Consolidated Maintnenance

[groundpounder]

Now that the new consolidated maintenance program has had a chance to get up to speed, I'm curious how our members feel about it.

Whats good

Whats bad

How can we improve

[SJFedor]

I was a member of PAWG before the official "Consolidated Maint. Program" went into effect, but it essentially was for PA, NJ, and other wings in NER. We all brought our birds to the same place in South Jersey, except for either very minor things or things where the plane couldn't be flown to VAY to get the mx it needed.

I liked it because you were always working with the same guys, you knew about how fast they worked, and they were very kind and courteous. You also knew that (historically) they were doing a quality job, and weren't extorting money out of CAP for it. Their rates were very reasonable.

I didn't like it because (and this was 2 years ago, mind you) at times you'd get a severe bottleneck. Everyone was bringing their planes to get the 100hr inspections done, which caused a backlog of aircraft. When there wasn't a backlog, you could spin the plane in less than a week, if there was, it may be there for 2 weeks to upward of a month, depending on how busy they were. These guys had other customers, too, and had to balance us with them to keep their business going.

For what it is, it's a decent program. It's designed so we're getting the most bang for our buck, from people we trust and do good, quality work. Only problem is, we can very easily inundate a mx facility with our needs. 1-2 mx facilites per wing would be about appropriate. Having 4+ wings dump into 1 is a lot of trouble, and, I think, could cause problems, especially if the mx facility feels rushed to push the planes back out the door.

[SoCalCAPOfficer]

I dont think it is such a good idea, because it hurts not only the squadron in getting its airplane back quicker, it also hurts the local FBO's.   Our FBO has been very good to CAP, they have given us good service, free tiedown, bought parts and waited till national could pay them back, etc.   It is a slap in the face to them to say, you can do the minor things but anything where you might make a buck will have to go to someone else.  My Aircraft Maintenance Officer has written a long letter to National concerning these issues.

[BillB]

Consolidated maintenance is a good concept, but has drawbacks. As mentioned, where there is a corporate aircraft, the FBOs support CAP through free tiedowns or T-hangers, discount on parts and duel, but the local Squadron can't support the FBO with doing the maintenance. Another drawback is distance. It's almost a 3hour flight from where one corporate aircraft is based to the central maintenance facility. Besides fuel costs and time a member wastes ferrying the aircraft, that's six hours wasted from the 100 hours between maintenance checks. Larger wings need to set up two locations rather than just one, which also means faster turnaround time for the aircraft.
For minor maintenance, Squadrons should be able to pick their own local repair shop to help support the local FBO. And I see no problem with selecting two repair shops in a larger wing provided the rates compare favorably.

[ricecakecm]

My wing has been in the program since February.  Overall, I like it.

The biggest problem I've had is the NHQ parts vendor dragging their butt on getting parts to our maintenance vendor.  I had an airplane sitting for over 3 weeks waiting on a tachometer.

The costs of flying airplanes to and from the maintenance base are paid for by NHQ, as are the costs of flying a chase plane (if one is needed).  So if anything, I'm increasing my aircraft utilization on NHQ's dime.

I still take IFR certifications, tire changes, oil changes, light bulbs, etc. to local FBOs as well as unscheduled maintenance that can't be flown to the maintenance base.  So we're still supporting the local FBOs to some extent.  Most of them understand that we've got to do it this way. 

Basicly, all that goes to the central shop are 100 hour and annual inspections, engine changes, prop changes, etc.  The shop we picked doesn't have an avionics shop, so we still shop around on those problems.

[groundpounder]

My wing has been in the program since February.  Overall, I like it.

The biggest problem I've had is the NHQ parts vendor dragging their butt on getting parts to our maintenance vendor.  I had an airplane sitting for over 3 weeks waiting on a tachometer.

That seems to be a common complaint, aircraft sitting at the vendor for upwards of a month waiting for a part. Hopefully that issue is getting run up the line so we can get things moving a little faster.

If you have a problem or two during the year, then add in a 100 hour or annual, you could lose 2-3 months of flying time waiting to get your plane back

[lordmonar]

Yes...but the parts problem was there long before the consolidate maintenance program.

[Sarge]

I for one am not sold on colsolidated mx quite yet. MN Wing has a great program thanks to Lt Col Quilling. Others not as fortunate. Alot of Sq's have a good "bubble" on where to get the best,quickest and most cost-effective fixes. Others do not practice sound decision making....so I see some value in the program in some cases. Your thoughts?

[c172drv]

From a quick read it seems that the major problem is that the inspections are reactive and not planned.  In an airline situation you setup with a central vendor or vendors to do your scheduled maintenance.  We would have a line of service that would allow us to keep that line occupied with our aircraft only.  We would swap them out and continue on.  Each time an aircraft came in they already knew the work to be completed for the most part and had their parts on hand ready to go.  We were turning CRJ's in 1 week for some of the less involved heavy maintenance.  It seems that a 100hr inspection should take a day if you had the parts.   

What seems to be lacking in this program is an ability to swap aircraft (we aren't standardized enough wing to wing) and also a maintenance program that isn't time based such as our 100hr requirement.  You would plan to put the aircraft in the shop every 3 months lets say.  Each visit it would have an oil change plus 1/4 of all the maintenance it needs for an annual.  You'd obviously have items that get repeated more often.  If we went to a progressive maintenance program where you knew what was going to happen and when you could get your parts in ahead of time.  Yes, you do run across unplanned stuff but that is when you have a contract that specifies timeliness for AOG (Aircraft on Ground) parts.  This requires folks to monitor the status of aircraft and plan out the course of action. 

