CAP A/C FLEET FUTURE

[Sarge]

Does anyone have the "gouge" on which way the fleet will go?...I have heard that NHQ is now wanting to reverse the move to go to less aircraft and back to around the 550 mark. True? I am alo wondering about the future of the 172...I really don't want to see them go in the interest of cadet flight training and the fact we have some good 172 pilots as well....Has NHQ been approached about the 162 by Cessna yet?

Fmr Cadet
Mitchell 1979
Lt Col - Sq/CC
NCR

[FW]

Yep, the NB has approved the fleet size at 550 aircraft.  I wonder about the 172 also.  However, it looks like we are only going to purchase 182's from now on with an occasional 206 purchased from time to time.   We will not purchase 162's.  They are too small and have insufficient payload to perform our missions.

[RiverAux]

Actually, 550 is an INCREASE in our official fleet size over what it was (530?).  We have been above our authorized fleet strength because we haven't gotten rid of airplanes as fast as we've bought them. 

[Climbnsink]

That article on Fossett said that CAP had Blackhawks,
cant wait to complete my form 5H 
Wonder what a C-17 flight in a Blackhawk will cost

[Trung Si Ma]

That article on Fossett said that CAP had Blackhawks,
cant wait to complete my form 5H 
Wonder what a C-17 flight in a Blackhawk will cost

BossHawk - What are the 60-1 currency requirements for NVGs in a CrashHawk? 

[Mustang]

With the pathetic useful load of the Nav III-equipped T182Ts, more 206s are needed in the mountainous wings.  I also think it's important to maintain 172s in the fleet for cadet flight training, but the powers that be disagree....

[PHall]

With the pathetic useful load of the Nav III-equipped T182Ts, more 206s are needed in the mountainous wings.  I also think it's important to maintain 172s in the fleet for cadet flight training, but the powers that be disagree....

That's because we don't get paid when we're doing cadet flight training.

See, it's very simple.

[cap801]

The cadet sure pays.  I spent $3000 with CAP getting my license (yes, much cheaper than anywhere else).  I was under the impression that CAP was moving towards a 182 fleet.  I think they could buy a lot more 182's if they left off the G1000 and just opted for a nice Garmin stack.  The G1000 is a great tool to have for situational awareness and especially for the IFR environment, but CAP aircraft missions don't often call for operations in inclement weather, and I think all that it does is divide the attention of the pilot away from flying the airplane.  Don't get me wrong; I'm a huge geek and I think that two 10.4" screens in a cockpit is the neatest thing since sliced bread.  I just don't think it's worth tens of thousands of dollars.

[DNall]

At around 350k, it wouldn't be many more airplanes. I like it, but also question if it's the best use of funds. I'd really like to see us spending on additional sensors (something beyond eyeball - like FLIR as an example). Which brings me to the fact that we already have weight issues now in 182s. You start adding stuff & a 172 is done. If anything, I think we should be picking up a few more 206s.

[bosshawk]

It is my understanding that CAP is going to standardize with 182T aircraft: at least in the near future.  As far as I know, no 172s are being purchased.  A few 206s are being purchased and I do know that CAWG has made a pitch to have more 206s purchased to replace the ones that we have now(five I think).  I also am of the opinion that Cessna is not delivering any 182 without the glass cockpit.  If that is true, getting any with the old steam guages would require a special order. 

Somebody else is correct: the 182T has a serious weight limitation.  With standard gear and the survival gear that CAP requires, the planes are real close to a two person aircraft: particularly on a  hot day.

Question about 60-1 requirements for NVG: it is my understanding that fllight crews in CAP are forbidden to use NVGs.  With proper training and certification, scanners and observers can use them.  Anyone priced those things?  Probably not in the AF budget for CAP.

[DNall]

^ Bet I could walk across the field & sign some out though.

[cap801]

I remember reading that we're forbidden to use NVG's as well.  You could walk across the field and check some out (of course not everyone has that luxury), but as 60-1 is written today, we can't use them.  I was just talking with my former CAP instructor last night about getting some hardware that would actually be useful like a FLIR system.  They're a factory option in the Maule's now I think, for something like $20,000.  Definitely cheaper than a G1000.  A FLIR system would actually give us some operation capability at night and I think it would be used a lot more often than anyone's GA8's with Archer system.  Has anyone found a use for Archer yet?

[Frenchie]

At around 350k, it wouldn't be many more airplanes. I like it, but also question if it's the best use of funds. I'd really like to see us spending on additional sensors (something beyond eyeball - like FLIR as an example). Which brings me to the fact that we already have weight issues now in 182s. You start adding stuff & a 172 is done. If anything, I think we should be picking up a few more 206s.

We don't really have weight issues on the 182. 

I flew the 182T NAV III the other day.  With the power pulled back to 62% and properly leaned I was burning 11 Gph at 125 KTAS, which is exactly what the book says minus 5 kts for not having wheel pants.

If you want to pull the power back to 48%, you'll burn 9.1 Gph and still fly faster than a 172.

A typical CAP 182T NAVIII has 1050lbs of useful load.  Filled to the tabs (64 gals) takes up 384lbs of that which leaves you with 666lbs remaining.  That's 3 200lb folks, 66 lbs of gear, and up to 7 hours of endurance (even with reduced fuel) at faster than 172 speeds.  Even if you want to run at 80% power and go 140 KTAS, you still have 4.7 hours of endurance.

Now if you want to run the plane at full fuel all the time and fly 1 hour missions (which presents problems with the max 2950lbs gross landing weight), then yes you are going to have problems with weight, but is that the plane's fault?

The newer 182s necessitate flying smarter (actually the older 182s were the same way).  However, if you know what you're doing, the newer 182s will carry more, fly farther, higher, longer, and faster than any 172 in the fleet and it will do it with more elbow room.  In my book that doesn't mean less capability, it means more, and lots more.  I'll take one of the newer 182s over a 172 any day of the week.  They are far better suited for CAP missions.

[RiverAux]

PILOTS can't use nightvision.  Perfectly acceptable for the others. 

[DNall]

I remember reading that we're forbidden to use NVG's as well.

IIRC, the rule states you have to be trained on the system & it's use in flight.

