This is a follow on from the post about pilot hours.
Since the satellites no longer listen on 121.5, flying hours have decreased. How many hours are the planes in your Wing flying?
Here are the numbers for California (July 2010 to June 2011):
Total Hours Wing Wide: 5,062
Aircraft Median: 185
334 N968CP
264 N887CP
262 N718CP
247 N206JK
236 N97099
232 N451CP
228 N743CP
216 N5524H
209 N9815H
204 N809CP
198 N7304N
197 N4603N
190 N948CP
186 N441SP
183 N265HP
169 N9420R
160 N4810N
153 N50MB
150 N285CP
149 N9554G
141 N9353E
133 N4646H
130 N9538E
108 N9450E
104 N8280E
102 N6183E
101 N313CP
77 N7598Z
(Aircraft excluded)
0 N4877N
0 N96658
Just as a little bit of info for the last plane, N7598Z is currently the C-206 that is back east getting the glass cockpit refurbishment, so it hasn't exactly been in a position to be getting a lot of flying time. However, I'm proud to see that my squadron's airplane (N968CP) is as high on the list as it is!
Mark
There may also be some (possibly) misleading figures as well
for example, there are some airplanes that go to TWO cadet flight academies
That's probably 40 hours at each academy,
plus ferry to there and back (twice)
And that's 100 hours so you get a whole mx rotation out of it too...
So if you subtract the 100 hours of flight academy off the plane,
its total hours flown in a year (like by your unit's pilots) might be lower than you thought
What is the % difference from before the satellite shut-off?
Quote from: simon on July 26, 2011, 06:09:46 AM
This is a follow on from the post about pilot hours.
Since the satellites no longer listen on 121.5, flying hours have decreased. How many hours are the planes in your Wing flying?
Here are the numbers for California (July 2010 to June 2011):
Total Hours Wing Wide: 5,062
Aircraft Median: 185
334 N968CP
264 N887CP
262 N718CP
247 N206JK
236 N97099
232 N451CP
228 N743CP
216 N5524H
209 N9815H
204 N809CP
198 N7304N
197 N4603N
190 N948CP
186 N441SP
183 N265HP
169 N9420R
160 N4810N
153 N50MB
150 N285CP
149 N9554G
141 N9353E
133 N4646H
130 N9538E
108 N9450E
104 N8280E
102 N6183E
101 N313CP
77 N7598Z
(Aircraft excluded)
0 N4877N
0 N96658
That's some crappy aircraft utilization. Only ten out of 28 aircraft got the required 200 hrs and yet one got more than 150% of the required hours. Don't you rotate your aircraft around?
Quote from: simon on July 26, 2011, 06:09:46 AMHow many hours are the planes in your Wing flying?
At least 200 per, with an active rotation program.
The last it was discussed in my presence, the minimum to be unconcerned about losing a respective plane was 200 hour per
frame, not on average.
I understood that to be a national thing. Is that just my region?
Quote from: davidsinn on July 26, 2011, 02:51:35 PM
Quote from: simon on July 26, 2011, 06:09:46 AM
This is a follow on from the post about pilot hours.
Since the satellites no longer listen on 121.5, flying hours have decreased. How many hours are the planes in your Wing flying?
Here are the numbers for California (July 2010 to June 2011):
Total Hours Wing Wide: 5,062
Aircraft Median: 185
334 N968CP
264 N887CP
262 N718CP
247 N206JK
236 N97099
232 N451CP
228 N743CP
216 N5524H
209 N9815H
204 N809CP
198 N7304N
197 N4603N
190 N948CP
186 N441SP
183 N265HP
169 N9420R
160 N4810N
153 N50MB
150 N285CP
149 N9554G
141 N9353E
133 N4646H
130 N9538E
108 N9450E
104 N8280E
102 N6183E
101 N313CP
77 N7598Z
(Aircraft excluded)
0 N4877N
0 N96658
That's some crappy aircraft utilization. Only ten out of 28 aircraft got the required 200 hrs and yet one got more than 150% of the required hours. Don't you rotate your aircraft around?
No they don't. If the unit an aircraft is assigned to can get the required 200 hours a year and doesn't abuse it enough to get it taken away from them, then most aircraft tend to stay there for years.
Quote from: PHall on July 26, 2011, 03:17:19 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on July 26, 2011, 02:51:35 PM
Quote from: simon on July 26, 2011, 06:09:46 AM
This is a follow on from the post about pilot hours.
Since the satellites no longer listen on 121.5, flying hours have decreased. How many hours are the planes in your Wing flying?
