Vehicles (vans)

[afgeo4]

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).

First of all, nowhere in my post did it mention that 9/11 happened ONLY in New York city or that it affected ONLY New York City, but... if you believe that there is a greater target for terrorism in the US than New York City then you're really confused about life. First of all, it is the most densely populated city in the United States. Second, it is the capital of the financial world. Third, it is the capital of the US economy. Fourth, it is the largest city in the US (population). Fifth, it has been historically the target of carried out and attempted terrorist attacks more than any other location in this nation, so... please... don't preach this "we're all in it together" b/s. I was at the WTC on 9/11 and as a resident of the 5 boroughs, my chances of dying from a terrorist attack are MUCH, MUCH greater than anyone elses. As such, New York City units do have a great need for disaster relief and homeland security resources. If you have an argument against that, please take it up to the DHS and see what their reaction will be.

Now... as far as point #2 goes... Prepositioning vehicles for efficient emergency response makes great sense... in emergencies. Prepositioning vehicles away from units that NEED them to operate properly just so that they can be in the right place at time of emergency makes no sense. In truth, what is meant by "preposition" in CAP is totally not what is meant by it in the military world. In the military, all units receive the resources they require to carry our their mission. The surplus equipment is then prepositioned in varous located to be easily accessed as needed. For example, no one prepositioned tanks that belonged to 10th Mtn Div in Turkey before OIF started, you know, just in case. When you go to war, you take your equipment with you and when you come home, you either take it back with you or you get new equipment when you get there. In CAP, we give our vans to... well... to people we personally like more. The people who we think have done a better job with paperwork or the ones we think have more potential in the future. We recognize their volunteerism and try to make their experience in CAP better by assigning them the "proper" resources. We ABANDON those units that need the most help and concentrate on those that have a tough time. The military refits their weak units and makes sure that those units get the leadership and the equipment to perform to standard. See the difference? You said things extend beyond emergency services? I agree. Our cadets just won the Wing drill team competition and we don't have a vehicle to take them to the region competition in. We, a group of 6 units with 250 members, cadet and officer, don't have a vehicle.

POVs? Great... until you figure that most residents of NYC don't own vehicles.

[Stonewall]

Preface...  I haven't read the entire thread, just throwing in my $.02 for what its worth.

As a former cadet who didn't know of such things like "corporate vehicles" I showed up to National Capital Wing where every squadron had a van and Wing HQ, which was less than 45 minutes from any one squadron, had a handful of vans, to include an "ES Van" available for use.

I was in shock to see squadron vans in such a disarray, unkept, damanged, lacking fuel and maintenance.  I quickly changed that.  Perhaps if they didn't have one, they'd realize how lucky they were.  Things got better over time.

As a [former] squadron commander who was fortunate enough to get a brand spanking new 2003 van in 2003, I will say that it can be a logistical and financial nightmare.

One of the toughest things was to find a place to keep it.  The American Legion where we met were great, but didn't want the van sitting out in the parking lot.  My home owners' association didn't allow for "commercial vehicles" to remain overnight in my 'hood.  And no one else was really willing to keep it.  End result; we kept it at our sister squadron on a military base, which was not conducive to call outs for missions.  We got it figured out, but it wasn't easy.

Now I'm back at my old Florida squadron where we have a plane but no van.  I've got an Explorer and I think that's fine for a small Ground Team and transporting a few cadets here and there.  But it would be nice to have a van readily available to transport more than 3 cadets at a time.  In DC, we used our van a lot, definitely got our money's worth 

[Major_Chuck]

First of all, nowhere in my post did it mention that 9/11 happened ONLY in New York city or that it affected ONLY New York City, but... if you believe that there is a greater target for terrorism in the US than New York City then you're really confused about life. First of all, it is the most densely populated city in the United States. Second, it is the capital of the financial world. Third, it is the capital of the US economy. Fourth, it is the largest city in the US (population). Fifth, it has been historically the target of carried out and attempted terrorist attacks more than any other location in this nation, so... please... don't preach this "we're all in it together" b/s. I was at the WTC on 9/11 and as a resident of the 5 boroughs, my chances of dying from a terrorist attack are MUCH, MUCH greater than anyone elses. As such, New York City units do have a great need for disaster relief and homeland security resources. If you have an argument against that, please take it up to the DHS and see what their reaction will be.


Let me quote your words:

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?

Sorry if I happen to disagree with your assessment about how great and important a target NYC may be.   I can list numerous soft targets around the United States that are at probably a greater risk then NYC.  NYC gots its share of the HLS funds, now it is time to spread it around.  How would the great citizens of NYC feel if their food supply was targeted in the midwest?  What if your upstate water supply was targeted?  What if they hit a a nuclear power plant?  What about the flooding downriver of the Hoover Dam should it be targeted?  What if they decided to take out the seat of our nations government in Washington D.C.? 

