Vehicles (vans)

[afgeo4]

Here's the situation:

My group is made up of roughly 250 members in 6 squadrons covering the entire New York City. With that many squadrons and members and an AOR of approx. 8 million people we have one (1) 10 pax 1993 Dodge Ram van with something like 80,000 miles on it. Now this van has been a hangar queen since day 1 and seen the shop a lot more times than the George Washington Bridge.

Here's my burden...

How can our group be held responsible for any ES operations? How can we be asked to conduct Cadet activities outside of the city (you know... those places where grass grows)? How does one fit 250 members into a 10 pax van? How does one drive that van when it requires over $2000 worth of repairs to get back on the road and Wing HQ says the Group has to pay for its repairs. Oh yeah, we were gonna send some cadets to encampment and buy DF equipment and maybe a radio that meets current standards, but now we have to fix the van just so the thing could break down again in a month.

Here's my question...

How do some of our superior officers live with that knowledge? How do they walk around and say they support their members and their nation when the one CAP unit responsible for DR and SAR in New York City, the #1 target city for terrorism, the place where 9/11 happened, the place where so much of Homeland Security funding should be going to has NO OPERATIONAL VEHICLES?

Reallly... could someone explain this to me because it sounds absurd that a group somewhere in Iowa that has 75 members probably owns 2 brand new vans and a pick-up while we have realistically NONE.

[DNall]

Who told you there were better vehicles around or that you needed a fleet capable of moving anything like all the ES personnel in your Gp, much less everyone.

My group covers about 20% of Texas with the Houston metro area at it's center, and we're at 1000 members in 16 Sqs. We got a few vans & a few planes, but I couldn't off hand tell you how many & wear. Our 12 pack just got traded out for a mini-van, and frankly you can have that one too as far as I'm concerned.

Corp vehicles are pieces of crap, and inappropriate for real ES work, not to mention expensive on gas. We got along fine with POVs when there were barely any vans around, and frankly I'd rather be in that situation than deal with the hassle.

It'd be nice if the govt up & decided to buy us a MASSIVE ground fleet of 4wds, but that just ain't gonna happen. You do the best you can with member owned vehicles, just like we always have.

[BillB]

Florida Wing has twenty vehicles, those are spread around the wing fairly effctively. Major maintenance is paid for by National through Wing. This should be the policy in New York, so contact the Wing Transportation Officer and find out where the problem is. New York Group should not have to pay the maintenance costs.
Dennis brings up the old system of member owned vehicles used on missions. Back then fuel costs were paid by USAF. Corporate vehicles were surplus from DRMO. It would be better to pay $20,000 getting a 4wd truck or whatever rebuilt to almost new condition, than a van that basically can only be used to transport cadets, or serve as a mobile control unit duuring missions.
But USAF funds the vehicle purchases, something the corporation would be unable to accomplish. So CAP is stuck with the vans which do serve multi-use purposes.

[Chaplaindon]

I, for one, would vote for eliminating the expensive G-1000 ("Glass cockpit") package from our new corporate aircraft (perhaps buying a fewer NEW Cessna's too -- in favor of zero-timed used ones, too) and the resultant savings be used to purchase GT/ES capable surface vehicles and ground SAR hardware and technology (e.g. L-Pers, GPS's, etc.).

The aviation "side of the house" appears to be needlessly receiving expensive "toys" and the vital ground "side" isn't even getting the basics. GT personnel are ostensibly expected to provide for themselves.

Now, I am a pilot myself (and GTM1, GTL and IC) and yes I know we are the Civil AIR Patrol, nevertheless our GT's are the only all-weather ES resource for SAR and until our flight crews learn to hover and perform hoist op's, our GTs are our only asset capable of the RESCUE element of SAR. They need the resources to accomplish that mission and to continue to improve in that mission accomplishment.

Suitable vehicles and state-of-the-art DF, navigation, and Comm equipment are needed to make that happen. Sadly, in my lengthy experience, GTs are expected to either do-without (and not complain) or scrounge what little hardware and technology they have whereas the aircrews have the latest-and -greatest provided.

I have suggested ump-teen times through-channels AND directly to the communications folks at NHQ, for example, that CAP purchase a large quantity of the Garmin Rhino FRS/GPS radios reprogrammed to the ISR/military frequencies in lieu of the Icom ISRs. These less-than-$500 units would be MORE than ideal for CAP GT SAR. But I hear back that it's a "good idea" but nothing happens ... $$$$ seems to be the main reason.

