Higher flying bar to cross now?

[bflynn]

The recent threat on 110LL vs Jet-A got me thinking about a different topic related to our choice of airplanes.

More recently, C-182, a Caravan and/or C-206 have become the more common airplanes being acquired, frequently with G1000 or other glass cockpits.  Certainly there are good reasons for the choices.

My question - are we painting ourselves into a bit of a corner by having a standard that is a more complex airplane than many pilots are learning to fly?  I ask this because I'm in that boat.  I learned on a PA-28-161 and somewhat recently moved to a C-172, both with steam gauges.  In moving to fly any one of the three aircraft above, I have extra training to cross that chasm.  Not only do I have to learn the CAP admin side of flying, but also to fly complex and TAA aircraft, including glass and the G1000.  That's a lot of chasm to cross at once and I know I'm not the only one in my squadron who is looking at this.

So - are we putting ourselves into a situation where it's more difficult for us to get new pilots up to speed?  It's cool to have these aircraft and these systems, but should we also have a bridge program for newer pilots to help them get into the left seat more easily?  You can say it's the pilot's responsibility and it is.  But isn't it also CAP's loss to have pilots but not having them flying?

Just thoughts that occurred.  I'm sure I'll get there eventually anyway, but it's a little difficult.

[Panzerbjorn]

We have a Caravan?  You may be thinking of the GA-8.  We wouldn't be using Caravans as they are turbo-props, and would most certainly be crossing into the territory you're speaking of.

I came into CAP as a non-pilot, and have steadily advanced my way through the ranks and fleet, first with 172s, then 182s, then 182T G1000, and then GA-8, soon onto 206s.  That leap from 172s to 182s was an intimidating one at first, debut a few hours in the aircraft with an instructor quickly made me comfortable.

Recently, an emphasis on proficiency flying has been made and there doesn't seem to be anything keeping a pilot like yourself grabbing an instructor and hopping into a 182 flying one of the proficiency profiles to get you used to flying that aircraft in the left seat.  There is also usually funds made available a couple times a year in a Wing for training in the G1000.

Are we painting ourselves into a corner?  No, I don't believe so.  The G1000 is the most Technologically Advanced aircraft we have, and even that you can get a good comfort level with after just a few hours at the controls.  Otherwise, the aircraft flies like every other 182.

It can be done, and CAP provides the opportunities for that bridge training you are suggesting.  I'm living proof of it.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

Our Squadron received a 182 G1000 over a year ago and we were wondering the same thing.  I can say in retrospect that it has been a very positive experience in many respects.

Some of the positives are:

1. You need a minimum of two flights for the VFR transition training and this can help new CAP Pilots in their transition to bring CAP Pilots.

2. A new Aircraft is a fantastic Recruiting tool

3. There are so many advantages to the G1000 that include situational awareness, WX data link, world class autopilot, etc.

We thought the transition to the G1000 would leave some our Pilots stranded but all but one pilot have completed their transition to VFR and a number to IFR.

However, key to the transition is having a bunch of G1000 check Pilots.

We love our 182 G1000.

[PHall]

CAP does NOT have any Cessna C-208 Caravans.  And at $1Million a copy we won't be getting any anytime soon.

[bflynn]

Yes, my mistake - I was thinking of the GA-8 and wrote Caravan.  Obviously different airplanes.

[Eclipse]

When we started adding glass aircraft to the fleet, some of the more seasoned pilots waived the Armageddon flag
and rang the death knell of CAP aviation.

Some dropped out or refused to even consider transition training, however many did the training (more then a few on
CAP's dime) and now it's the opposite, when you swap in a steam for a glass as part of fleet rotation, they
wail an gnash teeth about the steam airplanes.

The reality is that CAP doesn't have a choice, especially with the younger pilots CAP will have to recruit to remain
viable.  Cessna doesn't make steam anymore and they will become more and more of the minority in the next decade,
not just in CAP but in the general GA universe as well.

[Live2Learn]

As long as we do not allow our stick and rudder skills to erode the TAA aircraft are great.  Unfortunately, while flyiing glass is similar to flying the round gages, it does take additional cost to bring pilots who ony have steam gage experience into the cockpit.  Yes, the aircraft are nice recruiting tools.  Yes, they offer great situational awareness (providing the pilot also looks OUTSIDE).  Yes, the auto pilots are great workload reducers (unless they crap out... which has happened).  Two questions remain:  First is the continuing cost of maintaining the aircraft.  While mechanically they aren't much different from any other fuel injected SE plane, the avionics suite is their heart.  I don't know what CAP pays for the db subscription.  The owner of a G1000 equipped Kodiak tells me it's a bit over $100 per month.  I expect if the MFD or PFD develops a problem the cost will likewise be a budget issue.  The second is fuel.  The G1000 suite weighs quite a bit more than the old six pac, so useful fuel is reduced.  Also, availability of 100LL is going down every year.  In Washington the State  revenue office shows  the amount sold decliing by 1-3% per year.  I'm looking forward to getting checked out in the G1000 suite.  Meanwhile, all of the aircraft I fly for work and pleasure are still round dials.  Whether it's possible to maintain proficiency with the G1000 avionics while flying it just 30-40 hours a year remains a question for me.

