A Mission OTHER than SAR

Started by etodd, August 18, 2018, 12:53:16 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

etodd

Surveying military training routes, looking for uncharted obstructions, bird nesting areas, etc.. Those pesky cell phone towers seem to pop up faster than the FAA can get them on the charts.

Fly the route. See an non-charted obstruction? Take a photo, note the coordinates, type of tower, and estimated height, etc.

Maybe its being done elsewhere. First time I've heard of it. CAP expands its missions.  Keeping the planes flying. :)

Three person crew works best. Keep those MS, MO, AP ratings current. We need more.
"Don't try to explain it, just bow your head
Breathe in, breathe out, move on ..."

PHall

CAP has been doing this mission for over 40 years. Not exactly a new mission.

etodd

Quote from: PHall on August 18, 2018, 01:06:17 AM
CAP has been doing this mission for over 40 years. Not exactly a new mission.

Great! As I mentioned in the post, I didn't know if it was being done elsewhere. I've only been around 3 years and this is the first time I've seen it in our Wing.  Anyway ... its yet another mission we do that will keep us busy as SAR tapers off.  A good thing. Keep us flying .
"Don't try to explain it, just bow your head
Breathe in, breathe out, move on ..."

NIN

 My wing has been flying a fire patrol mission for the last few years. Our dept of forestry has cut back on the funding for staffing fire towers,  and we have a good sized national forest, so we fly an afternoon/evening patrol to look for things so they don't burn overnight.

Puts a fair amount of time on the planes, we actually have a hard time finding crews due to the week day nature of the sorties.
Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

etodd

Quote from: NIN on August 18, 2018, 04:03:03 PM
My wing has been flying a fire patrol mission for the last few years. Our dept of forestry has cut back on the funding for staffing fire towers,  and we have a good sized national forest, so we fly an afternoon/evening patrol to look for things so they don't burn overnight.

Puts a fair amount of time on the planes, we actually have a hard time finding crews due to the week day nature of the sorties.

There was a pilot locally working for the forestry folks in our state, but he recently retired. Might be something we could jump into. If you have any particulars to share, I'd appreciate a PM.  Maybe I could spark some interest at Wing, if they are not already on it. Several of us locally could do weekday runs.
"Don't try to explain it, just bow your head
Breathe in, breathe out, move on ..."

Eclipse


"That Others May Zoom"

etodd

Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2018, 04:26:43 PM
Who is paying for this?

I'm assuming the AF for the route surveys. 

The state forestry service could surely save some money if they paid CAP instead of full-time pilots on staff and airplane upkeep. I don't know how many of each they have in the state.
"Don't try to explain it, just bow your head
Breathe in, breathe out, move on ..."

sardak

QuoteMaybe its being done elsewhere. First time I've heard of it.
WMIRS shows almost the half the wings are flying low-level route surveys of MTRs. Amazing ::) what goes on in a national organization.

QuoteWho is paying for this?
The requesting agency, which for MTRs, is the unit responsible for the route.

QuoteI'm assuming the AF for the route surveys.
Not all low-level routes belong to the Air Force. In our state, some are the responsibility of the Air National Guard, and there may be routes around the country "owned" by other DoD entities. A route can cross state/wing boundaries. A few routes in our state are flown by another CAP wing because the routes are the responsibility of an Air Force unit in the other state.

USAF route survey requirements are contained in AFI 13-201 "The evaluation should be conducted at the slowest operational airspeed consistent with the type of aircraft normally flying the route. Use of Civil Air Patrol, aero club, or contract/charter is acceptable, but not required." That operational speed and type of aircraft statement and use of CAP seem a bit incongruous, given what normally use MTRs. We were stood down on a missing aircraft mission because a B-1 and F-16 flying a low-level spotted the wreckage (which was not under the MTR).

QuoteThe state forestry service could surely save some money if they paid CAP instead of full-time pilots on staff and airplane upkeep.
There is an old CAP Talk discussion about a similar idea. A few years ago Maine decided to stop using contract pilots to fly fire watch and use CAP instead. Lively discussion here and in Maine about that.

Our wing has agreements with several counties, not the state, for flying fire watch.