Let's SHARE some of the "toy" budget. Let's buy technology not because it's "cool" or "neat" but because we really NEED it. If there's surplus funds AFTER the basics are met across-the-boards, then, buy the "cool" stuff" (e.g. glass-cockpits).

I am NOT --in any way-- suggesting that our flight crews operate unsafe or inadequate aircraft. I am simply suggesting that the expensive Garmin G-1000 glass-cockpit is an expensive and superfluous "toy." It is may be somewhat HELPFUL to our crews, but it isn't ESSENTIAL.

As I recall, the US flew to the moon without a glass-cockpit. Likewise, CAP crews can and (based on the current budget, SHOULD) fly SAR perfectly well without them too. Not buying it could generate funds for Ground Operations and it's needed.

Sharing is caring ...

[mikeylikey]

Sorry to hear there are transportation problems in NYC area.  I would suggest asking your wing king for his new vehicle.  It is so stupid that the Wing Commanders get their own vehicle.  I have never met one that travels enough to need a corporate vehicle to themselves.  If they need to get somewhere use their own vehicle and get reimbursed!

[badger bob]

The current CAP vehicle order is in process and wings should start to receive extended body vans soon. 68 vans were ordered-most without the rear seat so they will be 12 passenger configuration with trailer towing capability.

New York should get 2 vans in this allocation.

Vehicle repairs are reimbursed (with prior approval required) by NHQ. The local squadron should take care of regular scheduled maintenance like oil changes. There is no excuse for operating a vehicle that needs repairs to be safely operated.

The current NHQ goal is to achieve a vehicle per 60 member average. If your wing has fewer vehicles they need to request sufficient numbers from NHQ. However, placing vehicles is a wing level decision. If your group has one per 250 I suggest you work thru the chain and put your request in.

[DNall]

I too tend to think the glass is a waste of money. I'd like to see some really improved capabilities (FLIR for instance & CRBNE detection), but I'm willing to lose planes to make that happen over time.

What we do on the ground, from making kids buy expensive gear to having to use our own vehicles & unitl recently own radios, is pretty bad. But so what! I'd sure like ot spend some money in that area. I'd buy lots of new DF gear for starters. The old stuff is scarce & hard to get fixed, so there's not enough of any kind to go around. Then I'd work hard with DRMO to get lots of field gear out to units, and quit buying vans so much as SUVs. If I were really committed to large capacity vehicles & hauling the world around with me, then I might consider suburbans or the like, but most of the purchases would be smaller 4pak plus gear & 4wd w/ decent gas milage.

[afgeo4]

Request for additional or replacement vehicles was placed and we were "unofficially" told that the two new vehicles coming to NYWG will be placed elsewhere because New York City has great access to public transportation. Sure... let's do DR and DF work on the subway!

Our estimates for repairs went up to Wing HQ and were returned as saying that a full tune-up and other repairs should be done at Group expense. Is that true? Can that be appealed at Region level?

[fyrfitrmedic]

Whe my home unit had a van a few years back, getting reimbursement was a nightmare at best. There were times when requests disappeared into the void and one instance where a bill was submitted for reimbursement for tires in order to pass inspection; the check received from wing was significantly less than the bill submitted [which matched the approved estimate, by the way], after which the real fun began...

Given all the headaches we had in terms of getting repairs done [and in at least one case, re-repairs to shoddy work done after a former unit commander got in an MVA], we weren't all that sad to have the vehicle transferred elsewhere.

[badger bob]

I believe the repairs done are a request submitted by your wing LGT and approved by the LGT at Maxwell- the region is not involved generally in any repair reimbursements.

Repairs that can be approved include items like broken windshields, tires, brakes, exhaust, HVAC work or any major repair. Inspections, tuneups, fluids, and regular maintenance according to the manufactures maintenance schedule are the local units responsibility. If you are getting  a $2,000 quote for a tuneup I will send a flat bed out to pickup your van and save you a couple hundred dollars in your tune-up costs.

Professional Body repair is covered- if the responsible party for accidental damage stood up and reported the damage per procedure.

[fyrfitrmedic]

I believe the repairs done are a request submitted by your wing LGT and approved by the LGT at Maxwell- the region is not involved generally in any repair reimbursements.

Repairs that can be approved include items like broken windshields, tires, brakes, exhaust, HVAC work or any major repair. Inspections, tuneups, fluids, and regular maintenance according to the manufactures maintenance schedule are the local units responsibility. If you are getting  a $2,000 quote for a tuneup I will send a flat bed out to pickup your van and save you a couple hundred dollars in your tune-up costs.