Here are the numbers for California (July 2010 to June 2011):
Total Hours Wing Wide: 5,062
Aircraft Median: 185
334 N968CP
264 N887CP
262 N718CP
247 N206JK
236 N97099
232 N451CP
228 N743CP
216 N5524H
209 N9815H
204 N809CP
198 N7304N
197 N4603N
190 N948CP
186 N441SP
183 N265HP
169 N9420R
160 N4810N
153 N50MB
150 N285CP
149 N9554G
141 N9353E
133 N4646H
130 N9538E
108 N9450E
104 N8280E
102 N6183E
101 N313CP
77 N7598Z
(Aircraft excluded)
0 N4877N
0 N96658
That's some crappy aircraft utilization. Only ten out of 28 aircraft got the required 200 hrs and yet one got more than 150% of the required hours. Don't you rotate your aircraft around?
No they don't. If the unit an aircraft is assigned to can get the required 200 hours a year and doesn't abuse it enough to get it taken away from them, then most aircraft tend to stay there for years.
The requirement is 200/yr/airframe. How is it they still have 28 airplanes? We fly the wings off ours here and only have eight. Last year we had the second highest CD hours right after CAWG with only 30% of the aircraft.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 26, 2011, 02:55:04 PM
Quote from: simon on July 26, 2011, 06:09:46 AMHow many hours are the planes in your Wing flying?
At least 200 per, with an active rotation program.
The last it was discussed in my presence, the minimum to be unconcerned about losing a respective plane was 200 hour per frame, not on average.
I understood that to be a national thing. Is that just my region?
The requirement is 200 hrs/airframe average per region. Aircraft are allocated based on a formula which is highly complex and determined by a group of members we keep locked up; only to be released once a year to figure out which region gets which aircraft. The region commander gets to decide how many aircraft in the allocation go to each wing. Wing commanders are responsible to get the maximum use of each aircraft assigned. After another year, the process begins anew. ::)
The Wing aircraft assignment formula now includes Area in Sq Miles, so states with a very large area will have a proportionally larger number of aircraft assigned. Although this isn't the only factor it is necessarily weighted fairly heavily. If you want to spend some time with the search button, I know the actual formula was posted here within the last 24 months...
Edit: Here is the thread: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=9768.20
QuoteWhat is the % difference from before the satellite shut-off?
Excellent question. I don't know. I will see if I can find out.
BTW, the aircraft tail numbers ending in "CP" are 182 G1000's. 1/3rd of CA's fleet of 28 active aircraft are G1000. I was going to say that the G1000's seem to be on top of the flying heap, but you will see, not always. Also, I did note there are a couple of facts behind the planes that belie the statistics. For example, N313CP did not fly after November because it was moved to Washington. So if it were flown the whole year it would be 240 hours, not 101. But there are only 3-4 examples like this.
Quote from: simon on July 26, 2011, 04:44:04 PM
QuoteWhat is the % difference from before the satellite shut-off?
Excellent question. I don't know. I will see if I can find out.
BTW, the aircraft tail numbers ending in "CP" are 182 G1000's. 1/3rd of CA's fleet of 28 active aircraft are G1000. I was going to say that the G1000's seem to be on top of the flying heap, but you will see, not always. Also, I did note there are a couple of facts behind the planes that belie the statistics. For example, N313CP did not fly after November because it was moved to Washington. So if it were flown the whole year it would be 240 hours, not 101. But there are only 3-4 examples like this.
Not every plane that ends in CP is a G-1000. CP has been the last two digits on all CAP planes for at least the last 5 years.
Last year at NSC the reported flying hours difference between the satellite shut-off and current use was an increase in hours flown because of alternative missions like damage assessment, CD, HLS, etc.
QuoteThe Wing aircraft assignment formula now includes Area in Sq Miles, so states with a very large area will have a proportionally larger number of aircraft assigned. Although this isn't the only factor it is necessarily weighted fairly heavily.
Interesting. The Redding plane covers about 30,000 square miles of Northern California, most of it remote and mountainous. The LA basin is about 4000 square miles with 8 aircraft. Must be a rule of thumb formula.
Quote from: simon on July 26, 2011, 05:33:53 PM
QuoteThe Wing aircraft assignment formula now includes Area in Sq Miles, so states with a very large area will have a proportionally larger number of aircraft assigned. Although this isn't the only factor it is necessarily weighted fairly heavily.
Interesting. The Redding plane covers about 30,000 square miles of Northern California, most of it remote and mountainous. The LA basin is about 4000 square miles with 8 aircraft. Must be a rule of thumb formula.
The formula, as I understand it, assigns aircraft to regions. Below that level, it's up to the guys with birds on their shoulders to decide where to allocate them.
QuoteNot every plane that ends in CP is a G-1000. CP has been the last two digits on all CAP planes for at least the last 5 years.
Granted, but in a quick of scan tail numbers, it is probably a good indication. All 182's have been G1000's for the last 7 years. The last 6 for 172's. I'd venture to say those two models make up 95% of the fleet.
