Thesis proposing CAP take over CG Aux aviation duties

[Paul_AK]

Fascinating read. I'm all for measures that encourage consolidation without cutting necessary or useful items, especially in this time of economic uncertainty. Plus, any exchange of reponsibilities would call for a period of familiarization which means organizations working closer together. I know in many wings the need for inter-agency coordination is a must due to optempo, the nature of RCC and DHS taskings, or simple geography.   

[ProdigalJim]

An extremely well-argued case. I would like to take the ROI methodology he used to calculate CGAux's mission-by-mission ROI and apply it to Civil Air Patrol missions to see where they stack up. I love stuff like this... 

That said, the one thing I kinda didn't like was the suggestion that we would let CGAux aviators bring their member-owned assets into our program. As it stands, the 60-series clamps down pretty hard on that, and despite the wistful recollections of many of my fellow CAPTalkers, I think that on the whole that's a good thing. Part of the reason the Aux Aviation program is where it is stems from that SAMA spending and the non-standard equipment suite and mission tasking.

Although it was fun riding in Capt. H.'s airplane for O-rides back in the day (1979), I feel better flying today as aircrew in aircraft that are standardized, on a supervised maintenance schedule, and managed.

[SARDOC]

I can agree with it, though I'd like to know if it's feasible for us to take over any kind of open water missions they might have, given our restrictions on such things.

If you look at the requirements here: http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/Extended_Overwater_Reqs_26DFF2369D181.pdf it's not really too much of a stretch, they're just wanting to have their bases covered in case something happens to the aircraft and it is outside of gliding distance to land. For coastal squadrons that would have regular need for these resources, getting people trained and proficient for extended over-water ops isn't that hard.

I've flown an extended over-water mission under Homeland Security training and it wasn't that bad. All we had to do was stick the raft in the back and factor its weight and have the lollipop life vests on. Bear in mind this was during spring/summer in SC but still...

It's definitely doable and would free up the Coast Guard to devote more resources to sea rescue itself as opposed to having to allocate aerial spotters. Because let's face it, unless you're in a helicopter that's all you're gonna be able to do is spot the target for the boat crew in the water going after 'em.

The Coast Guard Auxiliary has some missions that require Multi Engine Aircraft and rated pilots.  So we would need those people to come over to augment our personnel as well as allow Private Owned Aircraft more flexibility because I don't know of any Multi Engine Aircraft in the CAP Fleet at the moment.

[JeffDG]

That said, the one thing I kinda didn't like was the suggestion that we would let CGAux aviators bring their member-owned assets into our program. As it stands, the 60-series clamps down pretty hard on that,

How so?

Member owned aircraft, provided they have a standard airworthiness certificate (no experimental), only need an annual inspection and Wing Commander approval per the "60-series".

[Bayareaflyer 44]

It is pretty restrictive to use member-owned aircraft now.  I used to use my plane for o-rides all the time, but with the scramble to keep the flying hours up on the corporate fleet we inevitably must use the corporate asset.  Plus, getting the approval to use the member-owned just isn't worth the work.  Not to say it cannot be done - just plenty of hoops to jump through.

Per the CAPR 60-1:
CAP corporate aircraft are the resource of choice for AFAMs. Member owned/furnished aircraft, with the exception of gliders and balloons, should only be used on AFAMs when CAP corporate aircraft are not available or when mission requirements dictate the usage of non-corporate aircraft.

That statement above would most likely get reworked if something like the CGAux missions moved over, and we needed to use member-owned multi-engine aircraft.  Although I would love to see the day where we can bring some corporate multi-engine aircraft on board!   

[JeffDG]

It is pretty restrictive to use member-owned aircraft now.  I used to use my plane for o-rides all the time, but with the scramble to keep the flying hours up on the corporate fleet we inevitably must use the corporate asset.  Plus, getting the approval to use the member-owned just isn't worth the work.  Not to say it cannot be done - just plenty of hoops to jump through.