Professional Body repair is covered- if the responsible party for accidental damage stood up and reported the damage per procedure.

In this particular case, I'm not sure that the damage was properly reported by the driver; I remember the story behind the MVA changed several times in the retelling and the van 'disappeared' for a little while, ostensibly for repairs.

Then again, this was the same person who used the van for personal use on multiple occasions and 'lost' the unit's financial paperwork when he stepped down as unit commander, so go figure...

[mikeylikey]

Our estimates for repairs went up to Wing HQ and were returned as saying that a full tune-up and other repairs should be done at Group expense. Is that true? Can that be appealed at Region level?

ALL vehicles need to have repair work go through Wing.  HOWEVER, TUNEUPS are at local expense and are not covered by reimbursement from NHQ.  The Wing King or Wing Administrators (now) are the approving authority.  Jane Emery, the LGT tech at NHQ will politely send an email stating the same to your Group and Wing Commanders if they disagree!  NONSENSE, that these people won't do their jobs (Wing Staff).

[ZigZag911]

One of the squadrons in my (former) group does about 1/4 of the ELT missions in the wing, travel all over the place when needed.

They had a 'hangar queen' for years....were promised the next available new van....when it arrived, it went instead to a squadron favored by some of the Wg HQ types (not nearly as active a unit), and the hard chargers got another bucket of rust that's in the shop more than it's on the road.

All of which is simply proof that "no good deed goes unpunished"!

[Eclipse]

Three letters...

P-O-V

[MattPHS2002]

Mr. Williams,

Sir while yes most times it comes down to that, it is not the way that it should be. Those folks that agree to take on jobs, regardless of what level should do them.

[Eclipse]

Mr. Williams,

Sir while yes most times it comes down to that, it is not the way that it should be. Those folks that agree to take on jobs, regardless of what level should do them.

Assuming you're talking about the LGT's and others above in which it is implied that are either neglecting their duties or assigning vehicles based on favoritism, than I agree.

In terms of the actual vehicle, however, most times COV's are way more trouble than they are worth.

A 15-pack is a lifesaver at an encampment, and useless for real SAR.  Equally vice-versa are SUV's.

How much overland ES work is being done in the NYC area?  I can't imagine much more than any place else.

Our group encompasses 5 units, and most of NE IL. We have a pretty, new 15-pack hanger queen used for RCC, the occasional cadet outing and little else.  It is located centrally (in geographic terms), but is much too far for casual use.

I put in for one for my unit this year because you don't get anything without asking, but even my need is marginal - and that'd be for a unit on an airport with a CAP plane (so it could be a sortie / transport pair to the plane), who's CC runs an encampment, and has 18 cadets and a full SAR program.

Even with all that, it'll still sit idle most of the time.

It's much less hassle to file a 108 when its on an AFAM, and pitch-in for gas when we're AUX OFF.

As to repairs, my understanding is that Wing's are required by LG regs to front repair costs while awaiting reimbursement, so that's unacceptable and should be investigated.

Routine maintenance is the responsibility of the local unit / group.  You have to pay to play.

You also have to be willing to accept the idea that while you may be the POC of a vehicle, just like our radios and other equipment, you don't "own" it, and stand a good chance of turning your unit into a livery for other units, as you can't turn down a legit request by others to use the vehicle.

[MattPHS2002]

What I was getting at was more of we shouldn't always be required to use POV's for missions and the like. NHQ et. al gripes if we don't use the vans and yes they are one heck of a gas hog but its not fair when parents let Little Johnny join thinking "hey this is cool they provide transportation for some of the events" only to find out that the only way the Cadets are going to whatever the event is is if they (or another parent) takes them. Especially with gas prices on the rise, I'd rater use a COV.

Also please note I said some events (IME generally the ones that are out in the sticks.)

[Eclipse]

...but its not fair when parents let Little Johnny join thinking "hey this is cool they provide transportation for some of the events" only to find out that the only way the Cadets are going to whatever the event is is if they (or another parent) takes them. Especially with gas prices on the rise, I'd rater use a COV.

That's an expectation issue not an NHQ one, and I have a big problem with the way we recruit today:

Air shows, open houses and similar with borrowed HummVees', every airframe in the wing and anything even remotely mil-spec looking that can be begged or borrowed the night before.

We extoll the virtues of CAP, saying we have a fleet of land vehicles, hundreds of planes, do 125% of the overland SAR in the Alpha quadrant, and sit at the right hand of the DOD, then the prospective member shows up to a meeting and finds two people in golf shirts, 3 cadets arguing over a CAC cord and are told there is no flying program, vehicle, or ES within 100 miles.