Implying that the whole world will now come to an end if the great City of New York was struck again is a false assumption.  The global economy survived the strike on 9/11.  Yes it was disrupted for a brief time but other markets continued to thrive. 

so... please... don't preach this "we're all in it together" b/s. I was at the WTC on 9/11 and as a resident of the 5 boroughs, my chances of dying from a terrorist attack are MUCH, MUCH greater than anyone elses. As such, New York City units do have a great need for disaster relief and homeland security resources. If you have an argument against that, please take it up to the DHS and see what their reaction will be.

Congrats, you were at the WTC on 9/11.  If DHS truly felt that NYC was a greater target than anyone else in the country why then did they reduce your funding? 

if you believe that there is a greater target for terrorism in the US than New York City then you're really confused about life.

80% of my job involves disaster preparedness planning and training.  I get the state and Federal briefings.  I am well aware of threats you probably arn't aware from homegrown terrorist whack jobs to foreign nutjobs.  NYC is only a small target when compared to wiping out the nations food supply (agri-terrorism);  taking down the power grid (I am sure you recall the blackouts that effected most of the north east several years ago;  or even the pet food contaminiation. 

What would happen to air travel if LAX or O'hare where taken out? 


You need to take in the bigger picture. 

[CadetProgramGuy]

Here's the situation:

..............Cut out alot..........

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.

For notation Iowa does not have a group.  Se only have 7 squadrons for the entire state, with membership around 400, 250 of which are active.

And yes we have at least 2 new vans if not 3 or 4...........

[Stonewall]

Sorry, I actually had the wrong idea of this thread.  My bad for not reading, just trying to help out.

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.

We are not a "government agency".  We are only tasked to do anything because we, CAP, say we are capable.  You don't just go out there waving a flag that says "we're here to do SAR/DR/CD/HS/ES so you better give us what we need to do it".

Key word is 'volunteer' here.  We're a pretty good group of people because we are willing to show up with our own gear, not ask for a paycheck, use our personal leave, and in some cases, most cases in fact, drive our own vehicles.

Not sure if this should be a "where I was on 9/11" thread.  But if you want, I'll throw my $.02 when appropriate.

[ColonelJack]

POVs? Great... until you figure that most residents of NYC don't own vehicles.

Then what are all those cars clogging the city's streets?   

Jack

[ColonelJack]

What would happen to air travel if LAX or O'hare where taken out? 

Or Hartsfield-Jackson in Atlanta ... the world's busiest airport (depending, I suppose, on the day of the week)?

Jack

[RiverAux]

CAP vans are entirely appropriate for the vast majority of ES missions that we are currently doing as well as all non-ES related uses.  They are only marginal in use in certain backcountry missions off non-gravel roads, which for most of us are fairly rare. 

Are they necessary for CAP operations?  No, not really.  Everything could be done in POVs just like the Boy Scouts do.  It wouldn't always be as effective and communications would be an issue (it would either depend on member-owned radios or installing corporate radios in POVs, which has occassionally been a problem), but it can be done. 

 

[afgeo4]

POVs? Great... until you figure that most residents of NYC don't own vehicles.

Then what are all those cars clogging the city's streets?   

Jack

I believe that question should be posed to NJ Wing. 

[Stonewall]

In 1998 we got a brand spanking new 15  pax van.  Excellent, right?  Yep, it was perfect for transporting people, but not equipment.  In 2003 we got a brand spanking new 12 pax van.  Excellent, right?  Yep, more so than the 15 pax because there was enough space between the last seat and back doors to carry almost all the gear of a full size ground team.  The 15 pax didn't have a removable back seat.

So, if you ever have a choice in vans, those are a couple of things to take into consideration.  Do you want to give up 3 seats for gear space or give up gear space for 3 seats?

Another suggestion.  Some people haven't driven anything bigger than a Yugo their entire life.  Then they join CAP and are given the keys to a big van with the lives of 12 cadets.  I highly suggest putting together a familiarization course for driving your van.  Actually spend a day driving with a new driver and test them.  Make them drive it on the interstate, on hills, and through busy parking lots.  Driving 12 screaming cadets to an encampment 3 hours away is not a good way to break someone in.

Same goes for a trailer.  Some people have never pulled a trailer before.  Trust me, you will want to train your people in driving these vehicles with equipment.

[fyrfitrmedic]

Another suggestion.  Some people haven't driven anything bigger than a Yugo their entire life.  Then they join CAP and are given the keys to a big van with the lives of 12 cadets.  I highly suggest putting together a familiarization course for driving your van.  Actually spend a day driving with a new driver and test them.  Make them drive it on the interstate, on hills, and through busy parking lots.  Driving 12 screaming cadets to an encampment 3 hours away is not a good way to break someone in.

Same goes for a trailer.  Some people have never pulled a trailer before.  Trust me, you will want to train your people in driving these vehicles with equipment.

[nodding in agreement]

A good start for a driving-safety/driver-familiarization class would be the Smith System or the equivalent, IMHO.

