O-Flights and other organizations...

[jimmydeanno]

This may sound like a weird question and possibly selfish, but this pertains to our cadet orientation flight program.

Why do we, as an organization, keep signing up to provide orientation flights for other organizations when we can't get our own cadets in the air?

The last statistics I saw pertaining to the number of cadets who have been on one or those who have recieved the ones they're "entitled" to were dismal at best.  I don't have the specific numbers handy, but they weren't very good.

With this in mind, we have suggestions of partnering up and providing O-Flights to JROTC, ACA, etc.

I could understand us doing this if we had an abundance of O-Flight pilots who didn't have anyone to fly, but it seems like we're having trouble instituting our own goals, nevermind someone elses.

What gives?

[Eclipse]

You're falling into the trap of assuming your local perception is national reality.

You may have an issue locally getting cadets their rides, many states do not.

In my parts a lot of cadets have maxed out their o-rides and are "stuck" as 99's.  While a lot of cadets talk the talk about wanting to fly, the reality is that few are much interested in sight-seeing tours once they've completed their 5 powered rides.

My state is not consistent with ride coverage. As is common, the cadets nearest the airplanes and pilots get plenty of opportunities, and a lot of the times its hard to get them to show up, while other areas have much less opportunity because their lack of pilots means you can't justify an airplane nearby.  However even when you offer to bring airplanes to them, its hard to get enough cadets to show to justify the ferry time.

Which means the airframes are sitting in the hangers too much.

Our cadets should get first consideration on o-rides, but as long as they are getting the opportunity to fly, I don't see any reason not to be seeking out more use for the aircraft, J/ROTC, ACA, EAA, whatever are recruting opportunities and good for the GA community.

[arajca]

It also helps with our external AE mission.

[jimmydeanno]

You're falling into the trap of assuming your local perception is national reality.

I think that you too are falling into that trap.  Now that I have a figure for you, NHQ reports (as of 5 minutes ago) that  ~25% of cadets who are currently listed in E-Services have an O-Flight recorded in E-Services.  That means of the ~25,000 cadets on our books, only ~6250 have ever flown in the CAP O-Flight program.

If that is the case, I would presume that there are probably only a few dozen who have completed all 10 flights.

So I guess the question is...

Is the expansion of our orientation flight program into outside organizations a cause of our poor o-flight statistics, or would the statistics be the same either way? 

[Eclipse]

I'm fully aware of how uneven the program is, I indicated exactly that in my response above.

The potential expansion of the o-ride program is not connected in any way to whether our cadets are riding.
Its simply looking for new "markets" for our pilots and airframes, as well as cooperative and recruiting opportunities.

I seriously doubt anyone, anywhere, could point to a number of o-rides canceled or not scheduled for our cadets because of
activities provided to outside organizations that is statistically significant.

I'm sure someone will grumble about some local CC with incorrect priorities, but that's no more significant than my assertion that we're having success.

Its simply not connected, and as far as I'm concerned, if the aircraft are sitting, and can be utilized, more power to them.

[RiverAux]

I agree that so long as it doesn't interfere with our internal program, providing o-rides for other organizations is a winner for CAP for a lot of different reasons. 

As I recall, one of the limitations on o-rides is getting the funding to give all the o-rides we can.  Since the rides for other agencies are coming from different funding sources, it shouldn't have a negative impact on us. 

[ManicScan]

I have given over 200 cadet orientation rides in the past 15 years and what has me most frustrated seems to be a new directive from my Wing along the lines of:

"Please look to fly your new cadets, including those who joined earlier this year and did not get a ride. Cadets that joined last year and got an oflights or joined prior can only be flown as back seat ride at this point."

It doesn't seem to me that this is in alignment with the intent of P52-7 or with the intent of providing cadets with exposure to an orientation syllabus spread out over time.

Is anyone else seeing this kind of verbiage come out of their Wing?

[KyCAP]

Where can we get a copy of the report that was ran 5 minutes ago.   That's interesting data to me and I would like to see what it looks like for our wing.

[jimmydeanno]

Data was provided by a quick call to the CP Shop at NHQ.  They're awesome there.

[CAPLAW]