I was just talking with my former CAP instructor last night about getting some hardware that would actually be useful like a FLIR system.  They're a factory option in the Maule's now I think, for something like $20,000.  Definitely cheaper than a G1000.  A FLIR system would actually give us some operation capability at night and I think it would be used a lot more often than anyone's GA8's with Archer system.  Has anyone found a use for Archer yet?

I think that's going to be for the dashboard landing assistance system. An inexpensive version of what you're used to seeing hanging off helicopters & run off a laptop with a joystick is going to run about three times that. Still a MUCH better use of funds IMO.

At around 350k, it wouldn't be many more airplanes. I like it, but also question if it's the best use of funds. I'd really like to see us spending on additional sensors (something beyond eyeball - like FLIR as an example). Which brings me to the fact that we already have weight issues now in 182s. You start adding stuff & a 172 is done. If anything, I think we should be picking up a few more 206s.

We don't really have weight issues on the 182. 

I flew the 182T NAV III the other day.  With the power pulled back to 62% and properly leaned I was burning 11 Gph at 125 KTAS, which is exactly what the book says minus 5 kts for not having wheel pants.

If you want to pull the power back to 48%, you'll burn 9.1 Gph and still fly faster than a 172.

A typical CAP 182T NAVIII has 1050lbs of useful load.  Filled to the tabs (64 gals) takes up 384lbs of that which leaves you with 666lbs remaining.  That's 3 200lb folks, 66 lbs of gear, and up to 7 hours of endurance (even with reduced fuel) at faster than 172 speeds.  Even if you want to run at 80% power and go 140 KTAS, you still have 4.7 hours of endurance.

Now if you want to run the plane at full fuel all the time and fly 1 hour missions (which presents problems with the max 2950lbs gross landing weight), then yes you are going to have problems with weight, but is that the plane's fault?

The newer 182s necessitate flying smarter (actually the older 182s were the same way).  However, if you know what you're doing, the newer 182s will carry more, fly farther, higher, longer, and faster than any 172 in the fleet and it will do it with more elbow room.  In my book that doesn't mean less capability, it means more, and lots more.  I'll take one of the newer 182s over a 172 any day of the week.  They are far better suited for CAP missions.

No argument there. The issue is two-fold. 1) we got a WHOLE lot of aircrew north of 200lbs; and, 2) I don't have the weight tolerances to add lots of additional sensors that make the thing actually useful to put over a target area, not and keep a 3 man crew, which you really need when one is eyes down on a sensor.

[DG]

A few 206s are being purchased and I do know that CAWG has made a pitch to have more 206s purchased to replace the ones that we have now(five I think). 

Does the U206H have a Cessna camera window yet?

When we picked ours up, it did not.  But that was over three years ago.  They wanted 60K for the STC.

[Frenchie]

No argument there. The issue is two-fold. 1) we got a WHOLE lot of aircrew north of 200lbs; and, 2) I don't have the weight tolerances to add lots of additional sensors that make the thing actually useful to put over a target area, not and keep a 3 man crew, which you really need when one is eyes down on a sensor.

1) This is true, but the same situation existed with the 172s.  The difference was the 172s were less flexible as they could not reduce their fuel load by a significant amount.

2) If CAP were to go this direction, I see this as a specialty aircraft, rather like the GA-8s.  So perhaps these additional sensors could be incorporated into the GA-8 or similar platform.  However for the majority of CAP missions, you're going to need a set or two of Mark-1 eyeballs as your sensors.  Low-tech and low-cost has always been CAP's strength.

[RiverAux]

Low-tech and low-cost has always been CAP's strength.

True, but people are expecting more today than they were in the past.  If all we offer is the ability to fly a grid with Mark 1 eyeballs at 1,000' or take photos with off-the-shelf cameras, our usefulness is going to be pretty limited.  Bear in mind that in the not-so-distant future the choice is going to be between the above and a NG-run UAV.  In both cases the feds are likely going to end up paying the mission costs, so the state emergency management folks are going to make the call for the most capable platform no matter the cost.  Sure, we might get some occassional calls from the county, but on any large missions we're going to be pretty far down the list of assets. 

[Frenchie]

Low-tech and low-cost has always been CAP's strength.

True, but people are expecting more today than they were in the past.  If all we offer is the ability to fly a grid with Mark 1 eyeballs at 1,000' or take photos with off-the-shelf cameras, our usefulness is going to be pretty limited. 

Our usefulness is the same as always.  Keep in mind the cost to deploy a CAP aircraft is about $100 per hour.  Nobody can compete with that or even come within a cab ride of competing with that.  In that regard, we have no competition.

Firewatch missions?  Nobody can do it cheaper.  Military low level route surveys?  Nobody can do it cheaper.  ELT searches?  Nobody can do it cheaper.  And there will always be a need for someone to go out and mow the grass with a set of Mark 1 eyeballs for whatever reason.  Again, nobody does it cheaper.

My squadron is flying more missions now than ever and when we show other government entities what we can do, they are impressed.  This spring my squadron flew firewatch missions.  When a fire was found, we could communicate with the folks on the ground and provide an aerial description to the Incident Commander (Fire Dept) on what was going on.  They loved it and we were a great help.  Suddenly the Jerkwater, TX Volunteer Fire Dept. has aerial surveillance capability on the scene.  You can't imagine the value that adds to them.

Just look at how our capability has expanded with relatively cheap additions.  The Becker system and SDIS adds a lot of capability.  Lots of bang for the buck there.  Imagine flying over a fire or any other type of disaster and providing pictures in real time.  Imagine quickly finding a PLB equipped hiker in a remote area.  All for $100 per hour.  Who else can do that?

I think the 2 problems we have are that many government entities don't know what we can do (or even that we exist), and we are not fully using the capability we already have by adequately keeping people trained.  ICS should fix the first problem as will the rising cost of fuel.  When the cost of operating turbine or jet powered aircraft goes up exponentially, government entities are going to be looking for cheaper solutions out of necessity.  They already are, in fact, and congress has taken notice also.  As far as the training issue goes, we are just going to make that problem worse by adding technically sophisticated systems we don't need.

Look at how much money was spent on the Archer system, and how many aircraft have we found with it? It sure sounded like a good idea at the time, but how useful has it been?  Certainly some technology is good, but it has to be small.  It has to be lightweight.  It has to be ridiculously simple to use. It has to be cheap.  And there has to be lots of bang for the buck.  Otherwise we are just better off sticking to what we already do well.  Other systems might sound sexy to that chick you're hitting on in a bar, but do they really help in the big scheme of things?