[Eclipse]

In Washington the State  revenue office shows  the amount sold decliing by 1-3% per year.

Is there any background to that data or just raw numbers? Because it's at least as likely to be related to the economy in that
there are simply less GA pilots to buy it, and those still around are flying less (maybe the current slide will help that).

Also, while the 100LL phase-out isn't a trivial issue, the alternatives being developed will back fill the need.

[Huey Driver]

Let's be real - Skyhawks are not the workhorse of SAR. So why did we only purchase Skyhawks this year? For glider tows and for training primarily.

That being said... this was the biggest purchase we've had in quite some time, I believe. So with the purchase of these new airframes, I wouldn't say we're painting ourselves into a corner. I get where you're coming from though. But like Panzerbjorn said, the transition from C172 to C182 isn't too bad after a few hours with a good instructor. Same thing with the G1000, or even less time for the lesser-equipped TAA.

However, it takes some time to build the hours and experience, and meet the requirements for MP. So until we get there, there's no reason to jump right into Skylanes or Stationairs. Another reason why the Skyhawks were a good purchase.

Also, does anyone know what avionics we'll have on these new Skyhawks? G1000, Aspen/Garmin 430 setup, steam gauge?

[Al Sayre]

Transitioning to different aircraft is a good thing.  As pilots it is necessary the we are constantly learning, and every new aircraft we fly has something to teach us.  I personally would not want to fly with someone who refuses to learn how to use "that there newfangled equipment...".  JMHO

[bflynn]

Transitioning to different aircraft is a good thing.  As pilots it is necessary the we are constantly learning, and every new aircraft we fly has something to teach us.  I personally would not want to fly with someone who refuses to learn how to use "that there newfangled equipment...".  JMHO

Why do you assume the reason would be a refusal?

I'm observing a sitation - I'm in this class myself, but my reasoning right now is that I just don't have time and increasingly not the money.  As I described elsewhere, I have a son entering private school with tuition just above "youch".

I've also seen many pilots enter our squadron, hit that wall and stop.  Its difficult to get it all done and they choose different, less difficult options.  If the CAP response is "we only want pilots who are stubborn enough to get through this", then I think it's a disservice to the organization.  I don't have numbers, but if the ratio of "pilots who join" to "pilots who stay around and fly" is not at least 10:1, I'd be surprised.

[Panzerbjorn]

As long as we do not allow our stick and rudder skills to erode the TAA aircraft are great.  Unfortunately, while flyiing glass is similar to flying the round gages, it does take additional cost to bring pilots who ony have steam gage experience into the cockpit.  Yes, the aircraft are nice recruiting tools.  Yes, they offer great situational awareness (providing the pilot also looks OUTSIDE).  Yes, the auto pilots are great workload reducers (unless they crap out... which has happened).  Two questions remain:  First is the continuing cost of maintaining the aircraft.  While mechanically they aren't much different from any other fuel injected SE plane, the avionics suite is their heart.  I don't know what CAP pays for the db subscription.  The owner of a G1000 equipped Kodiak tells me it's a bit over $100 per month.  I expect if the MFD or PFD develops a problem the cost will likewise be a budget issue.  The second is fuel.  The G1000 suite weighs quite a bit more than the old six pac, so useful fuel is reduced.  Also, availability of 100LL is going down every year.  In Washington the State  revenue office shows  the amount sold decliing by 1-3% per year.  I'm looking forward to getting checked out in the G1000 suite.  Meanwhile, all of the aircraft I fly for work and pleasure are still round dials.  Whether it's possible to maintain proficiency with the G1000 avionics while flying it just 30-40 hours a year remains a question for me.

Don't forget the awesomeness of the SAR tools in the G1000.  You can plug in your whole search and let the AP fly it.  It's almost cheating.

Yes, the reduced useful load is a little aggravating because of the G1000, but as you said, you compensate for that by having less fuel on board.  Out here, we never fill the 182s past 50 gallons except for rare special occasions.  50 gallons still gives you 4 to 5 hours of endurance.  You don't even need to fill those 182s to 87 gallons for high bird missions.  You just don't need 7 to 8 hours of endurance for what we do.