This centralization could also be a great relief for the squadron and wing maintenance folks if we had a single number to call to report problems.  Toss on a program to use a formal Minimum Equipment List and you could quickly be able to re dispatch the aircraft with most maintenance items being differed till planned maintenance could be setup.  You then use your local FBO's for the hard items and to verify that others are safe to continue per the MEL. 

The last additional item I would add on to save money is to switch CAP to a "On Condition" program for equipment.  Engines, governors and propellers are the natural targets.  Here you continually do checks on the health of the engine.  We are doing that already with the 100hr program but you need to track the status to look for changes.  Toss on a little engine trend monitoring for aircraft that have CHT, EGT info and you could really begin to see the health.  Additional tracking of parts removal and replacement to see how long they stay on the aircraft and you begin to realize money. 

The problem with all this is that it takes money to save the money.  A centralized contact point for maintenance means you have to hire 4-6 folks to be on hand for maintenance calls.  They likely have to be mechanics too.  Setting up contract to provide AOG can be expensive though in our case it shouldn't be too bad.   The maintenance program change might be expensive unless there is one that we can access from Cessna already.  I thought that there was one but my memory isn't that good.  MEL's take time and effort to get approved by the FSDO.  I believe that we could pull this off but it would likely take a full time person about a year to get all the aircraft up on that program plus conducting training for everyone on how to use it.   The on condition program would take a major rewrite of the manuals.  It would also take some time to work with all the manufacturers to set reasoned data points for removal of a part prior to it breaking.

OK, that was a long post that I've been thinking about for a while.   I think that we could do this as an organization but it would take commitment that I'm not sure NHQ has.  Hope I didn't bore everyone.

John

[groundpounder]

Wow, thats a lot to digest.

This is the kind of positive discussion that reveals great ideas.

The MEL concept intrigues me on one hand but bothers me on the other. I recently received an email regarding the insurance industries 12 golden rules of aviation that were developed based on repeated accident statistics and trends.

Rule #4 - Never take off with a known malfunction. How does this rule reconcile with the concept of having a list of known malfunctions that you are willing to accept?

Large commercial aircraft tend to have more redundant systems which I guess would allow for more latitude when making the go / no-go decision. A C-182 has but one system for operating the flaps, spinning the gyros, making electrical power etc. I would not expect the MEL list to be all that long for CAP. Food for thought..............

One thing that really causes me concern is the length of time it takes to get the aircraft into the shop, get the parts, and get it back in service. Wings with a lot of planes can swap in loaners so operational units can stay in business. If your Wing is already short, a 4 week 100 hour can really hurt a unit with only one plane.

It would seem that the larger consolidated facilities should at least have an inventory of the most active replacement parts on hand or NHQ should have a process in place to quickly provide those parts.

I like the consolidated squawk reporting idea. Perhaps at least a Wing wide system like WIMRS that allows folks to enter squawks which would be available to  Maintenance Officers, Commanders etc. to monitor trends and spot safety issues.

[SJFedor]

I like the consolidated squawk reporting idea. Perhaps at least a Wing wide system like WIMRS that allows folks to enter squawks which would be available to  Maintenance Officers, Commanders etc. to monitor trends and spot safety issues.

Any of the wings that use the Flight Scheduler Pro system? TN does (at least my Group and Group 2 does) and it has time usage tracking, mx tracking, and squawk reporting and reconciliation on there. The only trick is to get the people to remember to enter their tach and hobbs time whenever they close their flight tickets, and to have the mx officers keep the current dates and times of required inspections/mx.

[c172drv]

As far as applying a MEL to a C-182 it is feasible.  Yes, we have lots of redundancy on most systems but not all.  In our case we would likely have an MEL that allows you to operate the AC but at a reduced capability.

For example, we know that the NAV lights aren't required for day but for night.  The MEL can say that the aircraft is approved for DAY VMC conditions.  Similarly if a radio is out the limitation could be DAY VMC or DAY and NIGHT VMC.  Other items that aren't required such as EGT's and the DF Gear could be listed.  The additional beauty is that you specify the time to be fixed.  This gives you time to get the part in place prior to the date it must be repaired.

The centralized maintenance does in my opinion require centralized squawks.  Virginia uses flight schedule pro as well.  Squawks and other similar maintenance items can be tracked for any wing via the WMU website.  It pulls the data for all the aircraft assigned to a wing.  It can be used to track squawks plus time limitation.  Pete has programed in the requirements of the maintenance program too.  I'm currently using both for my assigned aircraft.  It is double the work but I like Pete's system but everyone uses flight schedule pro so I list it there too.  One of the things I've been doing is I update squawks to include when a repair will be made if it isn't going to be made right away.

I hope that this idea of mine floats up some but I unfortunately doubt it will unless I write up a big formal report.  Unfortunately I'm laptopless so I can't use the time I have when I'm out flying for the real job to do that. 

John

[BlueLakes1]

For us, the CMMP was a godsend. We also were one of the first wings to transition in February, and it couldn't have happened at a better time for us, as our maintenance budget was gone, and I had a plane that was 10 hours out from a 100 hour that I was going to have to ground because we couldn't pay for the maintenance.

Pluses for us - we contracted with a maintenance facility that had never really done business with us before. Getting a new set of eyes on the planes was invaluable; 3 of our 4 172s ended up having their first 100 hour/annual take a month or better, correcting old issues that had never been dealt with (one plane had to be re-rigged, and had 2 ADs, one from 1987, that had never been complied with). I feel like we get the best customer service possible; where we'd have 2 or 3 day downtimes with local maintenance waiting on oil changes, they'll get them in on one day notice and do them while you wait. We have an extremely active CD program, and we'd have planes go in at 8 am, get the oil changed, and then immediately fly their mission. Towards the end of the season, we had 5 planes go in for 100 hour/annual, and really did not notice any bottleneck. We've also had a couple instances of airplanes having issues off site, and he's flown himself there to do the repair, if possible. Now, I certainly can't claim that all vendors will be this helpful, so YMMV, but our experience has been great.

