An ICL with new rates was published today
Well, let the gnashing of teeth begin, 25-63% increases depending on airframes.
Is this a maintenance cost issue, lower appropriation?
I'm going to be benevolent and assume that these still make CAP a bargain, but not nearly
as much as before, and increasing rental rates isn't going to get people flying more.
Why don't we ever hear about initiatives intended to reduce costs for CAP's pilots?
Methinks this is a truer cost/hr. for actual AC O&M. The hourly rates are still ridiculously "cheap". When a similarly equipped C172 is renting for $150/hr or more on the "private side", we are a bargain.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 28, 2017, 02:31:19 PM
...
I'm going to be benevolent and assume that these still make CAP a bargain, but not nearly
as much as before, and increasing rental rates isn't going to get people flying more.
Why don't we ever hear about initiatives intended to reduce costs for CAP's pilots?
If the major reason a pilot wants to fly CAP aircraft is "cheap", just possibly they're doin' it for the wrong reason. Ditto if they like to wear a shiny set of wings and some brass on their shoulder. JMHO!
Agreed in principle, but the street level is more complicated when you're recruiting,
or trying to get less active pilots to fly more. Yes, there's usually money for MPs and ORides,
but the new tickets we want to get flying missions do comment on a regular basis
regarding the expense.
As to "closer to actual", that's probably true, but CAP doesn't need to turn a profit or compete,
it needs to build readiness and encourage GA in its members.
Quote from: Live2Learn on September 28, 2017, 03:05:42 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 28, 2017, 02:31:19 PM
...
I'm going to be benevolent and assume that these still make CAP a bargain, but not nearly
as much as before, and increasing rental rates isn't going to get people flying more.
Why don't we ever hear about initiatives intended to reduce costs for CAP's pilots?
If the major reason a pilot wants to fly CAP aircraft is "cheap", just possibly they're doin' it for the wrong reason. Ditto if they like to wear a shiny set of wings and some brass on their shoulder. JMHO!
Woah! The hourly cost of flying a CAP aircraft is one reason why CAP pilots become CAP pilots, however the monetary part of flying is augmented by the paperwork, time spent on mission training, and limitations on use. There is no "free lunch", so whatever motivates a member is fine with me. BTW; there are many "initiatives" that enable pilots to fly for less (or for free).
CAP does not profit from flying activities, however it does pay for O&M. It used to pay for aircraft upgrades and the "refurb" program, but we don't do that any longer...
Quote from: Alaric on September 28, 2017, 02:19:37 PM
An ICL with new rates was published today
Are these the reimbursement rates or rental rates? I'm only a student pilot, but if these are rental rates, I might start using CAP AC!
TSGT Sean Riley
IL-042
Those are dry rental rates.
Quote from: FW on September 28, 2017, 03:30:04 PMBTW; there are many "initiatives" that enable pilots to fly for less (or for free).
Generally these are only open to current mission pilots.
Sure there's O-rides, but those aren't open to most "new" pilots, either as you need at least 200 PIC
(as a start), and the occasional TMP for an MX run, but most funded flying goes to the MP's.
Senior members must have a private pilot license to start the checkout process toward getting the qualification checkride (CAPF5). Cadets however can receive flight training toward a Private License assuming they are active in their squadron and can find an instructor and airplane. So, the planes and reduced costs are available if you meet a few requirements.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 28, 2017, 04:18:52 PM
Generally these are only open to current mission pilots.
Sure there's O-rides, but those aren't open to most "new" pilots, either as you need at least 200 PIC
(as a start), and the occasional TMP for an MX run, but most funded flying goes to the MP's.
And the "problem" is ???...? Is it CAP's mission to provide cheap flying? I thought our purpose, as established by Congress, is to perform in three areas: Emergency services, aerospace ed, and cadet programs. I don't see where Congress said CAP should invest limited funds in low time pilots so they can fly cheaply... The subsidized proficiency flying for MP is directly related to CAP's missions, as are "O" flights. Minimum hours, high performance endorsements, etc. are minimum standards CAP established to mitigate risks and increase the likely safe outcome of flights. What are the risks and benefits of allowing newly minted pilots to fly cadets, fly missions that involve low level mountain ops, etc? FWIW, A brief look at NTSB fatal/SI accident records from past decades strongly supports CAP's minimum standards for MP and "O" flight pilots. Much stronger arguments than "it ain't cheap enough to fly CAP aircraft" for personal improvement must be forthcoming to make a pursuasive case for "free stuff".
Suggesting that NHQ needs to be sensitive to member costs, especially in regards to flying,
does not automatically equate to "low-time pilots joining to fly cheap", nor is this another
issue somehow related to NTSB incident reports.
Yes, there are opportunities to fly on the Air Force's dime, but just because you're an MP
with plenty of hours, that doesn't mean there is money left over when you finally get to your
days off / availability, etc.
The A12 program has been very successful, but it's not an infinite pile. My wing's ran out mid-summer,
which left more then a few highly valued, necessary MPs reaching in their own wallets, and in some cases having to
decide between CAP and other either necessaries or recreational choices.
I don't have a lot of time for the comments about CAP requiring too much administration, etc.,
but my opinion won't necessarily change where someone with $150 in his pocket flies on a given weekend.
"CAP where it sometimes feels like work?" or "My local FBO, that needs the cash, and doesn't care where I go?"
Retention was supposed to be a singular focus of the last HEADCAP. The fact that there was literally zero effort in that regard notwithstanding, making things more expensive, in whatever vector, isn't going to help that issue.
I found it ironic that the new rates, and a message about a push to get rusty pilots flying again, came out in the same month. "Costs are going up " and "fly more" are not compatible.