CAP Aircraft Purchases

[KyCAP]

I've heard that NHQ is considering purchasing new 172s from Cessna again.   I would ask the logic in this when there are 182 G-1000s on the market for LESS than the cost of a new 172 that would match the current airframes that we have on hand.   Less the VHF-comm, paint and yingling avionics mods still seems somewhat reasonable to pull a off-the-shelf 182 in and re-paint our markings rather than purchase a 172 G-1000?

www.aso.com is chocked with NAV III's in the "range".

[RiverAux]

They are doing some extensive upgrades to our existing 172s, but haven't heard anything about buying any. 

[cap235629]

Our wing DO informed our squadron that the plan is to retrofit our current fleet by taking a high hour aircraft and doing a ground up restoration taking it to a zero hour aircraft.  This includes new engine, interior, paint, radios and a retrofit glass cockpit (I can't remember the name of the avionics, any pilot care to help me here)

The cost for a ground up refurb is around $150,000 and as he stated, we can do 3 1/2 of these conversions for the cost of just one G-1000 C182.

He is a contemporary of BG Chitwood and told us this is what they had discussed, so take it for what it is worth but I think it is a GREAT idea.....

[KyCAP]

I would suggest that the economics that they used to compute that cost of 182 G-1000 is off quite a bit based on the current market..

For example, using your $150K x 3.5 birds = $525,000 for an airframe.   There are a number of G-1000 182s on www.aso.com for $230,000.   So, in today's market that math doesn't work because they're not comparing new 182's to new 172's per se.

Plus we're adding in another "avionics" mess with bringing another manufacturer's systems.   We should just stick to either steam gauge or G-1000 and not introduce something in between for yet another round of Form 5 and pilot qualification mess.   I have to fly 1/3 of my approaches in the 172 goo, 1/3 in steam gauge and 1/3 in G-1000 ().   That doesn't start to compute.

Linky

[RiverAux]

Keep in mind that CAP adds things to our planes which aren't in the regular package which up the price a bit from the floor model.  Also, keep in mind that the person was quoting probably third hand information so I wouldn't take those figures as exact gospel...

[KyCAP]

Right.   Technisonic radio = $10K... The SDIS package = $6K   Don't know about the second G-1000 audio panel and Yingling costs, but still when you look at the base costs and the complications of yet a second glass cockpit scenario... oh boy... I can hear DOV wheels a churning.... 

I fly a Cirrus SR-22 occasionally with Avidyne and am headed to Cessna Advanced Technical Training for Ground School on Lancair 400 with Avidyne and it's interesting keeping the G-1000 and Avidyne bits and pieces in the right buckets.

[cap235629]

according to the Cessna Website the base price for a new C-182 is $418,000

[PHall]

according to the Cessna Website the base price for a new C-182 is $418,000

I don't think CAP pays the "retail" price. We pay the "government" price.

[CadetProgramGuy]

according to the Cessna Website the base price for a new C-182 is $418,000

I don't think CAP pays the "retail" price. We pay the "government" price.

Oh, so we forgot to add 25% to the total........

[sardak]

The FY08 and FY09 USAF budgets show for FY09, five 182Ts at a unit cost of $474k. The description includes all the add-ons (SDIS, Becker, etc.).

Mike

[NIN]

The FY08 and FY09 USAF budgets show for FY09, five 182Ts at a unit cost of $474k. The description includes all the add-ons (SDIS, Becker, etc.).

Yow. I thought we were paying about $350K or so per plane, even the glass.  My, has the cost of aluminum and rivets in an airplane-like shape skyrocketed.

At $474K/plane, we can really knock some heads with the 172 upgrades.  Getting a fairly close to zero-time bird (the airframe, as I recall, cannot be "zero-timed") with some bells & whistles for $150k/each is not a bad reinvestment, especially if the aircraft are fairly aged and have already been depreciated as a capital expense.  (anybody an accounting type and know what the depreciation schedule of a plane is?<GRIN>)

The glass proposed for the 172 upgrades is an Aspen, BTW.

[JGremlin]

Plus we're adding in another "avionics" mess with bringing another manufacturer's systems.   We should just stick to either steam gauge or G-1000 and not introduce something in between for yet another round of Form 5 and pilot qualification mess.   I have to fly 1/3 of my approaches in the 172 goo, 1/3 in steam gauge and 1/3 in G-1000 ().   That doesn't start to compute.

Do you have any experience with the proposed systems in question? From what I understand, they're looking at adding an Aspen system to the 172's. I have not yet flown behind an Apsen system but I have messed with them at trade shows. They are a display system only, not an integrated display, radio and nav system like the G1000. It took me all of about a minute and half to figure out how to navigate the menu and get the nav head I wanted to use to show up on the HSI. I honestly don't think the systems will cause the avionics mess you think they will in terms of requiring additional training and knowledge.

If they were proposing to equip the 172's with Avadine system, I would agree with you. But from what I've seen of the Aspen system, its just a fancy display of airspeed, altitude, heading and output from the nav radios that we're already using.

[airdale]

They are doing some extensive upgrades to our existing 172s

Good.  In most parts of the country, the 172/180s are better airplanes for the SAR mission anyway.  Hopefully they will not pork them up like the 182s with heavy avionics, exploding seat belts, and other toys and irrelevant garbage.  Beckers would be nice, though.