[BHartman007]

If you don't have the time to spend a few hours learning the new plane, how were you going to find the time to fly in the first place?


EDIT: This was my post #172. How ironic is that, considering the topic?

[Panzerbjorn]

Transitioning to different aircraft is a good thing.  As pilots it is necessary the we are constantly learning, and every new aircraft we fly has something to teach us.  I personally would not want to fly with someone who refuses to learn how to use "that there newfangled equipment...".  JMHO

Why do you assume the reason would be a refusal?

I'm observing a sitation - I'm in this class myself, but my reasoning right now is that I just don't have time and increasingly not the money.  As I described elsewhere, I have a son entering private school with tuition just above "youch".

I've also seen many pilots enter our squadron, hit that wall and stop.  Its difficult to get it all done and they choose different, less difficult options.  If the CAP response is "we only want pilots who are stubborn enough to get through this", then I think it's a disservice to the organization.  I don't have numbers, but if the ratio of "pilots who join" to "pilots who stay around and fly" is not at least 10:1, I'd be surprised.

Every bit of my transitioning into new aircraft in this organization has been on the Air Force's dime.  I won't presume that you're letting opportunities pass you by, but the system is set up to allow you to utilize training funds.  Out of my last 200-some odd hours of flying time, I've only had to shell out 3.5 hours out of my own pocket.  For any CAP pilot, the most aggravating time is that block of time between your PPL checkride and 100 hours PIC.  During that block of time CAP can't back you by giving you funding.  Once you hit TMP, the doors open.  After you make MP, the doors fling wide open.  If you're in that block of time that you're trying to get 100 hours PIC, I completely feel for you, brother.  I hated that time.

I don't believe the CAP attitude is as much "We only want pilots who are stubborn enough...." as it is "You can lead a horse to water, but can't make him drink."  For whatever the reason you don't  or can't make that leap, you can't say that it's CAP putting hoops in your way for its own amusement when it is providing opportunities.  Again, I'm proof of that.

[Al Sayre]

Transitioning to different aircraft is a good thing.  As pilots it is necessary the we are constantly learning, and every new aircraft we fly has something to teach us.  I personally would not want to fly with someone who refuses to learn how to use "that there newfangled equipment...".  JMHO

Why do you assume the reason would be a refusal?

I'm observing a sitation - I'm in this class myself, but my reasoning right now is that I just don't have time and increasingly not the money.  As I described elsewhere, I have a son entering private school with tuition just above "youch".

I've also seen many pilots enter our squadron, hit that wall and stop.  Its difficult to get it all done and they choose different, less difficult options.  If the CAP response is "we only want pilots who are stubborn enough to get through this", then I think it's a disservice to the organization.  I don't have numbers, but if the ratio of "pilots who join" to "pilots who stay around and fly" is not at least 10:1, I'd be surprised.

I'm not assuming refusal on your part, but I have seen it from some older pilots.  If they aren't willing to learn to use the new equipment (on the USAF/CAP's dime), I have to wonder what else they aren't willing to learn.  Things like new FAA regulations, local airspace restrictions, TFR's, changes to 60-1 & 60-3, etc. etc. ... 

[Eclipse]

+1 I had one chap who simply said "I'm never flying glass."  He also refused to consider flying a 182 as well.

He has long since moved on, as did a number of his compadres.

There will come a time for all of us when "the next thing" is "too much".  No harm, no foul, but CAP, nor
any other organization that wishes to remain viable, can't stifle progress, or deny the realities of the sector
just to hold the door open for people who aren't even interested in the conversation.

[bflynn]

I'm not assuming refusal on your part, but I have seen it from some older pilots.  If they aren't willing to learn to use the new equipment (on the USAF/CAP's dime), I have to wonder what else they aren't willing to learn.  Things like new FAA regulations, local airspace restrictions, TFR's, changes to 60-1 & 60-3, etc. etc. ...

"I won't" hasn't been my experience with pilots.  It's more like "You've got to be kidding me", then they go do something else.

Seems like a lot people don't see a problem.  Ok.

[Panzerbjorn]

I've seen and felt that too at times.  But it's not usually in response to the complexity of the aircraft. It's typically in response to the requirements imposed to sit in the left seat.  When the GA-8 first arrived, you needed a Commercial rating to fly it. But when you fly it, it really doesn't fly any different than a 182.   For the glass, it DOES require some getting used to because the instrument scan is a bit different, and you also need to develop the muscle memory for the various soft keys.

