Consolidated Maintnenance

[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"?