CAP A/C FLEET FUTURE

[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???"