Budget cuts?

[wingnut55]

do you remember the Wing maintenance cost issues.

The records for 2008 show that of those Wings using consolidated maintenance, the flying time for their 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

[Flying Pig]

88% for CD???  Ouch!?

[FW]

do you remember the Wing maintenance cost issues.

The records for 2008 show that of those Wings using consolidated maintenance, the flying time for their 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

Let's not go there, ok?  Just to get things right; the CMX program has saved CAP about $1.7 MILLION in 2008 after subtracting ferry flights.  Soooo, less money.....more flying.  IMHO, a pretty good deal.

[Eclipse]

Let's not go there, ok?  Just to get things right; the CMX program has saved CAP about $1.7 MILLION in 2008 after subtracting ferry flights.  Soooo, less money.....more flying.  IMHO, a pretty good deal.

Ditto - I don't see how more sky time for our pilots, plus better, more consistent pricing which has saved money can in any way be touted as "bad".  Plus, at the local FBO, you're just one in the pack, at the CMX shop, you get better attention because you're real money to that guy if the business goes elsewhere.

Its results like this that get people promoted in both the military and the private sector.

Those other 17 states need to get in line.

[SoCalCAPOfficer]

do you remember the Wing maintenance cost issues.

The records for 2008 show that of those Wings using consolidated maintenance, the flying time for their 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

Let's not go there, ok?  Just to get things right; the CMX program has saved CAP about $1.7 MILLION in 2008 after subtracting ferry flights.  Soooo, less money.....more flying.  IMHO, a pretty good deal.

FW with all due respect, you have stated this amount before, but never explained how this 1.7 Million was saved.   How can it be a good thing to fly more hours doing maintenance than to do the mission?

[SarDragon]

As explained to me last week, wings not under CMP pay for the A9 hours themselves. Under CMP, AF pays for the A9 hours. Also, actual maintenance costs are lower by using a "contracted" shop. Apparently, that all adds up to $1.7M less spent by CAP.

YMMV.

[FW]

^Good answer, Dave. 
Also, consider this: A9 flights only account for about 4% of all CAP flying.  This is a very small percentage of the total flying done in CAP each year (usually between 90 and 100 thousand hours). 
As I have said before, thanks to the CMX program, we can now pay for other things.... like minor vehicle maint.

Ok, less cost... more flying and, now.... NHQ can pay for our van's oil change.  hmmmm. 

[Auxpilot]

100 airplanes gone.

That's a rather bold statement, you got anything to back that up?

Yes I do, I pasted that statement directly from the Dec 2008 BOG meeting minutes. Can't get any better than that.

Go to Eservices, look at the left column, read em and weep.

[sparks]

The commentary with the numbers repeatedly states that previous years had deleted funds restored by congress. No certainty but we can hope some or all of it will be restored. Unfortunatelly that's not what is used for financial planning.

The Homeland Security connection may bear fruit someday but it will be years before that can be  rolled into the CAP finance and functional structure.

In the short term, it's summer, time to do "O" rides, practrice missions etc., except maybe in Alaska (still cold up there?)

[heliodoc]

Yep

IF and WHEN CAP gets rolled up in DHS, be expecting more strings to be attached.

It may not necessarily be FAA "stuff" nor CAP "stuff"

The pass down of funds WILL require AAR's, and various other DHS paperwork to tie in with CAP

BTDT and contiuing to do it with Grants management in wildland fire...

CAP IF and WHEN its gets DHS funding, will be expected to comply , maybe beyond THEIR  wildest accounting methods, will certainly have to meet accounting, accountability and Training standards in order to survive

It may or may not be CAP doing business as usual, there WILL be changes to manage and comply with.

Stand by folks, if you want to play in the big world of DHS and Homeland Security, there will be changes, and quite possibly changes bigger than we think as a volunteer organization

[Auxpilot]

Yep

IF and WHEN CAP gets rolled up in DHS, be expecting more strings to be attached.

It may not necessarily be FAA "stuff" nor CAP "stuff"

The pass down of funds WILL require AAR's, and various other DHS paperwork to tie in with CAP

BTDT and contiuing to do it with Grants management in wildland fire...

CAP IF and WHEN its gets DHS funding, will be expected to comply , maybe beyond THEIR  wildest accounting methods, will certainly have to meet accounting, accountability and Training standards in order to survive

It may or may not be CAP doing business as usual, there WILL be changes to manage and comply with.

Stand by folks, if you want to play in the big world of DHS and Homeland Security, there will be changes, and quite possibly changes bigger than we think as a volunteer organization

If I am not wrong the CG Aux is already under the DHS umbrella. Has anyone heard them sceaming about changes that they can't handle? I still see them flying with the speed bag on.