I do believe we had an issue or two with parts delivery times, but as stated, this wasn't a vendor issue but an NHQ one. That being said, we've worked with two different contract administrators at NHQ, and have had very good experiences with both.

Now, in Indiana, we track all the planes maintenance times at the wing, and we don't use WMU at all. We stole adopted a system from KYWG, using a master maintenance spreadsheet (excel form), to track all the maintenance items on the planes. The FROs are given an excel based CAPF 99, they collect ending Hobbs and tach times after sorties and the spreadsheet will email the times to me and my maintenance officer. We put them in the tracking sheet, and voila, it tells us how much longer until the plane is up for all time based maintenance items. With that, we can stay in conact with the shop and let them know when maintenance items are coming up, and we're very rarely blindsided with unexpected maintenance, save for actual equipment malfunctions.

That's about all I can think of for now. We've been very pleased, our flight hours are up (500 more hours flown in FY07 over FY06), maintenance downtimes are down, and are planes are in better shape then they were before. Now, I can see where a wing with a very strong maintenance program in place already wouldn't benefit nearly as much, but for us, it's been excellent.

If anyone would like to talk to me offline to get more on what we're doing, feel free to PM or email me.

[FW]

Update:

The "CMX" program is now covering almost 85% of our aircraft.  NHQ. expects all of our fleet to be included by the end end of FY 09 (30 Sep).

This year, the program has not only set uniform maint. standards thougout the whole country, it has saved us over $1 MILLION this year.  Money we can now use for other important programs; like maintaining our VAN's and SUV's.

Larry Kauffman, Fleet Director and origniator of the CMX, has said we will probably save even more per year after the all the aircraft are on the program.  :clap:

[PHall]

Update:

The "CMX" program is now covering almost 85% of our aircraft.  NHQ. expects all of our fleet to be included by the end end of FY 09 (30 Sep).

This year, the program has not only set uniform maint. standards thougout the whole country, it has saved us over $1 MILLION this year.  Money we can now use for other important programs; like maintaining our VAN's and SUV's.Larry Kauffman, Fleet Director and origniator of the CMX, has said we will probably save even more per year after the all the aircraft are on the program.  :clap:

I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. Vehicles are just not sexy enough.

[FW]

^ Money for vehicle maint. has already been added to 08 budget and is approved as new line item - Minor Vehicle Maint.   Details are already being finished.  Life does have some good moments.

[jeders]

Update:

The "CMX" program is now covering almost 85% of our aircraft.  NHQ. expects all of our fleet to be included by the end end of FY 09 (30 Sep).

This year, the program has not only set uniform maint. standards thougout the whole country, it has saved us over $1 MILLION this year.  Money we can now use for other important programs; like maintaining our VAN's and SUV's.Larry Kauffman, Fleet Director and origniator of the CMX, has said we will probably save even more per year after the all the aircraft are on the program.  :clap:

I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. Vehicles are just not sexy enough.

I guess we need to start driving Ferraris and Porches. 

[SAR-EMT1]

Nah... their offroad capabilities suck.   

[lordmonar]

^ Money for vehicle maint. has already been added to 08 budget and is approved as new line item - Minor Vehicle Maint.   Details are already being finished.  Life does have some good moments.

It is already a done deal.  My wing CC E-mailed us directions on how we are supposed to get minor and routine maintence done on our vehicle and charge wing for it.

[SoCalCAPOfficer]

For those of you that think Consolidated Maintenance saves money, I hate to burst your bubble but they cost more money.   A member of my squadron did an analysis of those Wings currently doing Consolidated Maintenance.  The problem is in the fact that it takes six sorties to deliver and pick up an aircraft from the consolidated maintenance facility.

The records for 2008 show that of those Wings using consolidated maintenance, the flying time for thier aircraft is as follows:

A1 Missions  1491.7 Hours
A2 Missions      50.8 Hours
A3 Missions    990.0 Hours
Total for All A1-A3 Missions  2533.3 Hours

For A9 Missions which are maintenance flights, they flew 3151.6 hours.

In other words, they flew almost 2 1/2 times as much ferrying the aircraft for maintenance than they flew for A1 Missions.

The 17 Wings that do not have consolidated maintenance showed the following flight times for their aircraft:

A1 Missions   805.8
A2 Missions   155.0
A3 Missions 1203.1

Total A1-A3 Mission Hours  2163.9

Total A9 Hours (Maintenance)   0.0

Now you tell me where is the savings?

[FW]

^ I don't know how the data from those statistics were obtained, so let's assume they are accurate for arguments sake.  Now even with the increase in flying hours for ferry flights.  How do we account for the $1.7 million dollars we can now spend on unfunded mandates like routine vehicle maintenance?  The money didn't just magically appear.  It came from savings.  And, as far as I know, it came from the "CMX" program.

[Frenchie]

For those of you that think Consolidated Maintenance saves money, I hate to burst your bubble but they cost more money.   A member of my squadron did an analysis of those Wings currently doing Consolidated Maintenance.  The problem is in the fact that it takes six sorties to deliver and pick up an aircraft from the consolidated maintenance facility.

The records for 2008 show that of those Wings using consolidated maintenance, the flying time for thier aircraft is as follows:

A1 Missions  1491.7 Hours
A2 Missions      50.8 Hours
A3 Missions    990.0 Hours
Total for All A1-A3 Missions  2533.3 Hours

For A9 Missions which are maintenance flights, they flew 3151.6 hours.

