Dim future for CA aircrew?`

[simon]

Without naming names, I hear that National is not keen on continuing to fund the CA program and that CAWG is not willing to scout out other business for their aircrew outside SAR. Since the 121.5 satellites have stopped listening I think we can all agree that the number of callouts has dropped significantly. O-Rides have also been off the cards due to budget constraints.

This begs the question: How many hours will the average CA plane fly in 2011? How will aircrew stay proficient other than through a couple of SAREX's per year and paid proficiency?

It all seems very quiet.

[FW]

I guess you didn't get the message our "appropriated" budget was reduced over $4 million this year.  Yes, the amount CAP gives to pilots for some subsidized proficiency flying has been drastically reduced.  O'flight budget has been reduced as well.  This is not just a CAWG problem.  So, unless congress "hears our prayers", we're all in for some real belt tightening.

If you want to fly, I suggest helping the wing find either funds or reimbursable "missions".  This year, it's back to the day when we spent our own cash to fly anything other than  reimbursable AFAMs.

[EMT-83]

The problem isn't limited to the left coast. We're all going to have to be creative when it comes to funding and searching out new missions/customers.

[bosshawk]

Simon: did you mean CD when you posted CA?  CD makes up about one third of CAWG's total flying hours and it is in limbo for about four months of every year, due to the budget dithering that goes on each fiscal year.  FW hit the nail on the head when he mentioned the possibility(horrors) of individuals paying for their own proficiency flying.  When I joined CAP, that is exactly what was done.  Horrors of horrors, I did my Form 5 and Form 91 training on my own nickle.

Given the current state of affairs, flying is and will continue to be a minor part of CAP in CA: cadets come first.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

From the FAA:

"In the stay, filed Jan. 10, 2011, the FCC notes that the FAA "further asserts that 121.5 MHz ELTs can continue to provide a beneficial means of locating missing aircraft even without satellite monitoring of frequency 121.5 MHz, because the frequency is still monitored by the search and rescue community, including the Civil Air Patrol." The FAA is also is concerned about the cost of equipping aircraft with 406 MHz ELTs."

We need to continue monitoring the 121.5 channel for those pilots (Vast majority) that are still using older ELT's.  In a recession, there are not many aircraft owners that are considering this a priority!  One way to do that is to put inexpensive LPer's, or other receivers, at our repeater sites so as to continue monitoring 121.5.  ATC is not passing on the ELT reports in many locations.

[Spaceman3750]

From the FAA:

"In the stay, filed Jan. 10, 2011, the FCC notes that the FAA "further asserts that 121.5 MHz ELTs can continue to provide a beneficial means of locating missing aircraft even without satellite monitoring of frequency 121.5 MHz, because the frequency is still monitored by the search and rescue community, including the Civil Air Patrol." The FAA is also is concerned about the cost of equipping aircraft with 406 MHz ELTs."

We need to continue monitoring the 121.5 channel for those pilots (Vast majority) that are still using older ELT's.  In a recession, there are not many aircraft owners that are considering this a priority!  One way to do that is to put inexpensive LPer's, or other receivers, at our repeater sites so as to continue monitoring 121.5.  ATC is not passing on the ELT reports in many locations.

There's such a thing as an inexpensive L-Per?

I like the idea, but I can see problems with self-activations instead of reports coming down from AFRCC as they usually do.

[JeffDG]

Regardless of satelites, all aircraft in the US are to monitor 121.5 if able to do so

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/notices/2011-02-10/Part1,Sec%203.cfm

FDC 4/4386 - SPECIAL NOTICE...NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM INTERCEPT PROCEDURES. AVIATORS SHALL REVIEW THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION MANUAL (AIM) FOR INTERCEPTION PROCEDURES, CHAPTER 5, SECTION 6, PARAGRAPH 5-6-2. ALL AIRCRAFT OPERATING IN UNITED STATES NATIONAL AIRSPACE, IF CAPABLE, SHALL MAINTAIN A LISTENING WATCH ON VHF GUARD 121.5 OR UHF 243.0. IF AN AIRCRAFT IS INTERCEPTED BY U.S. MILITARY AIRCRAFT AND FLARES ARE DISPENSED, THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES ARE TO BE FOLLOWED: FOLLOW THE INTERCEPT'S VISUAL SIGNALS, CONTACT AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL IMMEDIATELY ON THE LOCAL FREQUENCY OR ON VHF GUARD 121.5 OR UHF GUARD 243.0, AND COMPLY WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY THE INTERCEPTING AIRCRAFT INCLUDING VISUAL SIGNALS IF UNABLE RADIO CONTACT. BE ADVISED THAT NONCOMPLIANCE MAY RESULT IN THE USE OF FORCE. 