But the attitude of "You got to be kidding me" when faced with requirements to fly an aircraft you feel capable of flying is different from that attitude faced with an aircraft that may be intimidating or daunting.

[NIN]

"Back in my day, we thought that new artificial horizon was too much of a crutch. But when they took away my yaw string, that was the final straw!"

[NIN]

+1 I had one chap who simply said "I'm never flying glass."  He also refused to consider flying a 182 as well.

He has long since moved on, as did a number of his compadres.

There will come a time for all of us when "the next thing" is "too much".  No harm, no foul, but CAP, nor
any other organization that wishes to remain viable, can't stifle progress, or deny the realities of the sector
just to hold the door open for people who aren't even interested in the conversation.

I hear this every day at work.

"I'm not good with computers"
"I don't know all this techno whizz bang"
"I used to do this with paper"

Replace "techno wizz bang" with "glass" and "paper" with "steam gauges"

its 2015.  do you still use a fountain pen or an ink well?

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

"I'll never fly one of those new fangled mono-plane things"

[BHartman007]

...do you still use a fountain pen...

Sometimes, yes.

[LSThiker]

its 2015.  do you still use a fountain pen or an ink well?

Knew a doctor that would only sign his name using a fountain pen.  When you offered him a ballpoint, he would refuse it.

[JacobAnn]

"Back in my day, we thought that new artificial horizon was too much of a crutch. But when they took away my yaw string, that was the final straw!"

Good one!  It's all a matter of perspective.  I know some old (non CAP) pilots who won't fly in a radio environment.  They are content with their tail draggers and grass strips.

[bflynn]

I've seen and felt that too at times.  But it's not usually in response to the complexity of the aircraft. It's typically in response to the requirements imposed to sit in the left seat.  When the GA-8 first arrived, you needed a Commercial rating to fly it. But when you fly it, it really doesn't fly any different than a 182.   For the glass, it DOES require some getting used to because the instrument scan is a bit different, and you also need to develop the muscle memory for the various soft keys.

But the attitude of "You got to be kidding me" when faced with requirements to fly an aircraft you feel capable of flying is different from that attitude faced with an aircraft that may be intimidating or daunting.

My sense is that people fall into two categories - one saying "it's too much at once", the other saying "it's too big of a hassle"...or both.  I know I've seen at least two instructors join and leave without ever flying their first hour.  I've seen ATP pilots join and leave without ever flying.  These certainly aren't people who have a problem with the airplane, it must be the organization.

It's the choice of the organization whether to help people or not.  I'm hearing a lot of not.

I'm done...was hoping to raise awareness of an issue that I perceived, but this doesn't seem to be the right forum.

[Cliff_Chambliss]

*What?  An airplane with an enclosed cockpit?  How can the pilot tell if he's flying straight if he can't feel the wind on his face?  How can he tell if he is at the right speed if he can't hear the wind in the wires?  No way, open cockpit or nothing.

*what's with this Omni stuff?  What's wrong with the ADF and the beacons?  pilots are just getting lazy.  No good will come of this.

*LORAN for Airplanes?  Oh come on.  We have the VOR and the DME and now RNAV is getting affordable.  This is just going to make pilots lazy.

*Dang GPS  What now?  First they take away the ADF, then the LORAN, now they are telling us DME is going away and the VOR's are being shut down.  All replaced by this GPS thingie. 

Aviation is dynamic.  Fluid and ever changing so the aviator is left with but two choices.  Continue to learn, adapt to new systems and concepts, and embrace progress.  The only other choice is to refuse and be shuffled off and become marginalized.  Soon to be the butt of airport jokes and looked on with scorn, pity, or distain.

More and more airplanes are glass cockpit, and every year more and more legacy aircraft are outfitted with Aspen and Garmin PFD's and MFD's.  ADS-B is a fact of life, GPS Navigation is the future.  For many pilots Foreflight, WingX, and Garmin Pilot have already replaced charts, AFD's, plotters, and flight computers.  The proliferation of tablets has made it possible to carry complete aircraft maintenance records, manuals, and logbooks on every flight.  In short the only constant we have is change.

As a side note:  Although I have posted the links in earlier postings, search SATNAV NEWS.  This is a free FAA Online Newsletter on all things GPS.  Very well written, good articles, and addresses the future of Satellite Navigation.

[BHartman007]

I'm done...was hoping to raise awareness of an issue that I perceived, but this doesn't seem to be the right forum.

It's not so much that it's the wrong forum to ask as much as it just isn't as big as issue as you perceived.