I see lots of capability we already have, but are underutilized.  I also see the need for those capabilities expanding in the near and distant future, not diminishing.

[SAR-EMT1]

In my humble scanner opinion, every Region (if not every Wing) should have at least 1 bird equipped with a FLIR turret and a few aircrews trained to use the sucker.

[Frenchie]

In my humble scanner opinion, every Region (if not every Wing) should have at least 1 bird equipped with a FLIR turret and a few aircrews trained to use the sucker.

They have handheld units which are relatively cheap and easy to use.  This might be the best solution for CAP as they can be easily transferred between aircraft and could also be used by ground crews.

[Frenchie]

One other capability I see which should be expanded in the future is highbird communications.  If the airborne repeater platform could be adapted for use by other government agencies, imagine the possibilities.  Imagine flying highbird airborne repeater missions over a disaster and greatly expanding the communications abilities over a wide area for multiple agencies.  All for about $100 per hour.  Who else can do that?

[thefischNX01]

In my humble scanner opinion, every Region (if not every Wing) should have at least 1 bird equipped with a FLIR turret and a few aircrews trained to use the sucker.

They have handheld units which are relatively cheap and easy to use.  This might be the best solution for CAP as they can be easily transferred between aircraft and could also be used by ground crews.

Actually, there are other options.  If it's IR we're after then there are UAV payloads we can look into.  Even color cameras that can fit under our cessna are available.  One of the members in my unit works here, and there are other options available, but to illustrate my point http://www.baiaerosystems.com/payloads.html . 

[Frenchie]

The question becomes, why would we want an installed system that's completely inflexible, much more expensive, and more difficult to operate when you can get one the size of a camcorder that's just about as easy to use?

That gives us the option of moving it to other aircraft or even ground units, and if we want to upgrade or have it repaired, the entire aircraft is not down.

I just don't see much advantage to an installed system and I see lots of disadvantages.

[DNall]

Low-tech and low-cost has always been CAP's strength.

True, but people are expecting more today than they were in the past.  If all we offer is the ability to fly a grid with Mark 1 eyeballs at 1,000' or take photos with off-the-shelf cameras, our usefulness is going to be pretty limited.  Bear in mind that in the not-so-distant future the choice is going to be between the above and a NG-run UAV......

This is my concern/view as well.

Our usefulness is the same as always.  Keep in mind the cost to deploy a CAP aircraft is about $100 per hour.  Nobody can compete with that or even come within a cab ride of competing with that.  In that regard, we have no competition.

That's not entirely correct - let me illustrate:

Scenerio A)
You can fly ONE CAP sortie over a target area for $100/hr. That's really only 100 because I'm not factoring in the purchase cost of the airframe (AF subsidized), cause I got free crew & outsourced maint. It also comes with some downfalls. I can only use it when I can get a qualified crew (thinking CD or other clearance mostly), and that is not going to be a stable crew like when I put people on orders & pay them.

-versus-

Scenario B)
I can fly the same sortie with a predator (reaper) for about $500/hr & that's including gall the infrastructure & personnel. I get the same full-time crews that are familiar working with me versus three volunteer crews to cover the same number of sorties... etc.

Now, how many mark I eyeball CAP sorties do I have to put over that target area to achieve roughly the same probability of detection as the UAV? Lets just say for the sake of argument it's five sorties. Do I have the time with missing folks on the ground to put five sorties over that target versus one UAV sortie?

Firewatch missions?  Nobody can do it cheaper.  Military low level route surveys?  Nobody can do it cheaper.  ELT searches?  Nobody can do it cheaper.  And there will always be a need for someone to go out and mow the grass with a set of Mark 1 eyeballs for whatever reason.  Again, nobody does it cheaper.

When your firewatch sortie finds something, we put FLIR over it to find hot spots & tell ground/air fire assets where to put their water. How long does it take to get that forestry aircraft on station? Imagine if you could just stay there & relay that info. Imagine if you could do that with realtime video. I can do that with a UAV, and I'm getting a Sq of them down here at Ellington to do exactly that.

You may be the cheapest per hour option, but what you actually have to be is the best return for the dollar option. In the past that has been true of CAP. As technology increases, gets cheaper, and is fielded by lots of other folks... CAP has to move forward (beyond eyeball alone) in order to become or remain that best option for the dollar.

Just look at how our capability has expanded with relatively cheap additions.  The Becker system and SDIS adds a lot of capability.  Lots of bang for the buck there.  Imagine flying over a fire or any other type of disaster and providing pictures in real time.  Imagine quickly finding a PLB equipped hiker in a remote area.  All for $100 per hour.  Who else can do that?

Toss on a $50k FLIR system run off a laptop by the MO with the MS still looking out the window & it still costs $100/hr to fly the bird. Now you can find that non-PLB equipped hiker in the woods; you can route search and expanding square from LKP the same night a plane goes missing & have a really good chance of finding it before you put 10 sorties up the next day trying to figure out what's rural trash piles & what isn't.

I think the 2 problems we have are that many government entities don't know what we can do (or even that we exist), and we are not fully using the capability we already have by adequately keeping people trained.  ICS should fix the first problem as will the rising cost of fuel.  When the cost of operating turbine or jet powered aircraft goes up exponentially, government entities are going to be looking for cheaper solutions out of necessity.  They already are, in fact, and congress has taken notice also.  As far as the training issue goes, we are just going to make that problem worse by adding technically sophisticated systems we don't need.

We kind of use ICS internally, and are saying we're going to actually get in line with it fully. That's nice, but it's still mostly internal. It doesn't do anything to raise awareness. Getting more involved with customer agencies, running real joint exercises rather than just a couple demo sorties... that's how you raise awareness and build interoperability. It's about personal relationships and team building, not some paper manuals.

I already addressed the cheaper per hour versus cheaper per return issue. The kind of FLIR system I'm talking about is very low-tech off-the-shelf intuitive to operate & existing online govt trng avail for free on how to do so. I'd like to field something like that on 2/3rds of our airframes, but I'd certainly start by running them on the GA8s.