And then we wonder why we have issues.

[Major_Chuck]

As a former Wing LG I'm going to fire back here on a couple of points that have been brought up.

1.  I was under the understanding that 9/11 also occured in Arlington VA (Pentagon) and Shanksville PA.   This idea that only NYC suffered a terrorist attack and is the only target in the United States is a bunch of bull ****.

2.  Many Wing LG's working with Group and Command Staff make the decision to preposition vehicles where they do the most good.  Sometimes it means concentrating vehicles in another part of the state to support the greater mission (which believe it or not extends beyone emergency services).

3.  Each year I submitted Vehicle Justifications for replacements and additions to the vehicle fleet.  Each year I requested input about what groups and squadrons were doing.  Each year I received very little input about what groups and squadrons actually did, not what they perceived they did.

4.  When I came on board as VAWG LG the Wing Commander, Colonel Tim Cramer, asked me what I thought should be done.  My recommendation was that Wing should absorb all the costs of vehicle maintenance and insurance.  Whatever we could get out of NHQ for reimbursement we would.  It also meant following manufacturers suggested maintenance programs or the one in CAPR 77-1. The only thing we required out of pocket for the custodian squadron was that they pay for the $10 yearly vehicle inspection.

5.  We also made sure that we used the same garages around the state, regardless of what vehicle happened to be assigned out there.   In doing so we established a business relationship with the shop and never had any issues with billing, payment, and service.

6.  Vehicle Buys.  Each year as Wing LG I submitted no fewer than 15 requests for vehicle purchases.  I averaged 2 vehicles a year from that list.  Two 4x4 Silverados came in purchased in support of the Glider Program (two gliders);  we replaced three old dogs of 12 pax late 80's vans with 15 passenger vans;  and were able to replace an old Blazer with a new one to support the Communications program in the state (we had to change out every repeater).

In addition, my vehicle requests had to go to Region LG for approval.  If they met approval there then they went to NHQ.  Region would get in "x" number of vehicles and then decide who received the vehicles.  Last year it might be Maryland, this year Virginia, next year Delaware.  

7.  Politics.  Oh yes it was there.  And it was stomped out.  Vehicle decisions were based upon missions, need, and active squadrons.  Each year we were tasked with supporting several NHQ Activities in Virginia and Middle East Region.  When they came up 80% of my vehicle fleet was pulled from me.  No question asked.

8.  Units that didn't maintain vehicles, lost vehicles.  All they had to do was ensure that the vehicle got to the mission or shop and receipts were sent in along with monthly reports.

9.  I investigated using a Fleet Maintenance Program for our vehicles early on.  Unfortunately  it did not pan out as the service we went with couldn't support us in the more remote areas.  We tried it for one year.

So, before you go slamming Wing LG's please remember that there is a lot more going on behind the scenes to ensure that you have the vehicle assets to get the mission done.  I suggest that you communicate more with your Wing Staff and Command Staff before automatically slamming them for 'not doing their job'.

Yes, kind of struck a raw nerve.  If I offended anyone I apologize but remember the Wing LG can only do so much, Wing King has final say (for the most part).

[afgeo4]

...but its not fair when parents let Little Johnny join thinking "hey this is cool they provide transportation for some of the events" only to find out that the only way the Cadets are going to whatever the event is is if they (or another parent) takes them. Especially with gas prices on the rise, I'd rater use a COV.

That's an expectation issue not an NHQ one, and I have a big problem with the way we recruit today:

Air shows, open houses and similar with borrowed HummVees', every airframe in the wing and anything even remotely mil-spec looking that can be begged or borrowed the night before.

We extoll the virtues of CAP, saying we have a fleet of land vehicles, hundreds of planes, do 125% of the overland SAR in the Alpha quadrant, and sit at the right hand of the DOD, then the prospective member shows up to a meeting and finds two people in golf shirts, 3 cadets arguing over a CAC cord and are told there is no flying program, vehicle, or ES within 100 miles.

And then we wonder why we have issues.

Ah... two sides of the same coin. You see, your take is that we have these issues because we tell people those are the things we have while we do not. My issue is that those are the things we are supposed to have because that is our mission and because there is funding provided for that and we do not.

See the REAL issue? How can a government agency (we are the U.S. Civil Air Patrol now) show up to a mission without uniforms, equipment, a vehicle or a working aircraft and be respected? It can't. Because it won't be able to do the job it's tasked to do.