Unless I've read this incorrectly, the perceived issue is lack of time and lack of funds to learn to fly glass.
If you don't have the time to fly a few hours to learn the glass, where were you going to find the time to fly the steam gauges? We're talking about an add on, not a new license. As far as paying for training, CAP gives that away. No one in your area willing to take the time to teach you? Surely there's a school that will. A few hours of instruction isn't that expensive, and if it's too much, how were you going to fly in the first place?

The bar may be a little bit higher, but there are people on top of it to help you up.

[lordmonar]

I've seen and felt that too at times.  But it's not usually in response to the complexity of the aircraft. It's typically in response to the requirements imposed to sit in the left seat.  When the GA-8 first arrived, you needed a Commercial rating to fly it. But when you fly it, it really doesn't fly any different than a 182.   For the glass, it DOES require some getting used to because the instrument scan is a bit different, and you also need to develop the muscle memory for the various soft keys.

But the attitude of "You got to be kidding me" when faced with requirements to fly an aircraft you feel capable of flying is different from that attitude faced with an aircraft that may be intimidating or daunting.

My sense is that people fall into two categories - one saying "it's too much at once", the other saying "it's too big of a hassle"...or both.  I know I've seen at least two instructors join and leave without ever flying their first hour.  I've seen ATP pilots join and leave without ever flying.  These certainly aren't people who have a problem with the airplane, it must be the organization.

It's the choice of the organization whether to help people or not.  I'm hearing a lot of not.

I'm done...was hoping to raise awareness of an issue that I perceived, but this doesn't seem to be the right forum.

I don't know what the issue really is.    Are we painting ourselves into  a corner because we buy advanced tools to do our missions and expect our pilots to know how to use them?     

Or is the problem is that the organization has internal blocks to getting new members in the cockpit and flying missions?

Sure we can go out and buy nothing but C-172s....except in all those places where the 172 is not the right tool for the mission.
Sure we can special order airplanes with nothing but round gauges.....and just ignore all those new and useful tools that make flying the mission easier and safer.

I do agree that we do have an organizational issue when new members seem to run into glass walls when trying to get their Form 5 and get up to speed.    But that was not what you first brought up in your original post.

Complex aircraft with Glass Cockpit is what we fly.    It is the best tool for the job.   If new members (old members for that matter) can't or won't get the training to be qualified to fly them....then thanks for playing.   If new member or old members are trying to get the training but organizationally we are not providing it.......that I agree is a problem.  But for the most part I don't really see it.   Not across the board.   I do see it in squadrons who don't have a plane and recruit members telling them they can fly tomorrow and then not making that happen.   
CAP can work better on making sure there are more instructors and more check pilots.

[FW]

Patrick, you have raised two questions which need answers. IMHO, both issues have validity.  CAP expects (rightly so) pilots to be proficient in operating the aircraft in our fleet, and there are internal blocks which keep all member pilots from being trained and proficient in TAA aircraft.

I think CAP still has a more "subjective" way of handling pilot training and proficiency than "objective" (as far as providing opportunity).  I may be wrong, however no one has come to me in the last 3 years to offer any...

[lordmonar]

Patrick, you have raised two questions which need answers. IMHO, both issues have validity.  CAP expects (rightly so) pilots to be proficient in operating the aircraft in our fleet, and there are internal blocks which keep all member pilots from being trained and proficient in TAA aircraft.

I think CAP still has a more "subjective" way of handling pilot training and proficiency than "objective" (as far as providing opportunity).  I may be wrong, however no one has come to me in the last 3 years to offer any...

I agree Fred.   One of the issues....is that CAP does not have any real ES/Mission goals for pushed to the unit level.

Other then the stated desire to have each aircraft get 200 hours put on them every year.....we don't have any hard training/manning/equipment goals that we can use as a score card at the unit level.

We all sort of know what needs to be done and how many people we need to do it.....but its not written down on paper anywhere.

[Eclipse]

^ You hit it on the head.

Why does Unit A have 6 missions pilots?  Because they felt like it, not because of any mandate or grande plan.
Why doesn't Unit B have any.  Same reason.

Etc., etc.

Starting with mission and purpose, there should be a top-down framework based on needs at the national and local level,
with the Ops people at every echelon always in negotiating mode to serve their customers.

As it is today, the entirety of the situation is random and based on factors completely out of CAP's control. A handful
of pilots who decide to be snow birds or retire can destroy a wing, or even a region's capabilities overnight.

[lordmonar]

^ You hit it on the head.

Why does Unit A have 6 missions pilots?  Because they felt like it, not because of any mandate or grande plan.
Why doesn't Unit B have any.  Same reason.

Etc., etc.

Starting with mission and purpose, there should be a top-down framework based on needs at the national and local level,
with the Ops people at every echelon always in negotiating mode to serve their customers.