I honestly don't think the systems will cause the avionics mess you think they will in terms of requiring additional training and knowledge.

Probably true, but the criteria should be whether the Aspen life cycle costs will be less and whether they save weight.  For what we do, we don't need colored lights and toys.

(Not that the G1000 182s aren't fun.  I especially like the color tv with the NEXRAD and 4,000 country music stations.  But they are long haul cross-country airplanes, something CAP doesn't do.)

[JGremlin]

I honestly don't think the systems will cause the avionics mess you think they will in terms of requiring additional training and knowledge.

Probably true, but the criteria should be whether the Aspen life cycle costs will be less and whether they save weight.  For what we do, we don't need colored lights and toys.

(Not that the G1000 182s aren't fun.  I especially like the color tv with the NEXRAD and 4,000 country music stations.  But they are long haul cross-country airplanes, something CAP doesn't do.)

Well, I'm a fan of flying behind an HSI whether it be navigating VFR (such when conducting a search) or when navigating on an IFR flight plan. I think its just a better and safer instrument to navigate off of and most biz jet manufacturers seem to agree with me. Given that most (probably all?? of our 172s currently lack an HSI, I'd say the Aspen system would a good choice both in terms of system cost and in terms of system weight when compared to adding that capability via the installation of a mechanical HSI. I think its safe to say that we would not be looking at adding HSI capability if this technology didn't exist, but since it does exist, I think it's a wise choice that will make the planes easier to fly and therefore safer to operate.

[airdale]

I'm a fan of flying behind an HSI

Me, too.

a wise choice that will make the planes easier to fly and therefore safer to operate.

I think the advantages of an HSI are pretty marginal given the near-zero amount of single-pilot hard IFR that these airplanes fly.  I don't know that the costs are comparable, but IMHO a simple STEC-20 autopilot would contribute much more to safety than an HSI.  With proper training, it could reduce the risks of a JFK Jr. type situation or a VFR-into-IMC loss of control.

I'd say the Aspen system would a good choice both in terms of system cost and in terms of system weight

It's an unproven system, but it would seem that eliminating the cost of the AI and the DG, including recurring replacement, might be an argument.  Which is heavier, I don't know.  The Aspen includes a battery, so there may be no weight advantage.

[es_g0d]

More important than "zero time" would be a standard configuration across the fleet.  There are far too many variations right now.

[Gunner C]

More important than "zero time" would be a standard configuration across the fleet.  There are far too many variations right now.

That would be key.  The problem would be the time lag - by the time the next round of aircraft are sent for upgrades, the cockpit displaysetup will almost certainly change.  Even AF aircraft cockpits vary within a model (not as much as it used to, tho).

[sparks]

Standardization really helps when airplanes move around in a state. It also reduces problems at exercises when pilots fly different airplanes. Several years ago CAP wisely updated most of the avionics panels with the GX55 GPS King radios and the PSI audio panel. It's infamous "swap switch" has been an issue with accidental activation. Since then the CAP FM has changed at least twice causing user issues. The G1000 is a story all by itself. Adding Avidyne or some other suite of instruments and/or avionics displays would be great but better done in targeted groups. Changing all the equipment in a wing or group could resolve the standardization complaint. It would be replaced by another [censored]. The one starting with, "why is that other wing getting the good stuff !!!!!".

One last note, if the acquisition committee is uninformed or operates on a whim none of this will matter.
Remember the steam gauge 182T acquisition?

[Mustang]

(Not that the G1000 182s aren't fun.  I especially like the color tv with the NEXRAD and 4,000 country music stations.  But they are long haul cross-country airplanes, something CAP doesn't do.)

Clearly, you're not from out west--where it can take 2+ hrs just to reach your assigned grid.  Another 2.5 hrs in-grid is not unreasonable for mountainous terrain, plus the trip home, and you're then looking at a minimum endurance requirement of 7.5 hrs (including CAP-required reserve).  Don't try that in a 172.

[sparks]

Absolutelly, georgraphy matters. Yes, us flatlanders have fewer problems using a 172 or normal aspirated 182 compared to state with higher elevations. We also need long legged aircraft like you. Anyone who has flown in the backseat of a 172 and 182 for hours will always pick the 182 given the choice. The acquisition question is whether to remanufacture older aircraft or buy new. New, G1000 aircraft are expensive and come with qualification and training problems. It's expensive to remain current and proficient with that electronic suite. I'd like to see standardization but don't expect that will be happening. 

[Auxpilot]

The reality is that we do not have the budget for standardization like the AF. The best that we can hope for is that they continue to purchase good equipment as they can.

I am on the fence about the G1000 systems because as was mentioned before the training and recurrency costs are pretty high. At some point it may be better to consolidate most of the G1000 platforms into certain geographic areas so the pilots there are not having to keep moving from steam to glass.

The Apsen Avionics 172 upgrade has peaked my interest a lot. It looks like a great middle ground between the simplicity of steam and the high end features of the G1000 without the cost or high learning curve.