In other words, they flew almost 2 1/2 times as much ferrying the aircraft for maintenance than they flew for A1 Missions.

The 17 Wings that do not have consolidated maintenance showed the following flight times for their aircraft:

A1 Missions   805.8
A2 Missions   155.0
A3 Missions 1203.1

Total A1-A3 Mission Hours  2163.9

Total A9 Hours (Maintenance)   0.0

Now you tell me where is the savings?

I don't see how anyone can argue that CMX is saving money.

Furthermore you have the huge added burden of volunteer's time and travel costs.  Since CMX, instead of making a phone call to tell our local A&P it's time for our 100hr or oil change, we have to ferry the aircraft across town.  This also means we have to arrange transportation back.  So you have at least two people tied up for several hours getting the plane to maintenance, and several more getting it back.  Since we are the closest squadron to the CMX facility, we also wind up ferrying pilots back to their squadron.  So now we are spending countless hours of volunteer time (which isn't calculated on the bottom line) supporting this program as well.  The whole thing is madness.

CMX might make sense if you're running a fleet of 737s, but a fleet of mostly C brand planes that virtually any FBO A&P on the planet can work on?

[Tubacap]

^true, but 1.7 million dollars funneled back into vehicle maintanence is time saved by squadron members doing fundraising to maintain corporate vehicles.

Personally, I'd rather be flying than fundraising.

[SoCalCAPOfficer]

^ I don't know how the data from those statistics were obtained, so let's assume they are accurate for arguments sake.  Now even with the increase in flying hours for ferry flights.  How do we account for the $1.7 million dollars we can now spend on unfunded mandates like routine vehicle maintenance?  The money didn't just magically appear.  It came from savings.  And, as far as I know, it came from the "CMX" program.

The data from those statistics is CAP national data of aircraft usage.  Now my question to you is where did you come up with that figure of $1.7 million dollars in savings?

[FW]

The figures came from the latest "appropriated budget" expenditure update for the year to date (31 May).  It was presented to the BOG by the CAP/EX on 11 June.
Figure was actually, $1.715 million.  But, why quibble over $15k  

[NC Hokie]

The figures came from the latest "appropriated budget" expenditure update for the year to date (31 May).  It was presented to the BOG by the CAP/EX on 11 June.
Figure was actually, $1.715 million.  But, why quibble over $15k  

Is that $1.715 million savings specifically linked with the aircraft maintenance budget?  If so, that amount could be offset by operating expenses (flight time to and from the maintenance depot as well as chase planes to move pilots back and forth), expenses for ground vehicle use, or reimbursement for use of personal vehicles.

[SoCalCAPOfficer]

My aircraft manager had some thoughts, but he is not a Captalk member so he asked that I post them for him.  Here goes:

"Under Consolidated Maintenance, how much are they paying for a 100 hour inspection/annual on a 182?  A 50 hour?  A prop change?   Are these numbers secret?

How many hours do the CM FBOs spend on one of these inspections?  If they get it done in less than 24 hours, they are not doing the whole job.   If that is the case, they will pay later for work NOT done right, which means more trips back to the remote FBO to get it fixed..

And remember, it takes six sorties just to deliver and retrieve one aircraft to a remote FBO. If that FBO is 100 miles away, that will cost over $375, just for the gas. 2 planes, six sorties.  This doesn't include the extra wear and tear on the plane.  And where do we get that other plane?  From 50 miles away???

You cannot do an annual on a 182 in less than about 20 hours, unless you work real fast and don't take any breaks. AND not run into anything unusual. At $70 / hour that's about $1400 minimum.   If you did the inspection locally, it will cost $1400, but if you do it 100 miles away, that will now cost $1775.  That is 27% more, NOT LESS.  And most FBOs in an area charge about the same per hour.  Even if they discount this by 10%, it still will cost 17% more than the base of $1400 and you are still wasting $375.

I'd like to see where they are saving a million bucks a year already.  I'll bet there are not any published information that we can see on this subject. That will be filed along with the NASCAR P & L. This probably came from the same people that said CAP was making money, while losing about $5,000,000 to $10,000,000 on the NASCAR fiasco.   No one was ever held accountable for that.

And as I see it, the C9 fuel bill for all wings will run well over $465,000 a year just moving planes around.  The idea that National or the Air Force is paying for it, is just plain assinine.  You and I are paying for it.   It is TAXPAYER MONEY, which does not have to be wasted.

In that same vein, right now we cannot get National to paint our aircraft, because they don't have the money.  Ask them!!  Naturally,---- they are wasting it on C9 gas at over $64.00 per hour for a 182.

And I'll bet that the majority of the people touting this are Wing Weenies, who don't have to waste their time doing this.  It is a pain in the gusutinflecher for the Aircraft Managers. And I'll bet that most of the people in favor of this, don't know beans about maintaining an aircraft. They probably have never owned one and had to maintain it.

Ya Ya I know, it's free flying for whoever delivers these planes, but as a Taxpayer, I strongly object to CAP blowing this money, that would be much better spent on Becker DF units for some of our older planes. (and paint jobs)  OR paying for Form 5s and Form 91s.

What these people are forgetting is that these aircraft are provided for SAR and CD missions.  Also Cadet O-Rides.  When we waste more money just moving planes around for maintenance than we are spending on missions, I am sure Congress would like to know about this.  They might just cut off the funding for this.

A final thought.  If we want to standardize the cost of doing such things as 50 hour, 100 Hr/Annuals, and prop changes etc, why not just develop a standard price list for things like 50 hour, 100 Hour and annual inspections and prop changes, engine changes and whatever and present it to our local FBOs.  If they agree to it, they keep our business,. If not, we go somewhere else.