[FW]

Yep

CAP IF and WHEN its gets DHS funding, will be expected to comply , maybe beyond THEIR  wildest accounting methods, will certainly have to meet accounting, accountability and Training standards in order to survive

It may or may not be CAP doing business as usual, there WILL be changes to manage and comply with.

Stand by folks, if you want to play in the big world of DHS and Homeland Security, there will be changes, and quite possibly changes bigger than we think as a volunteer organization

I don't have a crystal ball however, be assured CAP/FM is quite up to the task of handling the accounting end of things.

IF and When DHS becomes a major customer (note: I said customer),  the possible requirements will not be much different from existing ones.  CAP will still function as it does now and, for the most part, will only get busier.  The question, IMO, is: are we up to the task?

[Gunner C]

Yep

IF and WHEN CAP gets rolled up in DHS, be expecting more strings to be attached.

It may not necessarily be FAA "stuff" nor CAP "stuff"

The pass down of funds WILL require AAR's, and various other DHS paperwork to tie in with CAP

BTDT and contiuing to do it with Grants management in wildland fire...

CAP IF and WHEN its gets DHS funding, will be expected to comply , maybe beyond THEIR  wildest accounting methods, will certainly have to meet accounting, accountability and Training standards in order to survive

It may or may not be CAP doing business as usual, there WILL be changes to manage and comply with.

Stand by folks, if you want to play in the big world of DHS and Homeland Security, there will be changes, and quite possibly changes bigger than we think as a volunteer organization

If I am not wrong the CG Aux is already under the DHS umbrella. Has anyone heard them sceaming about changes that they can't handle? I still see them flying with the speed bag on.

If the budget cuts come to pass, there would be all sorts of changes that would come with a change to DHS (BTW, I don't see this happening).  One thing might be communications:  when I was testing for my technician ticket, there was a Auxie there getting hers.  She said that she had to get her general ticket in order to operate radios on the watch.  I thought that CG would be under military/govt for comms like we are, but this hints that their comms fall under the FCC.  That would be HUGE.

[sparks]

The availability question looms large over all that CAP does. What is the participation ratio for practice and actual exercises under the current rules? I don't' have a percentage but it must be well South of 50%, probably closer to 25%. I bet most of us see the same resources show up at many missions and activities. That begs two questions be asked and answered, why is that the case and can anything be done to change it. Wing commanders and Operations officers have been asking both questions for a long time now. Does anyone have the "magic bullet that answers the questions?

I have heard some suggest that changing new member expectations would help and restricting membership based on availability and skill sets could make the ratio of members to participants higher.

DHS will certainly require more regulated and frequent training. I would hope it brings stability to the blizzard of forms we have (not just another layer) and simplify the training requirements CAP seems to change  at every board meeting.

If it turns out to be like the IRS "we're from the government and just here to help" joke we'll be sunk, just MHO.

[wingnut55]

You want to save a huge amount of money? 

Get rid of 100 airplanes from the fleet and go back to encouraging member owned aircraft usage.

Saving how much??  well a member owned airplane at a maintenance cost cost of $30 Pr/hr plus gas. You don't need a 450,000 300 hp airplane two with two guys in it to look for a defective Elt in downtown Kansas City.

in addition we do make those pilots spend $1,000 out of their own pocket to stay current. You need to address the pilot retention issue in cost saving.

I have seen lots of Pilots (some who don't own an aircraft) using SAR and SAREX missions to perform form 5s and 91s??? well we are lying to the Air Force and to congress and that will show up in any GAO report, because it did in 2000.

The GAO and the DOD report from 2000 were scathing review of CAPs fraud and abuse, we have done an excellent job with trying to become accountable yet we all know that the spirit of those changes are not being followed at many levels.

I remember reading a report from the 1960's of dozens of CAP pilots flying for days and days and the cost to the USAF/US. Govt was $4,000 saving the Air Force $60,000

I know we save the USAF money now, but we have squadrons with 3 mission pilots and a 182.

[Auxpilot]

You want to save a huge amount of money? 

Get rid of 100 airplanes from the fleet and go back to encouraging member owned aircraft usage.

Saving how much??  well a member owned airplane at a maintenance cost cost of $30 Pr/hr plus gas. You don't need a 450,000 300 hp airplane two with two guys in it to look for a defective Elt in downtown Kansas City.

in addition we do make those pilots spend $1,000 out of their own pocket to stay current. You need to address the pilot retention issue in cost saving.

I have seen lots of Pilots (some who don't own an aircraft) using SAR and SAREX missions to perform form 5s and 91s??? well we are lying to the Air Force and to congress and that will show up in any GAO report, because it did in 2000.