Does anyone know how they plan on configuring the ancillary avionics (GPS, Nav/Com etc) when they do the upgrade? Will they add new GPS systems (G430-530) or stick with whatever is in the panel?

The Aspen 172's or 182's with a couple of G430's would be a really nice, user friendly platform for most of the non-mountainous units and would allow a much more budget friendly upgrade path.

Unless Congress decides to include CAP in the stimulus (as I choke) package, my guess is money is going to be tight.

[RiverAux]

At some point it may be better to consolidate most of the G1000 platforms into certain geographic areas so the pilots there are not having to keep moving from steam to glass.

This would be a logical approach. 

However, if you were to do this the result would be that the vast majority of wings would end up with older and older fleets while only a few wings would be getting ALL the new planes.  How well do you think that would go over?  How would you like to be in that last Wing that wouldn't be getting any new aircraft for 20 years?

[FW]

Does anyone know how they plan on configuring the ancillary avionics (GPS, Nav/Com etc) when they do the upgrade? Will they add new GPS systems (G430-530) or stick with whatever is in the panel?

The Aspen 172's or 182's with a couple of G430's would be a really nice, user friendly platform for most of the non-mountainous units and would allow a much more budget friendly upgrade path.

Unless Congress decides to include CAP in the stimulus (as I choke) package, my guess is money is going to be tight.

The new panel will include the Aspen Pro PFD, a Garmin MFD, a GNSw430 and a GL30 Nav/Com.

[airdale]

Clearly, you're not from out west ...  a minimum endurance requirement of 7.5 hrs  ... Don't try that in a 172.

I don't think your statement challenges the accuracy of what I said: "In most parts of the country, the 172/180s are better airplanes for the SAR mission anyway."

The new panel will include the Aspen Pro PFD, a Garmin MFD, a GNSw430 and a GL30 Nav/Com.

SL-30, presumably.  Not a bad configuration but too bad to lose the Apollos' good SAR capability.  And what's the point of an MFD?  These airplanes are tools for simple tasks.  I'll bet many of them haven't been 5000' agl since they were ferried in from the factory and that the majority have have never been in a cloud.  An STEC-20 AP without a GPSS box would be a better safety device than an MX-20 and cheaper as well.

[sparks]

Has anyone seen a list of what wings will be getting one of the new aircraft that are being produced?

[Auxpilot]

At some point it may be better to consolidate most of the G1000 platforms into certain geographic areas so the pilots there are not having to keep moving from steam to glass.

This would be a logical approach. 

However, if you were to do this the result would be that the vast majority of wings would end up with older and older fleets while only a few wings would be getting ALL the new planes.  How well do you think that would go over?  How would you like to be in that last Wing that wouldn't be getting any new aircraft for 20 years?

With the plan to refurb the 172's my thinking is that we will be buying fewer "new" planes and upgrading the rest.

If that were the case all of the Wings should have an equal chance to get refurb planes as they are completed.

It's kind of the way things happen in the AF. A bomb wing with B52D's got stuck with the old stuff and the B52G wings got the newer stuff. Operationally it makes a lot more sense to keep like aircraft together.

I'm talking logic here, not self interest. No I would not want to be the wing with the 20 year old airplanes but coing from a Group that has been flying the same plane for the better part of 15 years, i'm kind of used to it. I would be perfectly happy to have it refurbed with the Aspen glass upgrades and go on doing what we do.

[Auxpilot]

Does anyone know how they plan on configuring the ancillary avionics (GPS, Nav/Com etc) when they do the upgrade? Will they add new GPS systems (G430-530) or stick with whatever is in the panel?

The Aspen 172's or 182's with a couple of G430's would be a really nice, user friendly platform for most of the non-mountainous units and would allow a much more budget friendly upgrade path.

Unless Congress decides to include CAP in the stimulus (as I choke) package, my guess is money is going to be tight.

The new panel will include the Aspen Pro PFD, a Garmin MFD, a GNSw430 and a GL30 Nav/Com.

I could live with that! Since the GX55 is already there will they leave it for SAR only use or does it come out?

The 430 does not have SAR but it sure is a lot eaiser to teach people to use a 430 than a GX55.

[RiverAux]

No I would not want to be the wing with the 20 year old airplanes but coing from a Group that has been flying the same plane for the better part of 15 years, i'm kind of used to it.

I was talking about having to wait 20 years to replace that 15-year old plane.... 

[Auxpilot]

No I would not want to be the wing with the 20 year old airplanes but coing from a Group that has been flying the same plane for the better part of 15 years, i'm kind of used to it.

I was talking about having to wait 20 years to replace that 15-year old plane....

It's all going to come down to money. We can't expect uncle sam to keep printing money like it has no impact on our kids. Hell the KC135 that I crewed in the 80's that was built in 1966 is still flying.

Like I said, I am perfectly happy getting a refurb 1985 "P" model 172. Given the limited missions that we fly it seems to be the most cost effective solution.

Not as sexy as a shiny new G1000 182 but it's more sexy than the 70% incremental income tax rate that we will need to pay for it and everything else that Congress seems hell bent to spend other people money on.