Unless of course CAP special ordered round dial 172's/182's after the G1000 came out. Did we?
Quote from: simon on July 26, 2011, 05:47:05 PM
QuoteNot every plane that ends in CP is a G-1000. CP has been the last two digits on all CAP planes for at least the last 5 years.
Granted, but in a quick of scan tail numbers, it is probably a good indication. All 182's have been G1000's for the last 7 years. The last 6 for 172's. I'd venture to say those two models make up 95% of the fleet.
Unless of course CAP special ordered round dial 172's/182's after the G1000 came out. Did we?
Not sure, but I know we (TN) have at least 2 "CP" aircraft that are not G1000, one 172 and one 182 (it's even a "T" model, but round dial). We also have an aircraft that is a 182T/G1000 and not "CP".
Fair enough. I stand corrected.
QuoteThe Wing aircraft assignment formula now includes Area in Sq Miles, so states with a very large area will have a proportionally larger number of aircraft assigned. Although this isn't the only factor it is necessarily weighted fairly heavily. If you want to spend some time with the search button, I know the actual formula was posted here within the last 24 months...
Edit: Here is the thread: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=9768.20
Very interesting thread with some good points posted (Amongst the flaming).
One in particular that I thought was enlightening:
"I know that it is common practice in my Wing to rotate planes in and out of the units that do the most flying from those that do the least so as to put as many hours on each airframe as possible. If it weren't for this little shell game that is played in every Wing, I think we would have a much better idea of where there is a strong need for an aircraft (or even multiple aircraft) vs where we just can't support one."If Wings really do this, then the number of hours flown out of each squadron would be a better indication of the necessity for an aircraft than the number of hours put on an airframe.
Now that the G1000's are around, who has noticed that squadron members are VERY protective about "their" aircraft being rotated out?...
Quote from: simon on July 26, 2011, 06:22:35 PM"I know that it is common practice in my Wing to rotate planes in and out of the units that do the most flying from those that do the least so as to put as many hours on each airframe as possible. If it weren't for this little shell game that is played in every Wing, I think we would have a much better idea of where there is a strong need for an aircraft (or even multiple aircraft) vs where we just can't support one."
If Wings really do this, then the number of hours flown out of each squadron would be a better indication of the necessity for an aircraft than the number of hours put on an airframe.
It's not a shell game at all; but an appropriate use of resources. Don't worry, the Wing DO knows which units are flying and which aren't.
Quote from: simon on July 26, 2011, 06:22:35 PMNow that the G1000's are around, who has noticed that squadron members are VERY protective about "their" aircraft being rotated out?...
What's to be protective about? Sorry, it's a corporate asset.
Yea, but some squadrons/groups lose pilots because they have no aircraft nearby. It's a catch 22. You can't fly a plane that isn't there. Our squadron is not big on flying because there is no aircraft within 1 hour drive. We've lost at least 3 pilots in the last year. I don't even try to recruit them anymore.
Quote from: EMT-83 on July 26, 2011, 06:57:24 PM
What's to be protective about? Sorry, it's a corporate asset.
Well one of many reasons is that suppose your squadron takes pristine care of your logs, maintenance, and keeps the airplane clean, full of gas, mission ready, and in good working order.
You rotate it around and it comes back to you trashed, dirty, full of bugs, (unreported and unresolved) mechanical problems, and with the documentation in disarray, and a half tank of gas.
That's a fine arrangement if you're the one just taking it for a few weeks on rotation, and giving it back (not my problem)
It's not so fine if you are the one pouring time, sweat, and energy into doing a really great job and having someone else trash it, and leaving it for you to fix / deal with. That's the thing they're being protective of (the time, energy, and actual genuine care). I guess that they should adopt the same attitude as everyone else "it's just a corporate asset" and trash it too... yah that doesn't make sense either...
Quote from: ThrashWe've lost at least 3 pilots in the last year. I don't even try to recruit them anymore.
I"m actually advising a potential squadron to *avoid* recruiting pilots, for a forming cadet squadron.
The primary reason is that the area has a /history/ of complaining about never having an airplane assigned, or rotated, and pilots quitting (causing the squadrons there to flounder)
QuoteIt's not so fine if you are the one pouring time, sweat, and energy into doing a really great job and having someone else trash it, and leaving it for you to fix / deal with. That's the thing they're being protective of (the time, energy, and actual genuine care).
That's a reasonable point. We are fortunate that two aircraft close to our squadron, a G1000 and 1980's 182, both tend to be quite well looked after.
I will add that the 1980's 182 is very useful as it lifts 200lbs more than the G1000, which is no good in many cases when it is fueled up (It is kept at 64g usable) with three beefy CAP crew.