Look at how much money was spent on the Archer system, and how many aircraft have we found with it? It sure sounded like a good idea at the time, but how useful has it been?  Certainly some technology is good, but it has to be small.  It has to be lightweight.  It has to be ridiculously simple to use. It has to be cheap.  And there has to be lots of bang for the buck.  Otherwise we are just better off sticking to what we already do well.  Other systems might sound sexy to that chick you're hitting on in a bar, but do they really help in the big scheme of things?

Agreed. Archer sucks. For that money I could have already fielded all those FLIR systems. ARCHER just innately sucks, but the tech side of the problem is there's so few of them. If you had crews that spent lots of time on a system, they'd understand it a lot better. G1000, GPS... all that stuff was new to folks, but now they're using it successfully cause they've had lots of time to play with it. You put a system (and the training for it) out to the masses, rather than on a dozen platforms spread all over the country, and it'll work.

They have handheld units which are relatively cheap and easy to use.  This might be the best solution for CAP as they can be easily transferred between aircraft and could also be used by ground crews.

NHQ tested these and found them not to be very capable from an airborne platform. I tend to agree with that assessment. Try using 20x binos from a 1000 AGL moving/bouncing platform, and then detune the focus a bit to simulate the return delay on a FLIR system, and try doing it at dusk. You really need a stabilized system with good resolution return.

One other capability I see which should be expanded in the future is highbird communications.  If the airborne repeater platform could be adapted for use by other government agencies, imagine the possibilities.

I've mentioned that before too. Tunable repeaters that function with P25 & you're in business.

[cap801]

Well, UAV's still can't fly in national airspace without chase aircraft or ground observers, so until the FAA rewrites the reg's, they're not going to be a viable platform for anything except combat surveillance in war zones.  If and when the FAA rewrites the regs, it's going to be a huge change for VFR flying, since "see and avoid" doesn't work well when there's nobody in the UAV to be doing the seeing and the avoiding.  And while some have FLIR pods that can rotate around and look for temperature differences, they still can't spot things when the airplane is the same temperature as the surroundings or when the FLIR pod fails.  So nobody needs to worry about CAP becoming obsolete just yet.

What was this thread about again?  Oh...fleet restructure.  Well, I hope we hang on to some 172's for flight training.

[Frenchie]

That's not entirely correct - let me illustrate:

Scenerio A)
You can fly ONE CAP sortie over a target area for $100/hr. That's really only 100 because I'm not factoring in the purchase cost of the airframe (AF subsidized), cause I got free crew & outsourced maint. It also comes with some downfalls. I can only use it when I can get a qualified crew (thinking CD or other clearance mostly), and that is not going to be a stable crew like when I put people on orders & pay them.

-versus-

Scenario B)
I can fly the same sortie with a predator (reaper) for about $500/hr & that's including gall the infrastructure & personnel. I get the same full-time crews that are familiar working with me versus three volunteer crews to cover the same number of sorties... etc.

Now, how many mark I eyeball CAP sorties do I have to put over that target area to achieve roughly the same probability of detection as the UAV? Lets just say for the sake of argument it's five sorties. Do I have the time with missing folks on the ground to put five sorties over that target versus one UAV sortie?

You're assuming the FAA would ever allow a system like the predator to operate domestically and I think that's a very poor assumption.  All of the FAA's Visual Flight Rules are based on see-and-avoid.  First off, to allow UAVs to operate domestically would require a complete re-work of all of the FAA's VFR rules.  That's not something the FAA is going to be very receptive to doing in the first place.  Next, even if the FAA were to allow such a thing it would have to be much more sophisticated than the predator.  It would need sensors to allow avoidance without vision, which is by no means a small order.  So now instead of a $500 per hour predator, you're going to need a much more advanced system that's going to cost quite a bit more to operate.  As far as the predator goes, so far the FAA has issued exceptions only in a few circumstances for very limited areas with quite a few restrictions.  I don't see them being allowed carte blanche to all airspace anytime soon and probably not ever.

When your firewatch sortie finds something, we put FLIR over it to find hot spots & tell ground/air fire assets where to put their water. How long does it take to get that forestry aircraft on station? Imagine if you could just stay there & relay that info. Imagine if you could do that with realtime video. I can do that with a UAV, and I'm getting a Sq of them down here at Ellington to do exactly that.

In my experience with firewatch missions, I don't see the value of FLIR.  It's easy to see the hot spots from the air.  They are the ones burning and smoking.  On our firewatch missions, CAP aircraft actually complemented forestry service aircraft.  The forestry service used their spot planes to direct water drops, while our aircraft stayed up high and advised the ground assets.  It worked quite well.

As far as the Ellington UAVs, my understanding was they were only to be used for border patrol and even then in very limited circumstances.  After the UAV crash in AZ, that entire program is delayed until at least 4 more years and depending on the full NTSB report, it may never happen, which would be my guess.

We kind of use ICS internally, and are saying we're going to actually get in line with it fully. That's nice, but it's still mostly internal. It doesn't do anything to raise awareness. Getting more involved with customer agencies, running real joint exercises rather than just a couple demo sorties... that's how you raise awareness and build interoperability. It's about personal relationships and team building, not some paper manuals.

ICS is not just internal to CAP.  A working ICS is becoming a condition of federal funding and will continue to be so for all emergency response entities.  As ICS is fully implemented, ideally all the pieces and parts will start learning to work together.  Hopefully real joint exercises will be a part of that, but we'll just have to wait and see.

I already addressed the cheaper per hour versus cheaper per return issue. The kind of FLIR system I'm talking about is very low-tech off-the-shelf intuitive to operate & existing online govt trng avail for free on how to do so. I'd like to field something like that on 2/3rds of our airframes, but I'd certainly start by running them on the GA8s.

Look at how much money was spent on the Archer system, and how many aircraft have we found with it? It sure sounded like a good idea at the time, but how useful has it been?  Certainly some technology is good, but it has to be small.  It has to be lightweight.  It has to be ridiculously simple to use. It has to be cheap.  And there has to be lots of bang for the buck.  Otherwise we are just better off sticking to what we already do well.  Other systems might sound sexy to that chick you're hitting on in a bar, but do they really help in the big scheme of things?