[heliodoc]

Like AuxPilot said about KC135's

I will add.... 50 yr P2V Neptunes flying as airtankers

Formwer Hawkins and Powers flying old C130's and before C119 Boxcars

Aero Union used to fly P3A and B series and STILL are with some other variants , quite possibly C model variants

Other folks flying 20 to 30 year old leadplanes etc etc etc

Don't know what CAP is crying about ........ there are plenty of operators out there flying older light and heavy iron that makes us look everything is nearly new

Yep.... what is wrong with a 20 yr old CAP C172  they are not tired enough or beat up enough like an old airtanker

Thank your lucky stars CAP has got what they have

[Mustang]

Clearly, you're not from out west ...  a minimum endurance requirement of 7.5 hrs  ... Don't try that in a 172.

I don't think your statement challenges the accuracy of what I said: "In most parts of the country, the 172/180s are better airplanes for the SAR mission anyway."

I wasn't speaking to that portion of your post, only to your assertion that CAP doesn't need airplanes with the endurance of a 182. 

But what is just fine for some parts of the country can be woefully inadequate for other parts, and that's the reality we in the mountain west face.  We have to live with the decisions made by those who live in the flatlands and at sea level, people who don't have an adequate appreciation for just how INadequate even a 182 can be when performing a contour search at 12,000 feet.  Wings in the mountain west NEED turbocharged 206s, but the powers-that-be won't hear of it.

Bak to the orignal subject...I heard that CAP is buying some new steam-gauge 182s soon; apparently Cessna has a bunch they can't sell, and they gave CAP a good deal on them.

[DG]

apparently Cessna has a bunch they can't sell, and they gave CAP a good deal on them.

Where did you hear that?

Cessna has't made round dials for 5 years.

Check your source.

[PHall]

apparently Cessna has a bunch they can't sell, and they gave CAP a good deal on them.

Where did you hear that?

Cessna has't made round dials for 5 years.

Check your source.

Lease returns from FBO's?

[FW]

Just thought you would like to see the panel of the restored aircraft.
This is of a 182.  The 172 is almost identical

[Trung Si Ma]

Just thought you would like to see the panel of the restored aircraft.
This is of a 182.  The 172 is almost identical

Where are they putting the back up AI?

[FW]

 ^probably where the vertical speed indicator is.

[wingnut55]

Great It makes 1000X more sense to zero time our aircraft at TBO, upgrade avionics and put FLIR on the 206s along with an SDIS that works.

[airdale]

back up AI?

Is that a photoshop job?  I can't tell from the picture.  There would be no reason to have two CDIs.  The Aspen has an HSI, so you'd only keep one CDI and drive it with the SL30.  So there's a hole for a backup AI without losing the VSI.

[Auxpilot]

back up AI?

Is that a photoshop job?  I can't tell from the picture.  There would be no reason to have two CDIs.  The Aspen has an HSI, so you'd only keep one CDI and drive it with the SL30.  So there's a hole for a backup AI without losing the VSI.

That is great question? There has to be a backup AI in my opinion.

Does anyone know if we have started this program or if not when it is expected to start?

[airdale]

There has to be a backup AI in my opinion.

I disagree.  I think the airplanes could be made much safer than this baseline by adding a simple STEC-20 autopilot, then ditch the MX-20 and the backup AI and you are net money ahead.  Reasons:

1) These are day VFR airplanes.  The basic configuration that they now have is entirely adequate for the little bit of short-haul IFR flying that might occur.  The upgrade to the Aspen is frosting on the cake already.

2) An AP will reduce pilot fatigue flying to and from a mission.  It also has the potential, given the right SAR software in the G430 and a GPSS box, to automate a significant fraction or even all of some search patterns.  Again, less fatigue.  Also more accurate patterns and the pilot's eyes not quite so tied to the panel, so probably a tiny improvement in POD.

3) Punching the AP into wing leveler mode can be taught easily and reduces the risk of VFR-into-IMC accidents.

The statistical probability of a CAP airplane being in the clouds _and_ losing vacuum has gotta be near zero.  Backup AIs are for airplanes that regularly fly IMC or at night.

[Al Sayre]

The statistical probability of a CAP airplane being in the clouds _and_ losing vacuum has gotta be near zero.  Backup AIs are for airplanes that regularly fly IMC or at night.

We've had it happen to two different aircraft in the last 6 months.  Fortunately, one of the aircraft has a back up vacuum pump, and the other was bad enough to be noticeable before it failed completely and the pilot was able to safely transition to VFR.

[airdale]

Interesting.  I still think statistically the probability is small, just because the airplanes spend so little time in IMC.  Maybe overstating it to say "near zero." 

[Auxpilot]

There has to be a backup AI in my opinion.

I disagree.  I think the airplanes could be made much safer than this baseline by adding a simple STEC-20 autopilot, then ditch the MX-20 and the backup AI and you are net money ahead.  Reasons:

1) These are day VFR airplanes.  The basic configuration that they now have is entirely adequate for the little bit of short-haul IFR flying that might occur.  The upgrade to the Aspen is frosting on the cake already.

2) An AP will reduce pilot fatigue flying to and from a mission.  It also has the potential, given the right SAR software in the G430 and a GPSS box, to automate a significant fraction or even all of some search patterns.  Again, less fatigue.  Also more accurate patterns and the pilot's eyes not quite so tied to the panel, so probably a tiny improvement in POD.

