CAP Aircraft Fleet 2

[Sarge]

Awhile back there was a thread regarding the CAP fleet (162s?/172 vs. 182/530-550, etc). I have also heard that NHQ may be considering several other airframes. Amongst them the Luscombe 11E. Does anybody know the status of that rumor? Is Quartz Mountain still in business? Is CAP really considering them? Sure seems like a neat airplane to replace some aging 172s. Performance looks good,too.

Also, what about that strange Partenavia twin mentioned awhile back as a possible CAP platform? Any other aircraft being looked at? I know Schweitzer has a strange single engine twin tail aircraft available too that may serve CAP interests. The Iraqi AF has just ordered several and USCG Air operates several of them.

Your thoughts/ideas/inputs/knowledge?

Thanks!

Rick Larson, Lt Col, CAP
Fmr C/WO - Mitchell # unk
MP/MO/MS/SDCEM
SMSgt, 3e991, USAF

[DNall]

Single engine fixed wing aircraft are not the best possible airframes for the mission of CAP. That mission would be better served with a lower number of high performance single (prob turbo prop) and mid-range twins operated by paid (at least part time) personnel that can be trained on a range of hi-tech payloads.

CAP is a compromise. What we bring to the table that can't be matched elsewhere is free labor. The best way to field that free labor is a fleet with maximum standardization on an aircraft that low-time pilots have experience with and can easily maintain currency on. That means Cessna 172/182.

There will always be a needs for a handful of special mission aircraft to accomplish what can't be done within those payload/performance limits. The GA-8 is designed to fill that right now. It's not a great fit/improvement on what the cessna fleet offers. Something more capable would have been better there, but now we're stuck with what we got.

So, in answer to your question, the fleet will remain much like it is now, with a slide more from 172 toward 182s.

[JayT]

Single engine fixed wing aircraft are not the best possible airframes for the mission of CAP. That mission would be better served with a lower number of high performance single (prob turbo prop) and mid-range twins operated by paid (at least part time) personnel that can be trained on a range of hi-tech payloads.

That is really not the point of CAP.......

[FW]

In a perfect world, I guess purchasing mission specific aircraft would be best.  However, since most of our aircraft purchasing money comes from our two highly regarded senators from Kansas, Cessna Aircraft is what we're going to buy. And, Cessna Aircraft is what we're going to like

[sparks]

The make up of the CAP fleet should be based on what the missions are and what's needed to accomplish them. Given limited funds and pilot skills the 172-182 (and a few 206's and GA8's) combination is the best compromise. Certainly there are better platforms for the Archer package but we're stuck with what has been bought.

Several years ago the Luscombe II was being considered as an option. It was determined that the aircraft didn't meet CAPs minimum perfromace requirements (no I don't have those numbers). Twins and turbo props require far more experience, training and money to operate safely. If CAP were fully funded so all flight time was budgeted those aircraft could be considered. Keeping GA-8 crews qualified is hard enough add in a turboprop and we're looking at the impossible. The Partenavia, Caravan and Kodiak are a few possibilities, but as very fat wallet is required.

What aircraft have been contracted for in the near future hasn't been released to us peons. I suspect we'll be getting more G1000 182's. There has been a rumor about completely refurbishing some of the 182R models in the fleet (more than paint & interiors).  

[afgeo4]

Are Caravan 675s out of the question? They would be great for the transport/ARCHER mission capability.

[heliodoc]

If you are talking Caravan 675's brand new....

Here's a few things to consider.....that ship is "around 2mil"

Place in Manhattan,KS for transition training about 4K to 6K initial and maybe 2 K to $ K recurrent

And how about the 70 to 100 hr plus shop rate not mention how expensive turbine parts are...
Take it from a former Army helo mech and TURBINE engine mech..

Where would CAP get that dough?

If all of a sudden of 1AF cash.... MAYBE a good idea...

CAP worrying about hangar rash??  Try overtemp and overtorque and you will see a "new standard" in yellin and bellerin and not to mention training standards... If your not worried now be very worried later..

Although I have to say, something are simpler in a turbine.... Not the costs!!!!

Not saying it can't happen....just saying CAP ought to have a larger checkbook when venturing into this world....

[Captain Morgan]

Helicopters ... MD500's ... with FLIR's   

[Rotorhead]

Helicopters ... MD500's ... with FLIR's   

Now you have my attention!

[DNall]

As I said... helos are the best search platform, but enormously expensive to do an entire search with. Other missions would be better served with higher payload/performance - which means getting into turboprop. All of these would require much more flight time for currency and be much more expensive to operate. That means smaller more focused force of paid crews - ie the coast guard.

CAP is cursed by it's nature. CAP is designed to provide those missions services as cheaply as possible, basically cause the govt doesn't want to do them at all but feels obligated cause not all states can or will do it for themselves. We do that with civilian volunteers, which means the least common denominator, and for GA pilots that means Cessna 172/182 & maximum standardization. It will automatically result in a less capable force than could be fielded for the same money, but we have to work with the manning we have & can maintain.

CAP may get a few special mission aircraft at some point in the future. Frankly they ought to just request some twins from customs confiscated items. But, future capabilities increases will be in the zone of hi tech payloads (like FLIR) not more capable aircraft.