Agreed. Archer sucks. For that money I could have already fielded all those FLIR systems. ARCHER just innately sucks, but the tech side of the problem is there's so few of them. If you had crews that spent lots of time on a system, they'd understand it a lot better. G1000, GPS... all that stuff was new to folks, but now they're using it successfully cause they've had lots of time to play with it. You put a system (and the training for it) out to the masses, rather than on a dozen platforms spread all over the country, and it'll work.

What I'd like to see is whatever system is used to have to prove its worth before being fielded nationally.  Hopefully national learned their lesson with the Archer system.  As far as training goes, it's just not practical to expect too much from CAP members who are volunteers and have limited free time to devote to such things.  So systems that are going to require a one or two week resident school and regular training just to stay proficient just aren't going to work.  It's hard enough just teaching the basic skill set to a large number of members.

[DNall]

UAVs are a work in progress. Of course they are not going to displace CAP's traditional missions tmrw. I'm saying that strong potential exists in the near future. I know for a fact that reaper Sqs are standing up all over the ANG, and that they all are also tasked with state missions of counter drug and SaR. I hope you understand the strong potential is there for them to supersede at least a good percentage of the operational work CAP does. It doesn't matter ultimately if they can do it cheaper or not. By being a dual purpose platform (domestic & combat missions) it automatically becomes a very viable alternative to CAP.

I'm not saying this to make a case that CAP is obsolete or soon will be. I'm very clearly stating that we need to increase our capabilities so as to become a more viable alternative for the majority of those domestic missions.

As far as the flight rules... you saw already the proposal for CAP to escort UAVs to the MOA for training of the "pilots" that are going to man these new Sqs around the country. I don't know if CAP will take up that mission nationwide, or if ANG/NGB/states will use other alternatives, such as helos for that transit leg. What I can tell you (from my guard state aviation officer) is they intend to have FAA close VFR airspace, just like we do on REDCAPs, in order to operate reapers in the target area.

As far as the Ellington UAVs, my understanding was they were only to be used for border patrol and even then in very limited circumstances.  After the UAV crash in AZ, that entire program is delayed until at least 4 more years and depending on the full NTSB report, it may never happen, which would be my guess.

The CBP program is holding, the military program is not. Overwater is the first planned AO, others will follow. It's still a developing situation. I'm also limited as to how much I can talk about publicly. It's going to take 1-2 years to fully stand up that unit anyway. You're talking about a point on the back side of that. And anyway, I'm referring to long-term competitive advantage, not next week. Do you build a fleet now for the next 20 years based on right now, or on the anticipated challenges & competition?

ICS is not just internal to CAP.  A working ICS is becoming a condition of federal funding and will continue to be so for all emergency response entities.  As ICS is fully implemented, ideally all the pieces and parts will start learning to work together.  Hopefully real joint exercises will be a part of that, but we'll just have to wait and see.

I understand very well what ICS is. It is a common way of doing business, that's it. It does not automatically cause you to work with anyone else, just makes it easier to integrate tactically when that strategic decision is made. We still have to do the same kind of strategic relationship building & selling others on our capabilities that we're not doing a hot enough job of today. ICS doesn't change that at all.

What I'd like to see is whatever system is used to have to prove its worth before being fielded nationally.  Hopefully national learned their lesson with the Archer system.  As far as training goes, it's just not practical to expect too much from CAP members who are volunteers and have limited free time to devote to such things.  So systems that are going to require a one or two week resident school and regular training just to stay proficient just aren't going to work.  It's hard enough just teaching the basic skill set to a large number of members.

I agree there are some big time lessons that need to be taken from the ARCHER fiasco. However, it should not turn us off from tech/sensors that can make us much more capable. We just need to do it right. A two-week in-res course is not going to work. Neither is a million dollar system that we can only field a dozen of. A system that we can field a 100-250 of over a 5-10 year period, with an already existing online training program actively used by the marines, that's starting to get more workable. Yes, it is going to require some experience for operators to get used to it, just as the G1000 & GPS did & still do. You can't dumb everything down to jump in the plane & take off level. Some of it is going to take some extra work. I understand that's a challenge, but eyeball searching is not going to be good enough forever. At some point there's a better mouse trap. We can stick to our guns & dare technology to pass us by when it gets around to it, or we can be out front while the economics still work in our favor.

And as far as the thread... I brought this up cause I think it's key to WHY we need most 182s & a decent number of 206s. Of course it would be nice to have a few 172s for instruction, but I see them having less & less use in our operational missions which justify their existence.

[Frenchie]

As far as the flight rules... you saw already the proposal for CAP to escort UAVs to the MOA for training of the "pilots" that are going to man these new Sqs around the country. I don't know if CAP will take up that mission nationwide, or if ANG/NGB/states will use other alternatives, such as helos for that transit leg. What I can tell you (from my guard state aviation officer) is they intend to have FAA close VFR airspace, just like we do on REDCAPs, in order to operate reapers in the target area.

Airspace issues bust open a whole new can of worms.  The expansion of the ADIZ and popup TFRs rubbed a lot of people the wrong way and the worm is starting to turn.  TFRs are getting harder to come by, even for REDCAPs.  There's already a strong lobby against operating UAVs domestically and that effort is growing.  I understand because you're in the business, you may think UAVs are going to take over, but I'm quite a bit more cynical when it comes to those types of changes because I've seen so many of them never pan out.  I prefer to take a wait and see approach rather than expending a lot of effort trying to met some challenge that may never materialize.

When I started working for the FAA I was told all VORs would be gone in 5 years.  That was 20 years ago.  Not a single VOR has been decommissioned.  Transponders and radios still aren't required equipment to this day and that push has been going on for decades.  GA has an extremely strong lobby and should not be underestimated.

[DNall]

I'm an Apache pilot, or working on it. Not a UAV guy. The Army reorg'd apaches into attack recon battalions. In the stability phase (iraq/afghan now) we do route recon/security & intel collection a lot more often then close air support.

I mention that because it costs a lot to fly my birds & we have to justify the expense enough to grab enough mission to stay alive too. UAVs & all that other stuff are competition for us too, both overseas & domestically - which is disaster, SaR, counter-drug, etc.

I don't know for sure what's going to happen with UAVs in the future. I do know it's going to be one hell of a mess if we put all these ANG Sqs around the country & they can't fly the birds or don't have anything to do (domestic mission).