3) Punching the AP into wing leveler mode can be taught easily and reduces the risk of VFR-into-IMC accidents.

The statistical probability of a CAP airplane being in the clouds _and_ losing vacuum has gotta be near zero.  Backup AIs are for airplanes that regularly fly IMC or at night.

I would have to disagree on a couple of the points.

Day VFR airplanes? - Of all of the ELT missions that I have flown in CAP I would say 10% were during the day. All of the rest were at night, sometimes with limited visibility or over Long Island where looking off to the distance you only see a dark hole.

I would not advocate having the AP fly search patterns at 1,000 AGL. Too easy for the pilot to get caught up in something while the AP flys the crew into the side of a mountain. Unless you live in the flatlands, seldom is a search flown at a constant altitude.

Ditch the multi-function display? Maybe. How about not installing the Garmin unit and instead using the Aspen MFD next to the PFD which is propably cheaper and solves the backup AI issue at the same time?

It sounds like your wing enjoys a lot of long VFR days. Many do not and marginal VFR and night flights are best flown IFR if possible (in fact the 60-1 encourages it). During the winter months I bet that 30-40% of my units flights are during the dark.

The autopilot would be great but: 1) Can you add it aftermarket to a 172 if it is not already equipped with the servos etc? 2) If so, what is the autopilot retrofit cost vs. the multifunction display and backup AI (remember why we are going this route.)

The statistical propability of a AI failure under IFR is exactly the same as it is under day VFR but the result of an IFR failure can be deadly. Yes we fly less IFR than VFR but nevertheless we do fly IFR so why take that chance?

[airdale]

All good points & an interesting discussion.

Day VFR airplanes? - Of all of the ELT missions that I have flown in CAP I would say 10% were during the day. All of the rest were at night, sometimes with limited visibility or over Long Island where looking off to the distance you only see a dark hole.

OK.  I think that still begs the question of what the overall fleet percentage of day VFR is vs other flying where the IFR gear is more important.  I don't know the answer to that but it still seems likely to me that my statement is pretty much true.

I would not advocate having the AP fly search patterns at 1,000 AGL. Too easy for the pilot to get caught up in something while the AP flys the crew into the side of a mountain. Unless you live in the flatlands, seldom is a search flown at a constant altitude.

Certainly a debatable TRADOC point.  The STEC-20 I mentioned is strictly single-axis, no altitude function, so there is not quite the temptation to read a newspaper while George flies the airplane.  Also, my experience with the G1000 is the AP won't fly the tight turns at the end of the grid lines so the pilot is again necessarily involved.  But in the end, with experience, it may turn out to not be a good idea.  Also, to have any hope of doing it you need the GPSS steering box which is something like $1500 additional.

Ditch the multi-function display? Maybe. How about not installing the Garmin unit and instead using the Aspen MFD next to the PFD which is propably cheaper and solves the backup AI issue at the same time?

Or better yet, keep the Apollos with the good SAR software.  Hit the used avionics market and buy up enough for 10 or 20 years of spares.  IIRC, the Aspen needs an external NMEA GPS feed, so you have to have some kind of box that provides this.

It sounds like your wing enjoys a lot of long VFR days. Many do not and marginal VFR and night flights are best flown IFR if possible (in fact the 60-1 encourages it). During the winter months I bet that 30-40% of my units flights are during the dark.

Well, the first rule of project management is to define the problem you're trying to solve.  Maybe my impression/generalization is wrong.  I wonder if anyone did a problem description and requirements definition in any kind of formal way before picking out this particular set of avionics.

The autopilot would be great but: 1) Can you add it aftermarket to a 172 if it is not already equipped with the servos etc? 2) If so, what is the autopilot retrofit cost vs. the multifunction display and backup AI (remember why we are going this route.)

The STEC-20 can be added.  IIRC the cost is around $6K.  Definitely in the ballpark with the MFD even without the electric AI.

The statistical propability of a AI failure under IFR is exactly the same as it is under day VFR but the result of an IFR failure can be deadly. Yes we fly less IFR than VFR but nevertheless we do fly IFR so why take that chance?

Well, you're going to take a chance by leaving out something.  The question is only which chance are you better off taking.  My point is simply that if the budget is fixed, it seems to me that a simple single-axis AP would enhance safety more than a fancy MFD and a backup AI.  If you can have the AP _and_ the electric AI, then great!  If you can have it all, go for it!  Known ice, anyone?

(BTW, I mention the STEC simply because I am familiar with them.  I'm sure there are others.)

[Trung Si Ma]

That is great question? There has to be a backup AI in my opinion.

And in the opinion of Aspen Avionics and the FAA since it is in the STC installation guide as a required component.

[SJFedor]

Also more accurate patterns and the pilot's eyes not quite so tied to the panel, so probably a tiny improvement in POD.

There should NEVER be an improvement on the POD based on the pilot's eyes. His job is to fly the aircraft, not be searching, nor buried in the panel.

[airdale]

There should NEVER be an improvement on the POD based on the pilot's eyes. His job is to fly the aircraft, not be searching, nor buried in the panel.