Pilots, remember, FDC NOTAMS are regulatory in nature.

[bosshawk]

In my experience, CAP does not routinely monitor 121.5, either sporadically or continuously.  There is one guy in Socal who routinely monitors it, so that he can call AFRCC and get a mission number and then go and turn it off: thereby receiving a Find credit.  I don't know the number, but he probably has several hundred Finds.  If that is what the FAA is referring to, they are somewhat misled.

I also know one guy in CAWG who has looked into putting 121.5 receivers at repeater sites, but I think that it died for lack of interest.

[SARJunkie]

The FCC is within the next year setting up thousands of 'surveillance receivers' to act as DF stations all over the country.   One of the plans is to be used to DF ELT's

[JeffDG]

In my experience, CAP does not routinely monitor 121.5, either sporadically or continuously.  There is one guy in Socal who routinely monitors it, so that he can call AFRCC and get a mission number and then go and turn it off: thereby receiving a Find credit.  I don't know the number, but he probably has several hundred Finds.  If that is what the FAA is referring to, they are somewhat misled.

I also know one guy in CAWG who has looked into putting 121.5 receivers at repeater sites, but I think that it died for lack of interest.

What I'm referring to is the fact that, per the NOTAM, if you have two radios in your plane, and you're cruising along only using one of them (for ATC), you are supposed to be listening to 121.5 on the other.  When you need two, like when you're doing a handoff or listening to an enroute AWOS, that's fine...but when capable you are supposed to maintain a listening watch on 121.5.

This includes all aircraft in the United States, including everything from a little 172 up to an A-380.

[wuzafuzz]

We have an organization in Colordado that has done exactly that.  They have some receivers that listen for ELT's and transmit any hits on a ham radio frequency.  I know of several CAP members that were involved, using personally owned DF gear. 

Their website is offline at the moment though, making me wonder if they are still around:  www.fredf.org

[SARJunkie]

FCC's system uses TDOA receivers placed all over the place, tide back to a central network.  Its pretty amazingly accurate.  And it can be tuned to any freq 50 mhz to 2ghz.   Soon that might make CAP antiquated....

[Spaceman3750]

FCC's system uses TDOA receivers placed all over the place, tide back to a central network.  Its pretty amazingly accurate.  And it can be tuned to any freq 50 mhz to 2ghz.   Soon that might make CAP antiquated....

In the grand scheme that would, of course, be a good thing. Easier finds = more lives saved.

It still can't find a boyscout or alzheimer's patient though.

[SARJunkie]

it can if they have a cell phone or radio... 

[Eclipse]

How will aircrew stay proficient other than through a couple of SAREX's per year and paid proficiency?

That is how the vast majority of CAP pilots stay proficient

In my experience, CAP does not routinely monitor 121.5, either sporadically or continuously.  There is one guy in Socal who routinely monitors it, so that he can call AFRCC and get a mission number and then go and turn it off: thereby receiving a Find credit.  I don't know the number, but he probably has several hundred Finds.  If that is what the FAA is referring to, they are somewhat misled.

I also know one guy in CAWG who has looked into putting 121.5 receivers at repeater sites, but I think that it died for lack of interest.

"One guy"?  Since when does CAP allow "one guy" to do anything?

[Major Lord]

FCC's system uses TDOA receivers placed all over the place, tide back to a central network.  Its pretty amazingly accurate.  And it can be tuned to any freq 50 mhz to 2ghz.   Soon that might make CAP antiquated....

Sounds a lot like LORAN....I would guess that a system like that would be great for Kansas, but would not help out a lot on our mountainous West (or left, if you prefer) Coast. I was thinking about building a few APRS transmitters that would have a 121.5 receiver for use at airports and send a distinctive " I am here" signal on the APRS network. This would allow a high percentage of activations to be disposed of quickly. I wonder how the FCC got the budget for that kind of a system in this pre-apocalyptic budgetary crisis?

Major Lord

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

FCC's system uses TDOA receivers placed all over the place, tide back to a central network.  Its pretty amazingly accurate.  And it can be tuned to any freq 50 mhz to 2ghz.   Soon that might make CAP antiquated....

Interesting stuff,  do you have a link?

[SARJunkie]

The test platform is in Southern CA.  Very successful .   They use an AOR receiver, Linux based software, and GPS timing to establish the baseline time data.  Then a central server complies all the data on a map with an "X" marks the spot.    Ill see if I can find a link.

[bosshawk]

Eclipse: if you have the nerve(and I think that you do), email the Wing CC of CAWG and ask him that question.

[Flying Pig]

^Your being a naughty boy Paul