They're not the only platform out there though. Stuff from FEMA is talking about FLIR as a standard for SaR aircraft (both fixed & rotary). That's far from final, but it's out there. We got FLIR on state & federal fixed wing around here, but it's mostly focused on counter drug & they don't want to either stress those resources or put all their cards out in the open. It's not a situation where we're about to lose our mission to those resources on my local level. It's that everyone else is getting more capable & we're sitting on our hands. That may be okay for this year, but how many more years will that stay true. Shouldn't we be looking to the future on this kind of thing?

More specifically, shouldn't we be structuring the fleet we'll be flying for the next 20+ years to have the payload capacity to support those potential necessary future sensors? ie 182/206 versus 172... meaning I support what NHQ is doing on this issue. It's too bad we're losing the 172s for training. I wish we could find a way to keep a few, but it's tough to continue justifying them operationally as we add payload.

[RiverAux]

I do know it's going to be one hell of a mess if we put all these ANG Sqs around the country & they can't fly the birds or don't have anything to do (domestic mission).

Oh, I don't know -- A lot of those Air NG fighters don't have a whole lot to do most of the time. 

[DNall]

They're heavily tasked by 1AF. There's mission there for reapers also, but the CG won't like it, and if they can't fly then it's a big problem.

[RiverAux]

My point being that a significant percentage of people and equipment assigned to the Army and Air NG have very little "domestic" usefulness other than as raw manpower as far as the states are concerned. 

[DNall]

That point would be wrong. Our fighters are very busy with domestic mission. All of our units have major state response missions, and train actively for it.

[cap801]

As far as the flight rules... you saw already the proposal for CAP to escort UAVs to the MOA for training of the "pilots" that are going to man these new Sqs around the country. I don't know if CAP will take up that mission nationwide, or if ANG/NGB/states will use other alternatives, such as helos for that transit leg. What I can tell you (from my guard state aviation officer) is they intend to have FAA close VFR airspace, just like we do on REDCAPs, in order to operate reapers in the target area.

1st, if UAVs start operating unescorted in MOA's, I, and a lot of other people (such as EAA, AOPA, the NBAA, etc), are going to be very ticked off.  Given the fact that they cannot "see and avoid" and that VFR traffic can transit MOA's as they please, hot or not, this is a serious problem.  If you meant restricted airspace, then I can understand.  However, as a member of one of those CAP units that has been attempting to acquire a chase mission for UAV's, I can tell you now, it's not going to work out.  The AF can't rely on volunteers who have other jobs (there's that point again) to be ready to escort an airplane out of a base, and then come back 20 hours later and pick it up.  Our chief pilot in our unit is a retired base commander of our local air force base and did so at the rank of Colonel in the USAF.  And despite his lobbying, this mission isn't going to work.  And given that these principals apply broadly (this entire organization is made of volunteers and anyone who operates a $3 mil predator unit is probably doing so for a living), I don't see this mission working anywhere else.  But who knows.

[DNall]

You would hope CAP could schedule a crew for the outbound and another crew for the inbound, and by recruiting enough pilots and working closely with flight scheduling you'd be able to make it work. If that's not possible then that's too bad for CAP. It's not going to stop their ops either way. I would just expect to see budget shifted around for them to buy a couple Cessnas.

Predators actually cost a whole lot more than 3mil, and a Sq of them is obviously many times that number. The commander of that unit is almost certainly not full-time, nor are almost anyone else. There would be a very small skeleton staff of full-timers. Maybe half a dozen. They MIGHT be able to run a sortie without calling people in, but it's not real likely. The way it usually works is the aircrews schedule when they want to fly, it gets signed off & approved, then the ground crews sign up on the schedule to support. Almost everyone involved are traditional drilling reservist/guardsmen, and they may or may not be getting paid to work during the month. They almost certainly are not getting reimbursed for travel, and some are coming from several hundred miles away to be there 5-7 days a month just to stay qualified.

[cap801]

The commander of the Predators here is going to be a full time, active duty AF officer, as will all of his/her pilots.  This obviously isn't the case everywhere, but there aren't many places where CAP units are trying to get a UAV escort mission (or at least that a quick Google search revealed), so this is at least one of the few examples.  We failed to get that mission despite having a high ranking, retired Air Force officer who knew who to (lots of assonance there) contact about such a mission.  At the operations tempo they're proposing, they would essentially need a crew ready to pull aircraft in and out of the missile range on a 24/7/365 schedule.  Even if this was our largest squadron in the wing (in Albuquerque) with 30 pilots to pool from, it just wouldn't work.  Now, one idea was to have these UAV pilots fly the escort missions when they need to (since AF pilots can fly CAP aircraft with relative ease), but it's been proposed to make it possible for UAV pilots to not be actual pilots that have been through AF pilot training, so that wouldn't work out in the long run.  We also determined that you would need about 3 aircraft to perform such a mission on such a schedule, all of which would need to be somewhere in the Turbo 182 RG range or so, to allow for the altitudes and the speed at which you would need to quickly intercept these aircraft if they were to fly high for whatever reason or fast for whatever reason.  We need 3 airplanes since you would want two that are operational at any given time and the other one in a maintenance cycle.  Now, altogether, AFSOC is looking at maybe a $1-2 million dollar purchase in aircraft, to protect tens or even hundreds of very much more expensive Predator and Reaper airplanes.  But they didn't like the buy-in cost.  So they're going the route of ground based observers, which I imagine will work out real great when you leave four guys on a stretch of remote highway in the single-digit degree days in the winter here or days like today where it will be 100 degrees or more, for seven hour shifts.  But that was their call, and that's what they made.  So I really, really hope that these missions work out better for other places, but in our situation, it just didn't.

As you said, maybe CAP could get the chase mission with a national guard unit or something where they don't have full time pilots, but still, you're going to have lots of part time pilots and as such still a pretty swift ops tempo.

I feel bad you got some blame for the UAV tangent we and others had going in the other thread, so for fear of history repeating itself, we'll try to steer this back on topic again.

IF we get UAV chase missions, the current 182's and 172's are not going to be remotely useful in chasing Reapers for sure, and Predators most of the time.  We'd need to use the 206's, but as mentioned before, we need something quick and something that can fly high, like a T182RG.  However, we'd also need to examine the fact that it's easier to spot airplanes when you're below them, and if you're below them, a low wing aircraft makes a better spotting platform given the less restrictive visibility.  So unless CAP starts buying something other than Cessna's, we may be ill-suited for such a mission platform.