Mike

Live2Learn

Quote from: NIN on August 18, 2018, 04:03:03 PM
My wing has been flying a fire patrol mission for the last few years. Our dept of forestry has cut back on the funding for staffing fire towers,  and we have a good sized national forest, so we fly an afternoon/evening patrol to look for things so they don't burn overnight.

Puts a fair amount of time on the planes, we actually have a hard time finding crews due to the week day nature of the sorties.

Depending on where the funding comes from, there might be constraints on using USAF equipment to displace private businesses.  I think Federal funds may have don't compete requirements.  I'm surprised State governments don't have similar stipulations for appropriated tax dollars.

PHall

Quote from: Live2Learn on August 21, 2018, 10:01:52 PM
Quote from: NIN on August 18, 2018, 04:03:03 PM
My wing has been flying a fire patrol mission for the last few years. Our dept of forestry has cut back on the funding for staffing fire towers,  and we have a good sized national forest, so we fly an afternoon/evening patrol to look for things so they don't burn overnight.

Puts a fair amount of time on the planes, we actually have a hard time finding crews due to the week day nature of the sorties.

Depending on where the funding comes from, there might be constraints on using USAF equipment to displace private businesses.  I think Federal funds may have don't compete requirements.  I'm surprised State governments don't have similar stipulations for appropriated tax dollars.

If it's an AF mission, then yes you have to exhaust all other resources first. Same rule that is followed when Guard/Reserve aircraft are used to fight fires.
If it's a CAP mission then it's up to the MOU between CAP and the state.

Eclipse

I know it's been said by me and others before - CAP is not intended to be a replacement force of
people working for free in roles that would otherwise be done by paid professionals, it's intended to
be an augmentation force to supplement in areas where the resources don't exist, aren't robust enough,
or are exhausted.

This has been a noted issue forever with professional flight instructors - everyone is all in favor of
recruiting new pilots and getting member CFIs to do it for free, until the subject of "bread and butter"
comes up in that you're asking someone to literally give up their meal ticket. Most can on occasion,
or with some limitations, but few can do it at a level that impacts their own livelihood.

A great way to engender animosity towards CAP is to start wandering into areas with strong unions
and discussing CAP working for free.  It's bad enough that most of these jobs will be
gone in 10 years with UAVs, let alone by unpaid aircrews in "free" airplanes that the person
losing the work is actually supplementing through their taxes.

At least in my parts, CD, for example, is an area where the state has its own taxpayer-funded
resources and sworn pilots.   CAP gets work in areas where there is no state resource, or
when their resources are unavailable for maintenance, vacation, etc.  Everyone wins.
But start discussing much more then that, and people get quiet fast.

As a taxpayer, I want the biggest bang for the buck, as a member, I want a GA community
that welcomes CAP's presence.

Which is it?  Scylla or charybdis?

(And the above is "blue sky" and doesn't even account for typical CAP issues regarding
depth, availability, and execution.)

"That Others May Zoom"

etodd

Quote from: Eclipse on August 21, 2018, 11:05:00 PM
I know it's been said by me and others before - CAP is not intended to be a replacement force of
people working for free in roles that would otherwise be done by paid professionals,


Totally agree. Thats not the case with flying MTR routes that I started this thread with, but yes I can see it, with fire fighting and other areas.

As someone who makes his living with aerial photography, I do think about this, as I'm flying AP missions for CAP.
"Don't try to explain it, just bow your head
Breathe in, breathe out, move on ..."

TheSkyHornet

Quote from: Eclipse on August 21, 2018, 11:05:00 PM
I know it's been said by me and others before - CAP is not intended to be a replacement force of
people working for free in roles that would otherwise be done by paid professionals, it's intended to
be an augmentation force to supplement in areas where the resources don't exist, aren't robust enough,
or are exhausted.

Spot on.

Sometimes, I get the sense that there's an upset that CAP's mission/involvement isn't always the most prevalent. Maybe it's due to the arrangements in the locale or state laws that 'impede on CAP's mission' (yeah, I reversed how that works, right?).

People need to face it. CAP's mission is limited in function and capability. When it can perform its mission, it can do an outstanding job. But it's not always the most effective means despite everyone wishing we were always the "first call." There are a lot of unknowns, from the equipment that can be made available at that moment in time to the people. Look at how many people get ground team or air qualifications that have no intention of actually being on the call tree.

