficient, do you mean:

(1)  flying proficient, or

(2)  mission proficient?

Mission proficient

Quote from: Gunner C on February 01, 2010, 11:07:57 PM
In your wing, aircraft are assigned in this order:
Raleigh
Charlotte
Wing Headquarters
Everywhere else

Sad but true.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 01, 2010, 11:07:17 PM

That's what SAREXs are for.

Or you can schedule proficency flying.

If you got four full crews...and you are expected to fly 200 hours...thats about 50 hours per crew....that's about four hours (and a bit) per month per crew.

If you add in about 20 hours or so per year for O-flights, 8 or so for form 5s, 12 hours for maintenance....should be easy to keep up those sort of hours.

Even if the members had to pay for the hours themselves....you spead that $400 over three people and you are looking at $134 per person per month at the most (assuming no missions, SAREX, CD, O-rides or other funded missions).

Increase the number of crews to 8 and then they only have to fly every other month to keep the hours on the plane.

Sad to say that $132 a month is about $75- $80 a month more than my budget allows for, same for many in my unit.  We make do the best we can, but if it wasn't for the funded flying, many can't keep up with the training.
WYWG DP

GRW 3340

DG

Quote from: Gunner C on February 01, 2010, 11:07:57 PM
Quote from: RogueLeader on February 01, 2010, 08:01:56 PM
So, if my unit has 4 full crews, but only receives 1 actual mission a year, how am we supposed to stay proficient,  when we can't keep an aircraft if admin flights are out?
In your wing, aircraft are assigned in this order:
Raleigh
Charlotte
Wing Headquarters
Everywhere else


So move to Raleigh.

Duh!

Spike

Quote from: RogueLeader on February 01, 2010, 08:10:15 PM
answer the question, or is your answer: "you're not."?

Sorry.  You're not going to get an Aircraft anytime in the near future. 


RogueLeader

Quote from: Spike on February 02, 2010, 10:38:57 PM
Quote from: RogueLeader on February 01, 2010, 08:10:15 PM
answer the question, or is your answer: "you're not."?

Sorry.  You're not going to get an Aircraft anytime in the near future. 



I was talking hypothetical.  we have an aircraft 50% of the time.  We are getting it back this month. 
WYWG DP

GRW 3340

Spike

^ Good to go then!  I have lost numerous A/C over the years to other units, but always got them back.  It is a cycle, and if you know how to play within the cycle you will always get what you want in CAP. 

Brand new Van and Aircraft the same day last November.  All I had to do was recruit pilots and train crew.  When my numbers supported the aircraft I took my petition to directly to the Wing Commander.  PLUS, should I not have got a plane, my 14 new members would most likely not be renewing.  So you have to game the system to get what you want.