[heliodoc]

I would love to see  CAP get an assignment or two but in the reality of budgets and supporting Reaper and Special Ops environment, do you really think 1AF is going to hand this off to the C182 drivers??

Granted a 206 is better but again to keep budgets alive the would probably CONTRACT out before even approaching CAP UNLESS there is really strong support for us, and by reading these posts and reading the Natl website..... well I don't see it in the cards.  CBP has got some 206's for extended mission, Coasties got their Falcons, 130's etc.  Hell, they may even contract USFS ships out of Boise such as the C23 Sherpa or Twin Otters that they have.  It's only a reallocation of money from Agency to Agency.

That MAY happen even before CAP gets an invitation.  Do you folks think that COULD be a REAL possibility??

I think soo.. How about NASA birds.  Before you flame me, I know they are going thru their budgetary issues, but when the shuttle missions die off, they may need to justify an existence........

It's like everthing else in Guv.....primary contractors get the gigs, then the military, and then MAYBE volunteers.  That's how it works with aerial firefighting.  First all the contracts go out... bids come in, acceptance leetrs go out,  The USFS has MOU's drafted for the MAFFS C-130's about the same time anticipating serious usage, and around the same time the Governors are out getting the word out to Army aircrews for bucket work, along with the myriad of support from paid law enforcement for support AND bucket work if need be.

There's a pecking order.  Even in the UAV environment but I am not holding my breath for CAP to get involved due there REAL lack of go to iveness with USAF.  But I have been wrong before....  But CAP NEEDS to get its training act together before we get into UAV chase and "formation flying."

[DNall]

I feel bad you got some blame for the UAV tangent we and others had going in the other thread, so for fear of history repeating itself, we'll try to steer this back on topic again.

No worries.

IF we get UAV chase missions, the current 182's and 172's are not going to be remotely useful in chasing Reapers for sure, and Predators most of the time.  We'd need to use the 206's, but as mentioned before, we need something quick and something that can fly high, like a T182RG.  However, we'd also need to examine the fact that it's easier to spot airplanes when you're below them, and if you're below them, a low wing aircraft makes a better spotting platform given the less restrictive visibility.  So unless CAP starts buying something other than Cessna's, we may be ill-suited for such a mission platform.

I was just going to say that's a special case there at the training center. Three quick low-wing airframes would be appropriate for that. They'd still be useful for other CAP ops, like highbird, but obviously less useful for visual search. It seems like you'd be able to recruit enough pilots to cover the mission, but I guess if you can't you can't. I also got no issue with AF personnel flying out birds, CAP-USAF already does. From what I've heard, they're working to create a new flight training path for UAVs (just like fighters, heavies, and helos are all seperate tracks). Regardless, a lot of the "pilots" there would also be FAA certified pilots & able to help cover the mission. I am surprised FAA is going for ground observers. That seems dangerous at best.

Anyway... my point is really not about UAVs. It's that other platforms (manned & unmanned) are mounted with sensors & blow us out of the water as far as effectiveness. Yes we are cheap per hour, but the competition is pretty comparable when you figure it by how many sorties it takes to get the same POD & how long it takes.

Running a sensor package on a CAP plane still costs pretty much the same as not. Hence, we should be structuring out fleet of the next 20 years (the ongoing purchases) to have the payload we're going to need to stay competitive as the go-to SaR/DR/CD resource nationwide.
examples:
http://specialmissions.cessna.com/single_engine/patrol.htm

[RiverAux]

As I recall, the proposal envisioned buying some planes just for this potential mission anyway. 

[wingnut55]

First:
The CAP UAV chase plane idea is gone, not going to happen, CAP cannot support the mission, as per NHQ.

Second:
The cost for a 206 has popped up to over $140/hour (Fuel and Maint), members refuse to keep current in the 206 at that cost (To Them) remember the customer is charged more, We do not charge $100.00 per hour for a 206 or a 182 it is at a much higher rate because NHQ gets a fee for service etc, and over night missions I always get Govt. Perdiem. The actual charge is in the $180.00 range, and an Archer mission close to $300/hour.

[DNall]

fee for service & per diem would be a violation of the FAA rule as I currently understand them. If I'm wrong about that, I would sure appreciate someone clearing it up for me.


Far as the chase mission, who cares. The discussion isn't even about UAVs, much less chasing them. It's about OTHER platforms (with sensors) represent competition/the standard/etc... hence, we need to structure our fleet of the next 20 years to have the payload necessary to haul three people, >5hrs gas, and a sensor package of X weight. (plus whatever other crap CAP makes us carry - survival kit). Hence, the 172 is no longer a feasible platform for us to keep in the inventory in any significant numbers, cause it isn't highly useful operationally. The 182 marginally meets the current need, but may be a real stretch in the future.

[RiverAux]

fee for service & per diem would be a violation of the FAA rule as I currently understand them. If I'm wrong about that, I would sure appreciate someone clearing it up for me.

Our FAA exemption lets pilots get reimbursed for actual costs (for example if they bought the gas themselves, which is common in CAP).  Nothing prevents CAP for charging other organizations "fees" associated with our flying. 

Per diem is different.  From 173-3:

CAP's exemption from the FAA allows private pilots to receive lodging and meals compensation only on Air Force-assigned missions.

[sparks]

The Nav III 182T (non-turbo) is a marginal 3 crew platform with full fuel. Many wings short fill the tanks to accommodate a full crew. That usually leaves 4 hours duration which can accommodate most missions. That is the big question, what are the missions that we're expected to fly. Answer that question and the CAP fleet can be defined.

Are gliders and tow planes part of that mission? That  depends on whether gliders are a significant part of the cadet Aerospace program and considered a "mission". Another "mix" issue.

Next, the 182 VS 172 argument is about two requirements, ES versus flight academies. Also, some pilots aren't interested in qualifying in the 182. I have seen competant 172 pilots who wouldn't be able to handle the increased requirements of the 182.  Some think flight academies can train cadets on the 182, I strongly disagree. Experienced CAP pilots, even with CFI's aboard, wrinkle 182's more often than 172's. Inexperienced cadets can be expected to do no better.