I think most local FBOs would sign in a minute to keep our business. We are the cash cow for many of them.  That way we can save money and keep our local FBOs happy too.  I know ours will sign, if we come up with reasonable prices.  That way we can save all this C9 money.

Howard  Aircraft Manager"

[Frenchie]

The figures came from the latest "appropriated budget" expenditure update for the year to date (31 May).  It was presented to the BOG by the CAP/EX on 11 June.
Figure was actually, $1.715 million.  But, why quibble over $15k  

How was the deduction made that however much in question was saved as a direct result of the CMX program?

Is there any evidence to support that assertion, other than there might be more money in a pot somewhere?

If so, where did those savings come from?

[Frenchie]

How many hours do the CM FBOs spend on one of these inspections?  If they get it done in less than 24 hours, they are not doing the whole job.   If that is the case, they will pay later for work NOT done right, which means more trips back to the remote FBO to get it fixed..

So far under the CMX program our 100hr inspections are averaging longer than our squadron takes to put 100hrs on the plane.  We had one that took over 6 weeks.  Another that took over 5 weeks.  I can't remember a single one that took less than 4 weeks.

On my 182 my annuals take about 2 weeks and my A&P only works part time.

[Al Sayre]

The problem is that if you aren't under consolidated maintenance, you can get hosed and not even know it.  I know of one example where an FBO replaced a Stall warning tab on a 182.  Part $600, Labor around $350 found out later part is really only $120 and 4 Hours labor max ~ $300.  Another example, had a 172 needed a tire, one place wanted ~ $250 + labor  another wanted  $175 installed... 

Many Squadron Maintenance Officers are well meaning, but simply don't have the expertise to know when they are getting hosed by the "friendly" FBO.  Under consolidated maintenance, HQ get's called for anything over $200, and the contract says they have the right to provide the parts if they can get them cheaper.  You can get a hell of a deal on tires, light bulbs, oil etc., if you buy them 500 at a time, and Cessna treats you right when you come for parts with a fleet of 500 or so of their aircraft.  YMMV

[FW]

Guys, the figures are not secret. Savings are real and from the CMX program.  And, I don't feel like going back into my files to put it together and get it into size that can fit here.   However, I will attempt to summarize.

The figures don't account for the 25 aircraft (to date) we had to scrap because of inadequate maintenance.  Figures do account for the aircraft we had to have major repairs done to make them airworthy after A&P's pencil whipped a few aircraft annuals and 100hr inspections.

Basic Fact.  CMX program not only saves money,  it standardizes aircraft maintenance.
The program has been tried and tested for about 3 years now and has been an unqualified success.  
Another Fact.  This has been the first year ever our independent auditors have given the aircraft fleet "no significant deficiencies or findings" in O&M practices.

CMX costs for 100 hr inspections and annuals are a standard flat rate which you can obtain from the FBO's contract (it varies from region to region because of COL factors).  All additional costs are reviewed by the Fleet Management Directorate at NHQ.  Payment is made based on Cessna's standard warranty/ maint. manual; which specifies time to inspect/repair item or system.  Spot inspections are made to insure compliance at FBO.  Remember, there are 550 aircraft which need regular maint. and all must be kept to the same standard.

If you don't like the maint. shop maintaining your aircraft, have the wing find another willing to work with us.  If you have a time in shop problem, it may because the last shop didn't do a good job.   From what I've been told, there were many aircraft coming into the system with major "deferred maintenance" items needing immediate attention.  Statistics did show less of a savings the first year in the program.  2nd  and 3rd year savings were tremendous.  

Like it or not, the Board of Governors has approved and mandated the program.  Live with it and stop whining.  If you don't like the extra flying time get someone else to fly the aircraft or have the aircraft reassigned to a unit willing to have it.

BTW, the "NASCAR Fiasco" came out of the members pockets not taxpayers.  It was a net loss of about $3.5 million of our money.  We won't be going down that track again.

[FW]

One additional tidbit:

Even if you consider the 3151.6 hrs. of A9 flying were not used in the original figure,
the savings from CMX are still about $1.4 million.

So, let's reCAP;  more AFAM flying, less cost, higher maintenance standards, funding of routine vehicle maintenance, purchasing more radios for the field...... hmmmm.

Yep I think we'll stay with the program.

[Frenchie]

There's a few problems with the program you left out.  First of all, who is to say you don't have CMX FBOs pencil whipping 100hr inspections also?  An occasional "inspection"?  But now instead of one aircraft getting a drive-by annual, you might have 10.  What is the evidence that the CMX maintenance is "better" and how is that evaluation made?

Next, what about the locations that were getting excellent service right on the airport?  Our local A&P did a great job.  He had been maintaining two CAP aircraft, doing it quite well, and charging a fair price.  Under the CMX program, a CMX FBO must have $1 million in insurance, which excluded him. 

So in our situation we were told we had to go somewhere else.  So now it takes us more time, more trouble, cost more money.  Furthermore it p**ssed off our local A&P, so now if the plane breaks down on the field, he won't even take a look at it since he's not maintaining it anymore.  So now when one of the two CAP planes here breaks down, it's down until we can get someone to come here and take a look at it.

We have an A&P right in our squadron and we were doing our own oil changes, changing out light bulbs, etc.  No more under CMX.  Every 50 hours we have to fly both planes across town to have their oil changed.  And when a landing light goes out, it's out until the next time the plane goes in.  All because NHQ says the A&P across town who is just out of school is "better" than the 20+ year A&P we have that works for AA.