[jimmydeanno]

Another suggestion.  Some people haven't driven anything bigger than a Yugo their entire life.  Then they join CAP and are given the keys to a big van with the lives of 12 cadets.  I highly suggest putting together a familiarization course for driving your van.  Actually spend a day driving with a new driver and test them.  Make them drive it on the interstate, on hills, and through busy parking lots.  Driving 12 screaming cadets to an encampment 3 hours away is not a good way to break someone in.

Same goes for a trailer.  Some people have never pulled a trailer before.  Trust me, you will want to train your people in driving these vehicles with equipment.

Many wings do require a 'driving evaluation' be performed before the Sq CC endorsed their 'application' for a CAP DL.  It varies greatly depending on location.  VAWG, no requirement for a 'signed evaluation' on driving, just send the application and DMV record.  Get license for every type of CAP vehicle.

NHWG, must have driving eval signed, DMV record, and you only get a DL for the vehicle you 'tested' in.  So if you get tested in the 4X4, you can't drive a 15 pack, or if you tested in a 12 pack, you can't drive the 4X4, 7 Pack, or 15 pack.

I do think that they should have a standard practice.

[MattPHS2002]

Slightly OT but related.

In regards to CAP licenses I realize that they are really only a piece of paper and are worthless without your state DL but my question is:

If I have a modified vehicle (left foot accelerator and a spinner knob) would I be able to get a CAP DL or would they deny it based on the fact that AFAIK none of our vehicles are kitted in such a way that I could legally drive them.

I doubt I'd get one in any case because of an accident on my record but its a question I've been mulling for a while

[SJFedor]

That's probably a variable question that needs to be asked to the Wing Licensing Officer, Wing Transportation Officer, and/or Wing Logistics Officer. And more then likely, they'll defer to the Wing commander. But as far as I can remember, there's nothing in any regulation specifically prohibiting it.

[MattPHS2002]

Thank you. Back to your regularly scheduled thread.

[Al Sayre]

You could "legally" drive them unless the requirements for special equipment are on your drivers license.  Whether or not it would be possible or practical is a separate question.

[c172drv]

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 ...

The notion that the G1000 is an excessive cost is a weak one.  There are a great deal of benefits to going to that system.  You eliminate most of the moving parts in the avionics system.  All of the equipment is driven by line replaceable black boxes that allow for a quick swap and shorter time in the shop and reduced cost.  That allows for more reliability as well.  The change over to the new C182's should allow for a better fleet management program.  I'm keeping my fingers crossed that they will manage it as a fleet similar to the airlines.  The used aircraft market runs into many maintenance management issues since the aircraft of different ages have had multiple types of upgrades or modifications that make AD Management a nightmare.  As an example we have a C172 that has had 2 different wings put on it and is now receiving major repairs to that wing.  Now we have to track two seperate sets of wing AD's since the wing have different tanks in them and would likely be affected by separate AD's or SB's.  If we begin to get a more rationalized fleet we will save money. 

The system is also  much more capable since it can display traffic, weather and terrain to help with pilots situational awareness.  A pilot with good training can program the entire flight into the GPS and then couple it to the autopilot.  That will allow the pilot to manage the aircraft more effectively, fly a more tightly aligned search pattern yielding better results.  All of this increases safety and effectiveness.

Again the major issue with the ground fleet is the lack of rationalization of the equipment. The vans are a necessary evil. One disturbing thing I've read is that we turned down the offer to have the fleet come from GSA and have their logistical support.  That seems like a offer we should have taken.  Even without that it would be much better to have established a long term contract with one of the major manufacturers to provide equipment and vehicle support.  We could say select GMC to provide us with vans and pickups to support our operations.  The one thing that has improved, at least in VAWG is that they bought 15 pax vans with 12 seats.  Now we can carry a full load of people and their equipment.

I say all of this as a professional pilot.  One that has actually never qualified as a MP in CAP but as a GTL, GTM, UDF and Train the Trainer for the new ES program.  I've been on all sides of this in CAP and in my professional life working operatins, maintenance and flight crew positions.  We need to help our wings focus their efforts on rational decisions to utilize what we have in the most effective manor and manage the cost.

[MattPHS2002]

You could "legally" drive them unless the requirements for special equipment are on your drivers license.  Whether or not it would be possible or practical is a separate question.

Yes the restrictions are on my license as required by law, but as I said I have an accident on my record that would most likely put the kibosh on me getting the CAP license anyway.

[Ford73Diesel]

A little off topic, but.....

CAP can eliminate two birds with one stone (van vs. 4x4) by buying some of these http://www.quigley4x4.com/pages/index.cfm?fuseAction=page&upID=117

[fyrfitrmedic]

A little off topic, but.....

CAP can eliminate two birds with one stone (van vs. 4x4) by buying some of these http://www.quigley4x4.com/pages/index.cfm?fuseAction=page&upID=117

I work with someone who has one of those conversions as one of his family vehicles and speaks quite highly of it.

The weight-and-balance issues that exist with conventional 4x2 vans are actually slightly greater as a result of the higher ground clearance found on the 4x4 vans. As is the case with any vehicle, training, experience and adherence to sound practices can provide some mitigation.