The GAO and the DOD report from 2000 were scathing review of CAPs fraud and abuse, we have done an excellent job with trying to become accountable yet we all know that the spirit of those changes are not being followed at many levels.

I remember reading a report from the 1960's of dozens of CAP pilots flying for days and days and the cost to the USAF/US. Govt was $4,000 saving the Air Force $60,000

I know we save the USAF money now, but we have squadrons with 3 mission pilots and a 182.

Noting like a bunch of rag-tag member owned airplanes with no DF units, different equipment in every one, and no gauarantee of availibility to say to the world "we are professional."

Sorry, that don't fly.

[NC Hokie]

You want to save a huge amount of money? 

Get rid of 100 airplanes from the fleet and go back to encouraging member owned aircraft usage.

Noting like a bunch of rag-tag member owned airplanes with no DF units, different equipment in every one, and no gauarantee of availibility to say to the world "we are professional."

Sorry, that don't fly.

Fine, don't use member owned planes for public-facing missions.  That still leaves o-flights and transport missions for any plane that can pass a CAP inspection.

[Eclipse]

You want to save a huge amount of money? 

Get rid of 100 airplanes from the fleet and go back to encouraging member owned aircraft usage.

Saving how much??  well a member owned airplane at a maintenance cost cost of $30 Pr/hr plus gas. You don't need a 450,000 300 hp airplane two with two guys in it to look for a defective ELT in downtown Kansas City.

$30 an hour?  In who's 1955 Cessna brochure?  You think these MOA's are just sitting there for free waiting to be flown?  Just because Uncle Sam doesn't get the bill doesn't mean they are "free" - so now you're suggesting that our already put upon volunteers should pop the expense for the increased maintenance and upkeep as well?

How long will that last?  We've got pilots today that complain its too expensive to fly for "free" as it is, and when gas was going crazy last year, we had pilots selling their planes left and right because they couldn't afford to fly and couldn't afford to let them sit unused.

So we drop 100 aircraft which are strategic assets with a known location and status for 100 MOA's that "might" show up if they "feel like it" with no ramifications if they decide to go elsewhere that day?

Great plan.

And what about all the non-owner pilots who are flying those corporate aircraft who now have no access to an airplane because we dumped 100 of them for MOA's.  That's 1-2 a wing depending on distribution of the reduction.

Further, you think the average anal retentive pilot/owner is going to let anyone else fly his plane?  No way - and when he pops his duty day, he goes home or to bed and now we've got no airplane at all.

in addition we do make those pilots spend $1,000 out of their own pocket to stay current. You need to address the pilot retention issue in cost saving.

Cite please.  After the initial, Form 5's and 91's are funded in most states as long as you stay current - if you're insinuating our pilots maintain their PPL's strictly for CAP, you are sadly misinformed.  Flying is expensive, maintenance of a PPL can be expensive, but I have shown on this board that if you actively fly for CAP and use CAP's planes for proficiency hours, you can save hundreds of dollars a year.

I know we save the USAF money now, but we have squadrons with 3 mission pilots and a 182.

How many pilots are at a given squadron is irrelevant unless you believe that just because a unit has a plane assigned that unit's members are the only ones who can fly it.  They are a shared resource, open to the whole wing.  In theory, you'd want the planes where the most pilots are, but if there is an issue with a benevolent hanger situation, etc., you put it there.

[PHall]

100 airplanes gone.

That's a rather bold statement, you got anything to back that up?

Yes I do, I pasted that statement directly from the Dec 2008 BOG meeting minutes. Can't get any better than that.

Go to Eservices, look at the left column, read em and weep.

Yeah, I read them, before I made my post.

The statement was pretty vague as in "may call for".

There was nothing concrete about it.

But to look at your post, it was a done deal.

And that's why I asked.

[LittleIronPilot]

If I recall correctly(I usually don't), this sort of draconian cut is a usual deal in the CAP budget.  However, Congress gets into the act and restores much of what is being cut.  CD is certainly one of those aspects of the program which normally gets a lot of money restored.

In CA, we typically fly about 2200 hours of CD per year, which amounts to about 33% of the total flying hours for CAP in CA.  That isn't peanuts and I can't imagine our major customers sitting idly by and watching this go away.  Of course, I am prejudiced.

As I have mentioned previously, CAWG has more screened CD people than some states have total membership.  You might say that we are an active CD state.

The question is...should it be reinstated?  Unless we want a LOT more taxes we need to cut things, across the board, pain felt by all.

I could argue that CAP is *worthy* of funding, but than again thousands could argue that THEIR pet project is worth funding, and wham we are back where we started.

Just saying...many, if not most, complain of high taxes and needing budget cuts, and then get in a tizzy when they actually come down the pike.