So maybe CAP is now saving money on parts.  Why did they have to go to the CMX concept simply to buy parts in bulk?  They could have just as easily told each FBO that maintains CAP aircraft to call CAP when they need a part.  Furthermore, just about all the other practices you mentioned could have been done on an individual basis with each A&P.

If CAP was getting ripped off by some A&Ps out there, why did CAP not investigate those instances and look for other options?  In other words, how much of those excess expenses were really the fault of CAP not auditing the previous maintenance program?

As far as 100hr inspections taking 4 weeks or more, that's the situation with all of the aircraft that are going to this particular FBO.  So are you trying to allege that ALL those aircraft were poorly maintained before and now they are just "catching up"?  There's no excuse for consistent 4 week+ annuals.  Even if the plane needs parts or is behind in ADs, parts should take no more than a day or two to arrive and a few hours to install.  All of the ADs would have been taken care of after the first trip.  Yet it still takes 4 weeks+ to get a plane through this FBO.  They simply have more work than they can handle, and they aren't going to take on additional people, just for a few more CAP aircraft.  As far as they are concerned, they get paid the same regardless of how long it takes, and since they have the job by contract, why should they work on a CAP plane first when they can work on Joe Bob's plane who WILL go somewhere else if they take 4 weeks+ to do the annual on his plane.

So as far as my location goes, maintenance costs more, the additional volunteer time to support the program is FAR more, the down time spent doing maintenance is FAR more, and you're saying I have no right to complain and I should "stop whining"?  Sorry, it's my tax dollars involved.  I think I have a right, if not an obligation, to complain.  Certainly there were some problems with the old maintenance program, but I don't see how throwing the baby out with the bathwater is such a great idea.

[FW]

Frenchie, I'm not buying it.  First, there is nothing preventing your squadron member who is an A&P from providing maint. on the aircraft.  The A&P however, must meet national's guidelines.  Second, to say the contracted FBOs are "pencil whipping" the 100hr and annual inspections is absurd.  There are too many people providing oversight and no incentive for the practice under CMX, (It is considered Fraud and a federal crime).  Third, if your FBO was doing such a great job, why didn't they bid on the contract? Why didn't they increase their insurance coverage?  And, I've never heard of an FBO refusing emergency repairs of an aircraft.  That's bad for business, IMHO.  Fourth, it is not feasible to "audit" hundreds of FBO's doing maint. on our fleet.  The cost would be staggering.  Fifth, time in shop varies.  I am an aircraft owner and my annuals take 2-4 weeks.  My IFR certification takes about 10 Days.  I go to reputable shops who happen to be busy but, they are also good.  Sixth, If service is unacceptable, complain to NHQ.  If it is appropriate, they will assist the wing in finding another FBO.

Seventh, learn to live with the changes. If not give the aircraft to a unit who will, or start flying at a club or buy your own. I do all three and find CAP's way to be just fine.  

[RiverAux]

Although I've rarely seen evidence of CAP doing in-depth analysis of any of its programs, this seems like one where it seems it would be fairly easy to tell if we are saving any money over the medium term.  It would be a little harder to track any changes in the quality of the work being done and whether or not that has any impact on flying safety.  I'm a little skeptical, but that is just based on general skepticism of bright ideas from any headquarters, not anything specific to this program.

[Frenchie]

Frenchie, I'm not buying it.  First, there is nothing preventing your squadron member who is an A&P from providing maint. on the aircraft.  The A&P however, must meet national's guidelines.

Which is a million $ insurance policy.  Do you know anyone who is willing to go out and buy a million $ insurance policy just so they can do oil changes on the CAP plane, for free?   We're talking about maintenance any aircraft owner can do themselves WITHOUT an A&P certificate.

Second, to say the contracted FBOs are "pencil whipping" the 100hr and annual inspections is absurd.  There are too many people providing oversight and no incentive for the practice under CMX, (It is considered Fraud and a federal crime).  

Just as it is for any other A&P that does a drive-by annual, and there's always an incentive for laziness.  Remember, hard work has a future payoff, laziness pays off now.  How is "oversight" going to catch someone pencil whipping an annual?  Are they there watching them do every single one?

Third, if your FBO was doing such a great job, why didn't they bid on the contract? Why didn't they increase their insurance coverage?

How many shops do you know that would be willing to buy that kind of insurance policy just to maintain 2 aircraft?  It was an absurd requirement to begin with that severely limited who could bid on the maintenance.

And, I've never heard of an FBO refusing emergency repairs of an aircraft.  That's bad for business, IMHO.  Fourth, it is not feasible to "audit" hundreds of FBO's doing maint. on our fleet.  The cost would be staggering.

The guy that did our maintenance previously isn't hurting for work.  He did a lot for us in the past because he recognized CAP was a volunteer organization.  Then CAP told him he wasn't good enough for them.

Such an audit would and should only involve aircraft that were very expensive to maintain.  It's something CAP should have been doing all along anyway.  What do wing and/or group maintenance officers have to do that's more worthwhile? 

Fifth, time in shop varies.  I am an aircraft owner and my annuals take 2-4 weeks.  My IFR certification takes about 10 Days.  I go to reputable shops who happen to be busy but, they are also good.  Sixth, If service is unacceptable, complain to NHQ.  If it is appropriate, they will assist the wing in finding another FBO.

We're talking about fixed gear, single engined Cessnas, right?  Our squadron has been complaining through the wing, including providing info on how long our aircraft spends at the shop.  I have a 182 which is just as complex as most CAP aircraft and it takes 2-3 weeks by a part time A&P and that includes IFR certification.