As it is today, the entirety of the situation is random and based on factors completely out of CAP's control. A handful
of pilots who decide to be snow birds or retire can destroy a wing, or even a region's capabilities overnight.

Holy Schnosbots!  Eclipse and I can sometimes whole heartedly agree on something!

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

Why does Unit A have 6 missions pilots?  Because they felt like it, not because of any mandate or grande plan.
Why doesn't Unit B have any.  Same reason.

I disagree.

Squadron A has 6 mission pilots because sometime in the past or now they had the leadership that created a process and associated Esprit de Corp that attracted and then kept those 6 mission pilots.

Squadron B either never had that leadership or pissed away their Mission Pilots through poor leadership.

We have 11 CAP pilots in our squadron with another 5 in training.  Leadership got us there and is keeping us there through three Squadron Commanders.

[Eclipse]

^ Yes, they "felt like it" - there's no grande plan, minimum manning, or ramifications if expectations
aren't met, because there are no expectations. They were self-initiated and self-actualized.

A new CC could well place the emphasis elsewhere and things could change.

Squadron B might just like cadets or AE more, so they don't' "feel like" growing pilots.

From the top down this is absolutely a Leadership issue, but at the unit level,
it's many times simply a choice.

I have argued ongoing that it should not be, and that commanders should not be
allowed to treat the mission like a menu, but until there is command imperative to the
contrary, they can and do.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

^ Yes, leadership "felt like it" - there's no grande plan, minimum manning, or ramificaitons if expectations
aren't met, because there are no expectations. They were self-initiated and self-actualized.

A new CC could well place the emphasis elsewhere and things could change.

Agreed, that why I qualified Squadron B: "Squadron B either never had that leadership or pissed away their Mission Pilots through poor leadership."

[Eclipse]

Agreed, that why I qualified Squadron B: "Squadron B either never had that leadership or pissed away their Mission Pilots through poor leadership."

No, that's not necessarily true - perhaps the Commander is a good leader and has no interest in ES.
There's a difference (and see my edit above as to how I feel about that).

The choice to have mission pilots does not, in any way, necessarily equal leadership.  It represents
a choice, nothing more.  And further, it could just be random good fortune coupled with stewardship
of those who wander in the door.

Further, if the care and feeding of those pilots is at the expense of a function cadet program, that's no better.

The point Lord and I are making is that it should be a choice, it should be part of a plan, where
everyone has a place, and knows what their role is.

[lordmonar]

Why does Unit A have 6 missions pilots?  Because they felt like it, not because of any mandate or grande plan.
Why doesn't Unit B have any.  Same reason.

I disagree.

Squadron A has 6 mission pilots because sometime in the past or now they had the leadership that created a process and associated Esprit de Corp that attracted and then kept those 6 mission pilots.

Squadron B either never had that leadership or pissed away their Mission Pilots through poor leadership.

We have 11 CAP pilots in our squadron with another 5 in training.  Leadership got us there and is keeping us there through three Squadron Commanders.

Sure leadership got you there....and that's a good thing.    But if you dropped to 5......you are not failing.  Because there are no objective standard....just the subjective one that good leaders like your commander, apply to them selves.

What I am saying.....is that because CAP does not have any real plans setting those standards that are communicated to the squadron level......there is no real way of saying is Commander X or Commander Y is effective or not.

And like wise there is nothing to use as a guage to determine if squadron X needs help or not.

And finally one day there will come a mission and maybe there will not be anyone there to answer the call...because not all commanders are like yours.    Not to say that other commanders who can't see the bigger picture are necessarily bad.....just that they lack scope, and that come from lack of training, lack of clear plans and objectives to work towards.

[lordmonar]

I have argued ongoing that it should not be, and that commanders should not be
allowed to treat the mission like a menu, but until there is command imperative to the
contrary, they can and do.

I sort of agree what you are saying.....but I disagree with the implications of what you are applying.

You can't blame the unit level commander for "choosing the missions as a menu" when you know that is exactly what it is.

[a2capt]

We once had 6 active CAP pilots, today, we have none, myself included.

Back when member owned aircraft were not the red headed stepchildren, it was a lot less overhead to remain "current", because you had access to aircraft. In my case, I had access to 10 different ones, could get one at a moments notice, if my own was not available or satisfactory to the mission.

At least now, the policy is pretty well documented, but in the years leading to what we have today, there was a lot of head turning, hearsay and just plain old GOBlins getting in the way.

We went from an organization founded on member contributions to "keep that off my 108!".