ROFL.  I knew that would be coming as I typed the words.  So many theoreticians in CAP, one was bound to step forward.  I've looked out the window and, if you're an MP, you have too.

Re the AI, of course.  So obvious.  Gotta have it in case the electronic gizzie goes paws up.

[SJFedor]

There should NEVER be an improvement on the POD based on the pilot's eyes. His job is to fly the aircraft, not be searching, nor buried in the panel.

ROFL.  I knew that would be coming as I typed the words.  So many theoreticians in CAP, one was bound to step forward.  I've looked out the window and, if you're an MP, you have too.

Re the AI, of course.  So obvious.  Gotta have it in case the electronic gizzie goes paws up.

I don't deny that, but one shouldn't be looking out there enough to affect the POD. Looking out occasionally is not bad at all, but when I have MP students (or Form 91 candidates) that spend more time looking on the ground then anywhere else, I have a problem with that.

It's not theory, it's how mission pilots (should be) trained.

[Larry Mangum]

As an Observer, I want a pilot that is concentrating on flying the plane and not scanning the ground. 

[DG]

Interesting.  I still think statistically the probability is small, just because the airplanes spend so little time in IMC.  Maybe overstating it to say "near zero." 

Huh?

You are telling me you don't fly IMC?

And you don't know anybody who flies IMC?

[sparks]

By definition the Scanner and Observer scans and the pilot flies. The pilot's responsibility is to fly the plane not do target scanning.
IMC is relevant since crews may need to launch in IMC conditions to reach a VFR search area. Same thing applies to a return trip, VFR search area but IMC return airport.

[airdale]

Huh?

I don't know why this concept is so difficult.  Let me try again:  I believe that CAP airplanes fly very little IMC as a fraction of total flight hours, hence the need to equip them extensively for hard IFR is not great.  Simple gets it done.  In a world of scarce resources a simple AP will probably produce better a safety bang for the buck than will an MFD.

To your direct question, the answer is "Of course not."  I fly a lot more hard IFR outside of CAP than I do inside CAP though.  And ... even for that I would much rather have a simple AP and VOR/DME electronics than a G430 and no AP.

[flynd94]

I don't know who posted it earlier but, CAP doesn't need the G1000.  We don't fly mission's in hard IFR and, if we do, what's wrong with steam gauges.  We have been using them for how long?

All we need is basic AC (C182, C206, Turbo C182) with steam gauges and, the GX55.  I agree with the earlier post that suggested we buy up the spare inventory of them.  I have flown both G1000/steam(w/GX55) and, prefer the steam.  You take to much of a weight hit with the G1000.  We could of saved the AF/taxpayer a ton of money by just refurbishing the aircraft we had or, purchasing steam.

We are the victim of someone wanting a new sexy plane.  I can tell you this as both a CAP Check Airman and, as a professional pilot, I have seen a steady decline in airmanship.  Pilots nowadays rely on technology way to much.  Long gone are the "stick and rudder" pilots. 

Flame away, just one guy's opinion

[SarDragon]

According to someone's prior post, Cessna doesn't make steam gauge A/C any more.

[Auxpilot]

I don't know who posted it earlier but, CAP doesn't need the G1000.  We don't fly mission's in hard IFR and, if we do, what's wrong with steam gauges.  We have been using them for how long?

All we need is basic AC (C182, C206, Turbo C182) with steam gauges and, the GX55.  I agree with the earlier post that suggested we buy up the spare inventory of them.  I have flown both G1000/steam(w/GX55) and, prefer the steam.  You take to much of a weight hit with the G1000.  We could of saved the AF/taxpayer a ton of money by just refurbishing the aircraft we had or, purchasing steam.

We are the victim of someone wanting a new sexy plane.  I can tell you this as both a CAP Check Airman and, as a professional pilot, I have seen a steady decline in airmanship.  Pilots nowadays rely on technology way to much.  Long gone are the "stick and rudder" pilots. 

Flame away, just one guy's opinion

Flame burners on (only kidding)

I too have reservations about the need to spend so much on the G100 182's. I like the retrofitting of the 172 option better myself because it's way more bang for the buck and it gives us what we need without overkill and a completly new learning curve.

Regarding the decline in airmanship, I'm on the fence about that one. Your are most likley correct that folks are depending on the technology more than ever but I don't see that as being all bad.

When I learned to fly Loran was just hitting the market and everyone said it was the end of the "stick and rudder" pilot. On the "glass half full" side, I think that the technology has made us all a lot safer and much better pilots. Things are so easy now that we can spend a lot more time aviating and a lot less time navigating. As a visual person, my situational awareness flying the ILS with a GPS in front of me is 500% better than trying to figure out where I am looking at the steam gauges. Not to mention that I have XM weather and all the other navigatonal stuff all in one neat package.

Folks will say "what happens when the technology goes dark?" which is a valid point. I still practice with those pesky vor's and even fly the occasional X Country with just a map but my training time is better spent mastering the technology and getting 100% out of it.

[wingnut55]

Hey are they putting radios in aeroplanes?

[NIN]

Hey are they putting radios in aeroplanes?

Once they can figure out how to make the tubes resistant to the vibrations from the motor...

[flynd94]

SarDragon,

Yes, Cessna stopped making steam gauges but, when we placed our original order I believe we could of kept the line open.