Per the CAPR 60-1:
CAP corporate aircraft are the resource of choice for AFAMs. Member owned/furnished aircraft, with the exception of gliders and balloons, should only be used on AFAMs when CAP corporate aircraft are not available or when mission requirements dictate the usage of non-corporate aircraft.

That statement above would most likely get reworked if something like the CGAux missions moved over, and we needed to use member-owned multi-engine aircraft.  Although I would love to see the day where we can bring some corporate multi-engine aircraft on board!   

OK,

If the mission requires a twin, and there are no corporate owned twins, but definition, there are no corporate aircraft available.  There's no need to rework the statement at all for that type of mission.

[RiverAux]

I tried to use the CG Aux online activity and resource system to determine how many twin engine aircraft are in the fleet and that doesn't appear to be available (only options I could find were helicopter and fixed and retractable gear airplanes).  I suppose that this information is probably available through other venues.  However, I suspect that multi-engine CG Aux planes are only a small part of the fleet (which is only a few hundred aircraft anyway). 

[NIN]

I dont get it? LOL

Let me see if I can dig up the pics again.  They're on one of a myriad of hard disks.

[RRLE]

I tried to use the CG Aux online activity and resource system to determine how many twin engine aircraft are in the fleet and that doesn't appear to be available ... However, I suspect that multi-engine CG Aux planes are only a small part of the fleet (which is only a few hundred aircraft anyway).

The numbers are:
Total aircraft: 200

Amphibs: 2 - may or may not be mulits
AuxAir: 1 probable miscoding
Fixed Gear: 111 - from what little I know about aircraft I would suspect these are all or mostly singles
Helo: 5
Retractable Gear: 81. During my brief stint as an Air Observer and then Air Crew Auxie; every retractable gear aircraft I saw in AuxAir was a multi - but 81 is about the upper limit

The current AuxAir program is a shadow of its former self. The current nationwide total is less aircraft than the 7th District (Florida, VI, PR, part of GA etc) used to have when I was in. The decline happened when a multi had an engine fire with an Admiral on board. The fire was put out but the Admiral got his revenge and toughened up the overhaul requirements. Almost all the older Aux aircraft left the program since the new rules doubled their overhaul costs. An aircraft would reach its Aux overhaul requirement in about half the time it would take to reach its civilian requirement - so even new aircraft tend to leave the program rather than go thru that expensive overhaul. There is also a concommitment turn over in pilots with the turnover in aircraft.

So unless the CAP requirements were less stringent than the Aux requirements I don't see a great rush of Aux pilots and aircraft joining CAP. One of the benefits of AuxAir that the thesis seems to have left out is the reimbursed flying time. The reimbursement may not pay for everything but it certainly beats footing the whole bill yoursef. When the reimbursement is overshadowed by the huge overhaul costs the pilots and planes leave.

The Aux multis will be concentrated along the coast because of the over water requirement for twin engines. 19 of the 81 retractable gear aircraft are in the 7th district which regularly runs flights out to the Cay Sal Bank. 15 are in 5SR - the district to the north of D7 and 4 in 5NR (Delaware Bay area). 14 are in 1SR (NY, NJ) and 1 is in 1NR (New England). 19 are located in 8CR (coastal LA and the Gulf Area). 33 are located in the 9th district which covers the lower west coast (CA). The few remaining aircraft are scattered around.

[RiverAux]

Lets say that 50% (seems reasonable) of those possibly 81 multi-engine plane owners are so mad about AuxAir being disbanded that they really don't want to have anything to do with helping the CG out by starting all over again in a different organization.  That leaves us with maybe 40 multi-engine owners who apply for and are accepted into CAP.  I bet another 25% of those drop out within months after really learning what they'll have to do to become requalified to do the same stuff they've been doing for years. 

This leaves us possibly 30 multi-engine planes available for CAP support of the CG and I really think that I'm being generous with these numbers. 

If the numbers are anything like that it isn't going to be worth the effort to keep them in the fleet. 

Now, the numbers might be better for current Aux single-engine pilots but theres still going to be a drop-off and I would be surprised if 75 of them came over to CAP and stuck around for any period of time. 

Long-term I'd see multi-engine missions going away with these numbers.