So since my ability to remain current in an aircraft that I wouldn't typically operate, and have to go out of the way to use.. or why should I spend ~$100/hr. when on top of that, there's hurdles and hassle tossed in the way by the unit(s) with the aircraft, being "protective", worried that if other members start using "their" airplane, then they'll lose it.

The atmosphere is not as conducive to units without assigned aircraft as it once was, with regards to maintaining readiness/currency.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

Agreed, that why I qualified Squadron B: "Squadron B either never had that leadership or pissed away their Mission Pilots through poor leadership."

No, that's not necessarily true - perhaps the Commander is a good leader and has no interest in ES.
There's a difference (and see my edit above as to how I feel about that).

The choice to have mission pilots does not, in any way, necessarily equal leadership.  It represents
a choice, nothing more.  And further, it could just be random good fortune coupled with stewardship
of those who wander in the door.

Further, if the care and feeding of those pilots is at the expense of a function cadet program, that's no better.

The point Lord and I are making is that it should be a choice, it should be part of a plan, where
everyone has a place, and knows what their role is.

Agreed.

For our example, and likewise with the other successful squadrons I've observed, is that two Commanders ago, we made a choice, created a plan and executed that plan to have more pilots, more base staff, take part in more exercises, grow, and have more fun.  The last Commander, me, continued that choice, and the new commander is continuing that choice.

Leadership, esprit de corps, purpose.

[Live2Learn]

In Washington the State  revenue office shows  the amount sold decliing by 1-3% per year.

Is there any background to that data or just raw numbers? Because it's at least as likely to be related to the economy in that
there are simply less GA pilots to buy it, and those still around are flying less (maybe the current slide will help that).

Also, while the 100LL phase-out isn't a trivial issue, the alternatives being developed will back fill the need.

This is long term data that shws consistent erosion in 100LL sales over the period beginng in 2000 and ending in 2008.  I've not researched more recent fuel sale data because it's easy to see that the numbers of 100LL burners continue to slide.  Just look at the ramps of any large or small airport, or the numbers and kinds of aircraft registered.  The economt is a factor, but the age of the fleet AND HOW THAT AGING FLEET IS USED! are pivotal.  Add to that pilot demographics...  Most of the EAB aircraft I know of burn Mogas... And it's easy to confirm with both personal obsevation of ramp activity and a vist to the FAA data that EAB are the major source of growth in SE piston aircraft.  It's really clear, and has been for some tme that 100LL is a 'botique' fuel serving a contracting market.

[Live2Learn]

I'm not assuming refusal on your part, but I have seen it from some older pilots.  If they aren't willing to learn to use the new equipment (on the USAF/CAP's dime), I have to wonder what else they aren't willing to learn.  Things like new FAA regulations, local airspace restrictions, TFR's, changes to 60-1 & 60-3, etc. etc. ...

"I won't" hasn't been my experience with pilots.  It's more like "You've got to be kidding me", then they go do something else.

Seems like a lot people don't see a problem.  Ok.

I think the bureaucratic nature of the organization is discouraging to potential members, pilots among 'em.  While flying is a privilige, most certainly! getting through the bureaucracy and often times opaque steps can create a strong impression that this is a closed club.  It's a big challenge to recruit and retain younger pilots.  Most of us are retired military or grizzled civilian pilots who have enough time and experience with bureaucracy that we can get through it.  Yes, I think you are on it.

[bflynn]

This is long term data that shws consistent erosion in 100LL sales over the period beginng in 2000 and ending in 2008. 

There is long term data that shows consistent erosion in the number of pilots and flying hours!  It's only logical that avgas sales would go down.

[Live2Learn]

There is long term data that shows consistent erosion in the number of pilots and flying hours!  It's only logical that avgas sales would go down.

Erosion in the number of pilots is only a very small part of the problem.  Most aircraft we fly as personal transportation or for recreation burn avgas.  However, while the number of airframes used for personal purpose is large, actual fuel consumption is minuscule.

When was the last time any of us, or anyone we know, rode on a part 121 flight powered by avgas?  While there are a few, for example Kenmore Air flew 76000 passengers in 2009, the last year I looked at their data, how many millions of passengers fly Southwest?  Delta?  American?  Air France...  There just isn't any comparison.  Even part 135 use of avgas is declining.  Very few new air frames are equipped with avgas burning engines.  None (or pretty darn close to zero) of the recent avgas burners are flying for work.  It may be comforting to think it's all about the pilot population, but the causes for avgas demand are rooted in much larger issues.  Technology has left avgas engines behind.  In many parts of the world avgas is simply not available.  Where it is available, demand for avgas is low to VERY low compared to Jet-A. 

[lordmonar]

It is simply supply and demand.

AVGAS sales are down because demand is down.

If it continues then one day no more AVGAS.