Auxpilot,

My observation of pilots becoming dependent on technology comes from my experience as a Line Training Captain, Line Check Airmen for a Part 135 freight company.  I had trainee's who didn't have any SA unless they had a moving map in front of them.   This is why I am a firm believer in teaching students in round dial first.  I also believe doing your Instrument rating in a glass cockpit aircraft is an accident waiting to happen. 

Before everyone calls me a old curmudgeon, I am on a 37 year old pro pilot.

[CASH172]

Why not just turn off the MFD and PFD and have the student learn to use visual references.  It's how I got back to looking outside after doing my instrument training. 

[KyCAP]

Hrm... Steam Gauge NAV II 182T.  Yep.. Got one of those here in KY.  However, as of last year... There was NO way to get an aftermark STC for installing an autopilot into it... And NHQ didn't buy one in them in 2004.   

I have hand flown that plane from KY to New Orleans.   Give me a G1000 with an autopilot and NexRad.

I still contend that the solution is closer to buying up used G1000 NAV III 182s that standardize the fleet rather than retrofitting and entering more "stuff" into the fleet.

[FW]

Everyone is going "glass cockpit".   Retro fitting our older aircraft with Aspen/Garmin systems will make it easier for us "old timers" to transition into the modern world without too much grief.  Yes, I understand all the arguments pro and con however, change can not be stopped.  Such is life in the U.S of A. 

[Auxpilot]

Auxpilot,

My observation of pilots becoming dependent on technology comes from my experience as a Line Training Captain, Line Check Airmen for a Part 135 freight company.  I had trainee's who didn't have any SA unless they had a moving map in front of them.   This is why I am a firm believer in teaching students in round dial first.  I also believe doing your Instrument rating in a glass cockpit aircraft is an accident waiting to happen. 

Before everyone calls me a old curmudgeon, I am on a 37 year old pro pilot.

As with any complex issue, the underlying problem may not be as clear cut as it appears. Do these trainees lack SA because of the reliance on the glass, or are they coming out of pilot factories that aren't teaching them how to fly? Do they have the stuff to be a pilot in the first place?

You are probably correct to a point but I would not blame the technology for all of the shortcomings. You propose teaching in round dials first; does that mean no GPS at all or just not glass.

I'm not an expert on glass beacuse I have very little experience with it. I do however know that having a GPS, MFD and HSI as proposed in the retrofit plan will make me a lot better (safer) pilot than I would otherwise be without it. Having flown IFR with them I understand the benifits of that equipment in a single pilot world. Carrying that one step further, one would think that the glass would be an improvement over that (that being said I still am not a fan of CAP spending all that money on all glass aircraft).

Does your fear lie in the possibility of the glass failing and the trainee not being able to handle the round dial backup? If so, he should not be able to pass the test without proving that he can indeed fly the plane on backup, which may not be enforced at the flight school level.

BTW I am a lot older than you so my perspective is not as part of the cell phone generation. I was flying ADF/VOR when you were still pretty small and the old timers were saying that the Loran was going to kill a pilots navigation skills so I have witnessed a lot of changes over the years.

[NIN]

While I'm not a licensed airplane driver (yet), I've got a fair amount of time spent aviating, navigating and such like that.

IMHO, anything that helps increase SA is a good thing.  G1000, a Garmin 396, or a nicely folded and bound sectional book that makes it easy for the pilot to keep his finger on his position. I honestly don't give a crap either way, but I want the pilot to be able to know where he is.

Many moons ago, when I was but a young crew chief on Chinooks, one of our pilots gave me his nicely bound book of maps for the entire Korean peninsula. They were the nicely laid out "fold over or fold up" layout, and I would sometimes do my airspace surveillance from the right side of the aircraft with that book on my lap, especially if we were flying someplace I'd never been. 

Well, it happened one day that the the pilot flying thought the pilot navigating was, you know, actually navigating, and the pilot navigating thought the pilot flying must have been doing his job, too, 'cuz suddenly we're out in the middle of nowhere and the two dudes in the front office realize they have no clue where we are about the time we manage to bust the airspace of some podunk ROKAF base (and get yelled at on Guard), and somehow stumble into a restricted area at the same time (and get yelled at on Guard). 

I finally had to pipe up with "We're about 2 miles north of Chungju, and that was Choongwon airbase we just flew over.." from the back, and the pilots are like "Chungju? Where the hell is -that-?"

I mean, GPS is now at least good for *something*. 

(never mind the time we left a field site in highly MVFR conditions,  the overcast sitting right on top of the ridgelines,  went IMC 2-3 times trying cross from one valley into the next and finally realizing we had ZERO idea where we were.  We landed in a rice paddy near the intersection of 3 roads and I got to run over to the road sign and copy down the Hangul and westernized spellings of the towns on the sign so we could compare them to our map...)

[Auxpilot]

(never mind the time we left a field site in highly MVFR conditions,  the overcast sitting right on top of the ridgelines,  went IMC 2-3 times trying cross from one valley into the next and finally realizing we had ZERO idea where we were.  We landed in a rice paddy near the intersection of 3 roads and I got to run over to the road sign and copy down the Hangul and westernized spellings of the towns on the sign so we could compare them to our map...)