I think it's a point of frustration for people who do commit themselves frequently that find some of their peers to be operationally unreliable. Now, what's nice is that under the Cadet Programs front, we have new guidance on how to handle working with limited resources and last-minute cancellations. But that's fine for a training program.

Maybe there just needs to be an acceptance that CAP is not going to be the first call every time, and maybe never if you live in an area that other resources are just more prevalent on a scale that a volunteer structure such as this cannot compete with. There are other areas where CAP is the go-to.

That all said, "SAR" is not CAP's only mission at this point, and I think the many training elements of CAP and topics on this board greatly discuss the wide variety of roles CAP is involved in. Maybe this is a misuse of the term "SAR?"

etodd

Quote from: TheSkyHornet on August 22, 2018, 03:51:08 PM

That all said, "SAR" is not CAP's only mission at this point, and I think the many training elements of CAP and topics on this board greatly discuss the wide variety of roles CAP is involved in.

Exactly. I started this thread due to our Wing doing the MTR surveys, and still being a relative newbie (3 years) I'd never heard about it. So yes, I got excited about it. Then I get told its been a CAP mission for 40 years.  Even better.

It was the same "excitement" I felt when I went to Syracuse and flew escort. The same excitement when we started doing training for Army air traffic controllers in our Wing. (For about a year its one week nearly every month.)

Point is, yes I read all the threads from folks who complain about SAR training for missions that never come their way, and then I see all these great new and existing uses for CAP that could still keep us flying for years.

Ground Teams?  I forget which thread, but just a day or two ago someone was talking about some new Wing training for CAP to help with POD systems in cases of natural disasters. Hopefully that will spread to other Wings quickly.

Yes, search and rescue (other than the cell forensics team) may dwindle over time for us, but I'm pumped about all the other this we do, and can do.

Its time for new marketing materials and a big push toward letting potential members know all these other great things we are doing. SAR can be on page three of the brochure. ;)



"Don't try to explain it, just bow your head
Breathe in, breathe out, move on ..."

Spam

eTodd, glad you are fired up.

There is a customer-focused mission analysis ongoing. Its on the agenda for next week.

V/r
Spam


etodd

We flew a MTR this week. Flew down one side 2.8 hours, stopped for fuel and a nice lunch, then back back the other side for 3.1.  Full crew (MP, MO, AP) so we had plenty of eyes, and we did find 7 new uncharted obstructions. Mostly cell phone towers, and two that appeared to be radio stations. Took photos of each, along with the GPS coordinates and description.  Mission accomplished. Fun day of funded flying. :)
"Don't try to explain it, just bow your head
Breathe in, breathe out, move on ..."

Live2Learn

Quote from: etodd on August 31, 2018, 07:34:41 PM
We flew a MTR this week. Flew down one side 2.8 hours, stopped for fuel and a nice lunch, then back back the other side for 3.1.  Full crew (MP, MO, AP) so we had plenty of eyes, ... Mission accomplished. Fun day of funded flying. :)

Here we have the fundamental reason why CAP should be wary of displacing busineses that do this stuff for a living.  For them, and their employees, each mission is a lot more than a lark...  "a fun day of funded flying." 

PHall

Quote from: etodd on August 31, 2018, 07:34:41 PM
We flew a MTR this week. Flew down one side 2.8 hours, stopped for fuel and a nice lunch, then back back the other side for 3.1.  Full crew (MP, MO, AP) so we had plenty of eyes, and we did find 7 new uncharted obstructions. Mostly cell phone towers, and two that appeared to be radio stations. Took photos of each, along with the GPS coordinates and description. Mission accomplished. Fun day of funded flying. :)


You were doing just great until that last line where you lost all credibility.

You're here to do a job and to do it well. Maybe you need to review the National Commander's latest guidance on Aircrew Professionalism.

etodd

#18
^^^^ That is why we have retention issues. Too many who think you cannot be professional and also have fun. What's up with you starched shirt guys. Geez!

It's what I love about our Squadron. We are always at or near the top in the Wing. Always ready to jump on a Mission and we stay very busy. And everyone loves our results. But yes, we have FUN. A great group of folks.
"Don't try to explain it, just bow your head
Breathe in, breathe out, move on ..."

Eclipse

The starched shirts are the ones holding up all the rest of the corners that allow
a select few to "have fun" and then have to deal with the ramifications of that "fun".

"That Others May Zoom"