Anyone remember the VHS vs Beta wars?

One day you are going to be sitting there with your BetaMax and not be able to find any new titles..and then make the jump and buy the VHS.

Same thing here.    Is AVGAS going away?   No....FBO's will continue to provide us AVGAS for as long as there is still a demand for it.
Maybe we all may go to Jet A or MOGAS.....if that happens then at some point we will have to make the decision to swap our Beta Library to a VHS and press on.

[bflynn]

Graphed # of private pilots vs avgas.  Definitely a correlation there.

[Al Sayre]

Correlation does not equal causation...

[a2capt]

I was sorting photos .. and saw some from flying around the western US 10-12 years ago.

AVGAS prices were in the $1.50 range, about on par with MOGAS. Now that the latter has taken a nosedive, I'm sure we'll not see a blink in change on the former.

Several times I heard that the refineries create, and stash it, the amount of AVGAS for about a year, in just a day or two. So that cost is well locked in.

Yes, GA piston flight was at an all time gangbuster level, despite the decrease in active pilots, just before the economy went in the dump. At which point GA as a whole took a huge hit. Some FBOs that had gotten too snooty for piston servicing/support had to re-think their strategies, and there was change a change in the landscape overall.

I'm glad I've got the ticket now, at an average of $60/hour. My brother likes to say the whole thing, with the instructor and the airplane in the early 1970s was $6-10/hour.. the independent CFI's in the greater area seemed to go from $15-$25/hour to $50-$75/hour now. More than the operating a personally owned/interested aircraft, when it used to be even less than the typical club/rental that wasn't part of a flight school that are typically higher and more restricted as to what you can do if you don't have one of their CFI's on board..

Just like the Cessna 182 now vs. then. It was not uncommon at all for primary training to be conducted in a variety of airframes.

Now? G1000 .. the checklist .. there's a lot more going on inside the cockpit than just pushing in the red and blue knob, yelling out the window for a clear ramp and turning the key.

Just to go around the patch, it's quite an undertaking to get bird out., vs. an aircraft from just 10-12 years ago.

As these aircraft disappear from the landscape, that initial hurdle, that Private ticket, is only going to get higher.

[Al Sayre]

I noticed on the wing fuel card bill that avgas has dropped about $1/ gallon  since same time last year.  $4.30/gallon now last year $5.65/gal...

[Eclipse]

I noticed on the wing fuel card bill that avgas has dropped about $1/ gallon  since same time last year.  $4.30/gallon now last year $5.65/gal...

I was wondering if AVGAS prices were dropping like auto fuel.  I can't remember the last time I saw prices this low.

[FW]

^I notice fuel prices around $4 and $8 per gallon these days.  Prices are falling, however not everywhere.  My home base is still charging over $7/gal for 100LL.  I go a few minutes north, and I pay $4.40/gal. In perusing 100ll.com, 100LL can be found for almost $3/gal; prices like these haven't been seen since the last millennium!

[LTCinSWR]

+1 I had one chap who simply said "I'm never flying glass."  He also refused to consider flying a 182 as well.

He has long since moved on, as did a number of his compadres.

There will come a time for all of us when "the next thing" is "too much".  No harm, no foul, but CAP, nor
any other organization that wishes to remain viable, can't stifle progress, or deny the realities of the sector
just to hold the door open for people who aren't even interested in the conversation.

There is a puckish saying in the Fire Service - "150 years of tradition, unimpeded by progress". Were the Fire Service to adhere to that line of thinking, there would still be horse-drawn steamer engines, rubber bunker coats, people riding tailboards... and firefighters and 'civilians' dying.
Thankfully, the Fire Service, in large part, has embraced change, with pockets of resistance. Generally, fire losses (property and human life) have made significant declines.

Consider the same situation for CAP; missing aircraft mission duration has dropped, overall numbers of Air SAR missions have decreased and there are greater numbers of survivors from 'survivable' incidents. That is the result of adapting to technology and improving the process. The rest of CAP has to adapt to these and upcoming changes. It is a Darwinian process, both at the individual and organizational level.

Stay Safe,
Larry

[JeffDG]

I noticed on the wing fuel card bill that avgas has dropped about $1/ gallon  since same time last year.  $4.30/gallon now last year $5.65/gal...

I was wondering if AVGAS prices were dropping like auto fuel.  I can't remember the last time I saw prices this low.

AvGas is a bit different, in that, last I checked, there was only one refinery that had the tetraethyl lead necessary to make 100LL.  That, plus the fact that distribution and storage must be strictly segregated between regular and AvGas due to the TEL, make the 100LL price tend to lag price drops in conventional gasoline.