Reminds me of a buddy that had to circle a water tower to read the name of a small town to find out where he was. As the old saying goes, use everything in the cockpit to your advantage..... In this case everything out of the cockpit as well.

[NIN]

Reminds me of a buddy that had to circle a water tower to read the name of a small town to find out where he was. As the old saying goes, use everything in the cockpit to your advantage..... In this case everything out of the cockpit as well.

This discussion has been a lot like the ones I encounter every day in my job.  I have to remind people "OK, how did you do that before the technology?" and they look at me like "But..but..."

I *love* flying VFR in a minimally equipped plane: whiskey compass, a turn & slip indicator, altimeter and airspeed...   Gimme a map and some gas..

[FW]

Everyone is going "glass cockpit".   Retro fitting our older aircraft with Aspen/Garmin systems will make it easier for us "old timers" to transition into the modern world without too much grief.  Yes, I understand all the arguments pro and con however, change can not be stopped.  Such is life in the U.S of A. 

Here is the newest refurbed C172 Panel.  I hope you can see the attachment.

[PHall]

Reminds me of a buddy that had to circle a water tower to read the name of a small town to find out where he was. As the old saying goes, use everything in the cockpit to your advantage..... In this case everything out of the cockpit as well.

This discussion has been a lot like the ones I encounter every day in my job.  I have to remind people "OK, how did you do that before the technology?" and they look at me like "But..but..."

I *love* flying VFR in a minimally equipped plane: whiskey compass, a turn & slip indicator, altimeter and airspeed...   Gimme a map and some gas..

It's called "Pilotage" and it's quickly becoming a lost art.

[airdale]

Here is the newest refurbed C172 Panel.

So someone decided they didn't like the standard 6 pack panel layout with the altimeter and airspeed next to the horizon and HSI? i.e., http://www.aspenavionics.com/images/evolution/evolution-img7.jpg

Great.

[Thrashed]

What bugs me about expensive airplanes and even more expensive avionics is how many used steam-gauge aircraft could we buy for the price of a new fancy aircraft?  My group has no aircraft.  I have to drive 1 1/2 hours to beg to fly a plane from another group.  I'd rather see more aircraft than new aircraft.  I don't need fancy instruments to fly VFR for CAP.  I'm not afraid of glass- I'm a B777 pilot.  I've been using glass or partial glass since the '80's.  I'd rather see the money spent on more planes.  I'd rather see more orientation flights.  I'd rather see cadets getting free flight training.  Half of the cadets in my unit have never been up yet.  Forget the G1000 and buy a $400 handheld GPS if you can't find your way home. 

[FW]

Not to go over this again but....
The fleet is set at 550 aircraft.  Distribution is based on a 200hrs of operations per aircraft in each region.  Each wing has a minimum of 2 aircraft. 


Civil Air Patrol can  "zero time"  about 4 aircraft for the price of 1 G1000 C182.
Since we can't have more aircraft, I rather have the best aircraft possible.

[PhotogPilot]

(never mind the time we left a field site in highly MVFR conditions,  the overcast sitting right on top of the ridgelines,  went IMC 2-3 times trying cross from one valley into the next and finally realizing we had ZERO idea where we were.  We landed in a rice paddy near the intersection of 3 roads and I got to run over to the road sign and copy down the Hangul and westernized spellings of the towns on the sign so we could compare them to our map...)

Reminds me of a buddy that had to circle a water tower to read the name of a small town to find out where he was. As the old saying goes, use everything in the cockpit to your advantage..... In this case everything out of the cockpit as well.

Been there, done that

[DG]

My group has no aircraft.  I have to drive 1 1/2 hours to beg to fly a plane from another group. 

I'd rather see more orientation flights.  Half of the cadets in my unit have never been up yet. 

The Maule N112CP was at Queen City all through October.  Nobody flew it.  So it was moved to Quakertown where it will remain.  For a time in October, it was at Braden.  All three are airports in your Group.

Can we approach this in a positive, constructive manner?  We have a lot of work to do (flying), and need your help.

[Thrashed]

nevermind

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

Maybe because it was based at "Queen City" 

[Teal 37]

Many people have mentioned retaining the GX55 GPS. That's really not a good idea since the GX55 is not Approach Certified. In today's (and tomorrow's) airspace environment, ADF approaches are almost completely gone and VOR approaches are being phased out rapidly. A straight-in GPS approach is better & safer anyhow, and can be developed for any airport if there is an FAA need.

The GX60 is a GX55 certified for GPS Approaches and would be an option, but have no idea on its availability. They are both "ancient" as far as GPS's are concerned.

[coolkites]

Has anyone seen a list of what wings will be getting one of the new aircraft that are being produced?

I can tell you that PCR-OR-007 just got a 1yr old C-182 G1000 equipped
our old C-172 was sent down to California.

So tell me how many searches does your squadron do per year or per month in order to justify a new aircraft.

[bosshawk]

As has been tromped into oblivion in another subject, the number of hours that are anticipated to be flown plus the geographical location in relation to other Wing aircraft are usually the main criteria for locating an aircraft.  As someone else has suggested, there also are the Wing politics to be considered and only God knows how they work.