Seventh, learn to live with the changes. If not give the aircraft to a unit who will, or start flying at a club or buy your own. I do all three and find CAP's way to be just fine.  

I have my own aircraft and go flying whenever I want.  That's not the point.  I'd rather take the attitude that things can be made better, cheaper, and more efficient, but none of this happens if NHQ has the attitude that their way is the only one that works and they are unwilling to be flexible.

[LaPierreHN]

Ok Ok. 

So it's a great system.    Couldn't possibly be anything wrong with it, if it came down from National.  Right?    Hmmmmmmm.

But no one seems to (or wants to) be able to tell us what is being measured. 

The only way we can measure one system to another, is if we measure apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

Again the questions:

What aircraft are being measured?   C182s or C206s or C172s

How much does a 100 hour inspection cost for a 25 year old C182 at the local FBO?
How much does a 100 hour inspection cost for a 25 year old C182 at the remote CMX?

How much does it cost on a new one that ain't broke yet?

How many hours is actually taken to DO a 100 hour inspection?  Anything less than about 20 hours, probably is not a complete 100 hour.

What is the labor rate to fix something that don't happen to be in the agreed upon rate schedule?  Something like re-skinning a cracked flap skin or fixing a cracked engine mount?   
How about replacing all of the cracked engine baffles?

What is actually being repaired or replaced?

How much does C9 avgas cost?   
How many miles to the CMX FBO?
Is there a second plane available to retrieve the ferrying pilot?   
How far does he have to fly to retrieve the pilot and take him back a few days later?

One factor that will be very hard to measure is the effect of the makeup of the CAP fleet. As I recall, we now have about 40 new C182s, maybe more.  The maintenance cost on a new aircraft should be a LOT less than on a 25 year old, as they haven't broken yet.  Is this part of the reason CMX is showing a reduction in maintenance cost?

But what will happens when they start to have problems.  The cost will probably skyrocket, as these new plane parts are priced out of sight.

If we had ALL new aircraft, we wouldn't have anywhere near the mundane repair cost we had before.  But is that a saving, when we spent more that $350,000 on each of these new aircraft?  The last Nav III we got cost $419,280.

So the overall cost of maintenance may appear to be down, but what is the real reason?

Less maintenance on 40 new aircraft? About 8% of the fleet.
Getting parts cheaper through National?  We can do that without CMX.  Remember the CAP Depot.  That worked real well for parts, like mags etc. but they shut that down.

I really don't believe any FBO can reduce their bill for a 100 hour enough to offset the C9 cost of fuel.   At least not in CA.

When I calculated the CMX cost for the plane I am responsible for, using the actual costs we incurred in the last year, it would cost us between 15%, 33% and 71% more to get the same work done at CMXs 50, 90 and 225 miles away from home base.  And this is with a 10% reduction in hourly rate. Most FBOs cannot give a discount much more than that.

Just the fuel alone to move these planes between our FBO and the CMX will cost between $191, $375 and $764 per inspection respectfully. 

If we use the CMX 225 miles away, it will take about 12 hours flying time to accomplish just one inspection.  Now we do that with a towbar.

And don't anyone tell me that it doesn't cost anything for C9 flights, as the Air Force is paying for it.  Who pays the Air Force ----  you and me Bub  That's called taxpayer money. 

The Air Force pays for A1, A2 and A3 missions, as those are a benefit to all of us, the general population.   But C9 is strictly a waste of money, with no benefit to anyone except the pilot flying for free.    I guess that is porkbarrel. 

This whole thing does not make any sense to me at all.   It looks like some real funny accounting somewhere.

HNL Aircraft Manager

[FW]

I'm done arguing the point, gentlemen.  I will say however, that I see all the "numbers".  I have observed the staff at NHQ doing their jobs and, I'm satisfied with what they have accomplished in the few years the system has been working.  CAP-USAF is satisfied, the BOG is satisfied, the NEC is satisfied and the NB is satisfied.    Everyone in the decision making process has been given the figures and has decided on the path which we are taking.  

The metrics of the system have been studied.  Aircraft under warranty, not under warranty, by year, by hour,  Glass Cockpit, Steam Dial Cockpit,  you name it they compared it.  If you're so inclined, I would reccommend you call NHQ and ask for the the figures.  At least wait until you have all the data before you start shooting off your keyboard.

The labor rates are negotiated, the time to inspect/repair is in "the book" and no one is surprised with outcome.  What's more, wings no longer worry about having enough money to fix their aircraft.  It gets fixed no matter what.

If you have a legitimate problem with the system, I suggest you be constructive and bring it "up the chain".  The problem will be taken care of.  NHQ staff is there to protect, not only the aircraft but, the member as well.  

Bottom line; CMX is here to stay.  Complain all you want.  Have fun flying those A9 missions (not C9) and let your Finance Officers get a brake not worrying about tail number accounting anymore (when the system is fully running).  

[LaPierreHN]

You are correct.  A9  And who at National has these numbers?

A simple question then.  With all of these "savings" in the bank, how come National says they don't have any money to paint our 1980 orange pumpkin?

[FW]

I have a copy of the report somewhere on my computer.  However, If you call Gary Schnieder at NHQ, he might be able to help you. 
Best thing to do is come to Orlando for the NB meeting for the best information on the CMX program.

So, what's the "Orange Pumpkin"?

[Frenchie]

I'm done arguing the point, gentlemen.  I will say however, that I see all the "numbers".  I have observed the staff at NHQ doing their jobs and, I'm satisfied with what they have accomplished in the few years the system has been working.  CAP-USAF is satisfied, the BOG is satisfied, the NEC is satisfied and the NB is satisfied.    Everyone in the decision making process has been given the figures and has decided on the path which we are taking.