Bottom line, define the missions, pick a fleet that fits the mission with geographic considerations (turbo for high altitude etc.) and execute.

Sounds simple but politics muddy the waters.

[Mustang]

Now, one idea was to have these UAV pilots fly the escort missions when they need to (since AF pilots can fly CAP aircraft with relative ease),

Um, no.

The only AF pilots that can fly CAP aircraft are those assigned to CAP-USAF.

IF we get UAV chase missions, the current 182's and 172's are not going to be remotely useful in chasing Reapers for sure, and Predators most of the time.  We'd need to use the 206's, but as mentioned before, we need something quick and something that can fly high, like a T182RG.

You haven't a clue what you're talking about.

• C-172s and C-182s routinely fly chase for the Predators and Reapers operating out of El Mirage south of Edwards AFB. 
  
• The 206 isn't any faster than a 182, it can just haul more.


• Above 18,000, a chase aircraft is unnecessary.

[DNall]

Now, one idea was to have these UAV pilots fly the escort missions when they need to (since AF pilots can fly CAP aircraft with relative ease),

Um, no.

The only AF pilots that can fly CAP aircraft are those assigned to CAP-USAF.

IF we get UAV chase missions, the current 182's and 172's are not going to be remotely useful in chasing Reapers for sure, and Predators most of the time.  We'd need to use the 206's, but as mentioned before, we need something quick and something that can fly high, like a T182RG.

You haven't a clue what you're talking about.

• C-172s and C-182s routinely fly chase for the Predators and Reapers operating out of El Mirage south of Edwards AFB. 
  
• The 206 isn't any faster than a 182, it can just haul more.


• Above 18,000, a chase aircraft is unnecessary.

He's co-stationed with the national training site, and his unit was lead in the proposal thru NB for us to pick up this mission, so yeah he probably does have a clue.

A 182 should be able to keep up with a predator/reaper, the issue is more about high-wing versus low wing. His view, with some experience, is observation from below is more effective for this particular mission.

As far as AF personnel flying our aircraft. Yes, the current rule is CAP-USAF personnel. The proposal involved an exception to policy for this program. The alternative would have been to just list these ANG personnel with CAP-USAF & charlie mike. The other alternative was/is those ANG officers also joining CAP & Fm5 to do this mission but not likely participate in any other way.

That proposal was disapproved primarily because CAP can't put enough members in the mix to support the mission, so it'd be mostly AF crews flying our birds, which we'd get a couple extra birds for the mission anyway. Instead they will hire a contractor to do the mission at significantly more cost, and everyone will lose.

Bottom line, define the missions, pick a fleet that fits the mission with geographic considerations (turbo for high altitude etc.) and execute.

5-7hr endurance, 3 standard sized crew, all current survival/etc gear, PLUS 50-150lbs additional cargo capacity for future advanced sensors (example being FLIR plus laptop based controller & comm link package). And, it needs to be a platform common civilian instrument pilots can stay current in w/o massive expense.

[stratoflyer]

I fly 172's and would like to fly 182's. Problem is, closest on to me is 1 hr flight away. But I suppose I could get a form 5 for that in a month or so.

What I would like to see is this: Have a wing commander order a plane such as a 182 NAVIII rotate between groups so that most flying members would have a chance to get checked out. Once they are checked out, it's only a matter of flying to another group that has one every now and then for proficiency. This could be done as a squadron activity--a sort of fly-in for proficiency.

[DNall]

That's a lot of work. If you elim the 172s from the fleet and replace them with 182s then you have one closer to work with & only have to worry about staying current on the one airframe. You really have to have some extremely good reasons not to go with standardization.

My issue is I just don't think the 182 will be up to the job forever - to be more precise, for the fleet service life of the planes we're buying now. I think it's an imperfect solution that we're stuck with for a lot of otherwise good reasons. But, I think we eventually have to support more payload with similar efficiency (meaning under 250/hr in 08 dollars). I don't know what that answer is, but I think it's something we have to be mindful of when making fleet purchase decisions.

[WT]

We need more NAVIII 206's (WITH the camera window)!  You can actually fly with full fuel AND carry a full crew of three AND some payload AND it works for mostly all of our missions!  This would be the decision for the airframe of the future, if I was able to influence the decision!  Unless CAP decided to purchase some Pilatus PC-12s, that is...  Now, that would be an airframe...

[heliodoc]

^
So would a Pilatus Porter with a camera hole.  But in some cases it's tricky acft to fly.  Just as good as any Maule out there, but spendier.....

But then again, CAP probably could afford the  JET A   

Oooops CAP???  The general membership probably couldn't afford the JET A

[DG]

We need more NAVIII 206's (WITH the camera window)!

Has anyone ever actually seen a U206H NAV III WITH a camera window?   

Didn't think so.

Tags - MIKE

[DNall]

We need more NAVIII 206's (WITH the camera window)!  You can actually fly with full fuel AND carry a full crew of three AND some payload AND it works for mostly all of our missions!  This would be the decision for the airframe of the future, if I was able to influence the decision!  Unless CAP decided to purchase some Pilatus PC-12s, that is...  Now, that would be an airframe...

This is kind of my point. I'd favor a mostly 182 fleet for now. I don't have a problem keeping a handful of 172s around mostly for O-flts & training, but they're becoming less mission capable & will have to be phased down as we move forward. We're going to need more 206s than we're currently looking at, and I really think we're going to have to go to a couple dozen twins in place of the current GA-8 portion of the fleet.

PS... my cousin just landed in U21 (PC-12) for AFSOC & he's liking it pretty good. It's a sweet airplane, for a nice chunk of change.

[stratoflyer]

Bring those nice birds ON!!!

[Sarge]

I believe the PC-12 for AFSOC is a U-28 not a U-21...

Sarge
LtCol,CAP
SMSgt,USAF

[DNall]

my mistake. He's flying the PC12. Just back from FL to Kirtland, and about to go out on a 6mo deployment.

[SJFedor]

We need more NAVIII 206's (WITH the camera window)!

Has anyone ever actually seen a U206H NAV III WITH a camera window?   

Didn't think so.

Tags - MIKE

I just remember a certain Colonel seeing the aircraft after delivery, and the first question he asked you was "where's the *blessed* camera window???"