Let's go outside the numbers and metrics for a moment.  Think about your own plane.  Do you think you're getting a bad deal or that your plane is poorly maintained?  If not, then how could that have possibly happened without CMX?

I have seen poorly maintained CAP planes and basically most of them got that way because the squadron custodian didn't care.  If you go take a look at my squadron's plane, you'll find a clean, squawk free aircraft.  It was that way before CMX.  The reason is because we have always taken care of it as well as our own planes.  So what does NHQ say to all those squadrons who were doing a great job of maintaining their aircraft?  They tell  us we're not doing a good enough job and we're now going to do it our way, oh and by the way, you're going to be spending even more of your free time making this work, and no that doesn't get plugged into the metric.

I've worked with the government long enough to know that all great ideas don't always end up as intended.  Those that work on contract tend to do a great job at first, but once entrenched they start cutting corners and the end result suffers.  Then you find yourself in a situation where you can't do anything else, because going another direction requires more money, and before congress gives more money, they generally want answers as to why.  So now you find yourself in a situation where you have someone thousands of miles away providing oversight, instead of someone just a few miles away and you can't go back to the way it was.

[LaPierreHN]

FW

Your IFR certification static transponder test takes 10 days ??   No, they are storing your plane for 9 days.   I owned my last 182 for 26 years and it never took more that 2 – 3 hours to get it done.   You are going to the wrong FBO.

Heck it only takes about an hour to do that test?  They could totally replace all the tubing in one day.   I have done it.

When we need a static test for our Corp plane, we call an FBO about 10 miles away and he brings his test equipment to our airport and he does 2 or 3 planes in that one visit. Ours plus a couple of other non CAP planes that need it.   He only charges us $175 for that test.   That makes his trip worthwhile.

If we had to send our plane to one of the possible CA CMXs, about 100 miles from here, it would cost CAP probably  $200 for the test, plus $375 for the A9 sorties, if they couldn't do it while we waited.  And big shops probably could not do that.

Why 100 miles away.  That is just across town, the LA Basin that is.  This is NOT RI

This sort of test could be combined with every other annual, but where is the incentive to save money, if National will always pay for it.  And if we had transponder/encoder problems, it would have to be done out of cycle anyway.

Again, so much for saving money the CAP way.

[Eclipse]

The detractors are trying to use pocket arguments against CMX, and they don't "fly" (sorry).

Like everything on the macro-level, there will be places where a program doesn't 100% fit every single situation like a glove, but as a whole is good for the organization.  Sure there are places where the FBO's rock, the PIC's cleaned the a/c's with a toothbrush, and watched every nickel, but there are plenty of places where that is not the case...REALLY not the case.

With 500+ planes in 50 states and thousands of opinions over who does the best oil changes, you can't make everyone happy.

If your 100-hours are taking 4 weeks to turn around, then you need to address that locally with either the choice of CMX facility or the number of pilots your state has available.

This program provides better oversight, more consistent performance, and more opportunities for CAP pilots to fly on USAF's nickel.  You can argue the first two if you are so inclined, but all we ever hear from pilots is that its too expensive to fly.  Its part of professionalizing the organization and leveraging some non-trivial economies of scale, instead of treating each plane like its own little flying club.

There's no reason those extra transport sorties can't be used to train other aircrew without deviating from the flight plans or maintenance rules one bit.

Get full crews and have them do flight planning, take photos enroute, drop a beacon somewhere along the way, practice radio use and a/g coordination, etc.  Heck,have members stand along the flight path and practice using a signal mirror.

Flying over a unit in the evening and practicing some non-radio communication enroute would be HUGE to cadets who never even get to SEE a CAP airplane.

Make these trips opportunities instead of complaining.

[Flying Pig]

 I have no control over CAP maintenance.  But what I do know is that I am going to start racking up some serious x-country time!

[SoCalCAPOfficer]

So, what's the "Orange Pumpkin"?

The "Orange Pumpkin" is our squadrons beloved 182.  Great flying plane, except it is painted Orange and White.

[FW]

FW

Your IFR certification static transponder test takes 10 days ??   No, they are storing your plane for 9 days.   I owned my last 182 for 26 years and it never took more that 2 – 3 hours to get it done.   You are going to the wrong FBO.

No, it only takes a couple of hours for me too.  Just takes 9 days for it to get scheduled.
BTW, I don't think pitot static and transponder certs are part of the CMX contract. 

So, what's the "Orange Pumpkin"?

The "Orange Pumpkin" is our squadrons beloved 182.  Great flying plane, except it is painted Orange and White.

Ah, yes. the famous Cessna O&W.   The early 80s made for some great colors.  Keep trying for the new paint and interior unless NHQ is ready to trade it in for new one.

[Eclipse]

So, what's the "Orange Pumpkin"?

The "Orange Pumpkin" is our squadrons beloved 182.  Great flying plane, except it is painted Orange and White.

Like this?



Its probably a safety issue! 

[SoCalCAPOfficer]

So, what's the "Orange Pumpkin"?

The "Orange Pumpkin" is our squadrons beloved 182.  Great flying plane, except it is painted Orange and White.

Like this?


Its probably a safety issue! 

Close, but ours doesnt have that nice a color of orange.  Ours is more pumpkin colored.

[SAR-EMT1]

Im a non-pilot so correct me if Im wrong, but I thought that a tag-along with the CMX program was to get all of our planes in red white and blue "fleet" colors with the decals by the end of the CMX phase-in date.

[WT]

One question: Does the quoted $ 1 MILLION IN SAVINGS include the sorites flown and chase aircraft to reach the preferred facility??

[FW]

^Short ans.: Yes.