[Ricochet13]

As I said... helos are the best search platform, but enormously expensive to do an entire search with. Other missions would be better served with higher payload/performance - which means getting into turboprop. All of these would require much more flight time for currency and be much more expensive to operate. That means smaller more focused force of paid crews - ie the coast guard.

CAP is cursed by it's nature. CAP is designed to provide those missions services as cheaply as possible, basically cause the govt doesn't want to do them at all but feels obligated cause not all states can or will do it for themselves. We do that with civilian volunteers, which means the least common denominator, and for GA pilots that means Cessna 172/182 & maximum standardization. It will automatically result in a less capable force than could be fielded for the same money, but we have to work with the manning we have & can maintain.

CAP may get a few special mission aircraft at some point in the future. Frankly they ought to just request some twins from customs confiscated items. But, future capabilities increases will be in the zone of hi tech payloads (like FLIR) not more capable aircraft.

Going to cause a firestorm of comments, but to afford those "specialized platforms" such as Archer, FLIR, etc., perhaps the fleet should be reduced and more emphasis placed on "member-owned" aircraft to fill the gap.  Now, before I get flamed with irate responses, how about a staff study of the advantages and of course disadvantages of such a mixed system of aviation support to CAP missions.

[Rotorhead]

As I said... helos are the best search platform, but enormously expensive to do an entire search with. Other missions would be better served with higher payload/performance - which means getting into turboprop. All of these would require much more flight time for currency and be much more expensive to operate. That means smaller more focused force of paid crews - ie the coast guard.

CAP is cursed by it's nature. CAP is designed to provide those missions services as cheaply as possible, basically cause the govt doesn't want to do them at all but feels obligated cause not all states can or will do it for themselves. We do that with civilian volunteers, which means the least common denominator, and for GA pilots that means Cessna 172/182 & maximum standardization. It will automatically result in a less capable force than could be fielded for the same money, but we have to work with the manning we have & can maintain.

CAP may get a few special mission aircraft at some point in the future. Frankly they ought to just request some twins from customs confiscated items. But, future capabilities increases will be in the zone of hi tech payloads (like FLIR) not more capable aircraft.

Going to cause a firestorm of comments, but to afford those "specialized platforms" such as Archer, FLIR, etc., perhaps the fleet should be reduced and more emphasis placed on "member-owned" aircraft to fill the gap.  Now, before I get flamed with irate responses, how about a staff study of the advantages and of course disadvantages of such a mixed system of aviation support to CAP missions.

Am I mistaken, or did more members fly their own A/C on missions during the 90s?

[BillB]

In the 1940's through 1990's, it was most common for privately owned aircraft used in SAR. The reson was two fold, the number of USAF aircraft on loan to CAP in the 40's and 50's was limited, and secondly member owned aircraft were more available. In the majority of cases both the CAP aircraft (L-4, L-5 and L-16) and member owned aircraft were two place. Search grids were defined by geographical boundries such as roads, rivers etc. Scanners were not needed, with navigation, communications and so on shared by pilot and observer. Many privately owned aircraft has a $600 ELT directional finder installed (required simple connections to a comm reciever and instillation of two comm antenna's) I still have one stored away.

[hatentx]

hmm helos?? So would CAP have an Air Assault school for ground teams???  Talk about CAP going Hooah in a hurry

[RiverAux]

Back in the old days (pre-1970s), pilots wouldn't have had to spend a bunch of money on their plane outfitting it for CAP duty like they would have to now.  Now, in order to be useful on a CAP mission, at a minimum you're going to need to have to get a CAP VHF radio installed and even then CAP and/or the AF has changed regulations to make it more difficult to authorize the use of a private aircraft.  I suspect that these rules are one of the reasons for the decline in the percentage of CAP members who are pilots. 

[es_g0d]

Member-owned airplanes can still interface with the remainder of our fleet relatively cheaply.  A handheld radio and a ground Little L-per can provide reasonable capability.  Combine these with external antennae and now you have a platform that's nearly as capable as a corporate-owned asset.  As an aside, I'd interject that the crewmembers would be the make-or-break factor on real capability.

Its a shame that member-owned aircraft have been shunned over the past 10+ years.  A member is going to know his/her airplane as well or likely BETTER than our part-time crews.  An owner will take pride in their aircraft.  Its certainly a successful model, the Coast Guard Auxiliary makes good use of it.

[RiverAux]

You might want to look into the changes in the CG Aux air program in recent years -- CG was finding a lot of these aircraft were not being maintained well.  Given that the CG and AF is going to be on the hook for costs associated with accidents, ensuring that privately owned aircraft used for official purposes are up to the same standards we expect of our aircraft is a big deal. 

[FW]

IMHO, the decline in CAP pilots has less to do with the make up of our fleet and more to do with administrative obligations of flying in todays environment.  I fly my personal aircraft for CAP business as often as possible.  However, I pay the expenses which are tax deductable.  Mission flying is another story.  I use corporate aircraft and, get some "free" flying for my "work".  Corporate Aircraft are now maintained to a set standard (well, 80% are), the equipment on board is installed professionally and, everything is in its (proper) place.  
I don't understand the "part time crewmember" statement.  All crew members are part timers.  Also, a CAP MO will be more familiar with a corporate 172/182 than a member owned "asset".  Yes, I think corporate owned aircraft is preferred over member owned (for mission flying).  

[es_g0d]

You're right, the "part time crewmember" statement was unclear.  I simply meant that an aircraft owner is going to know what is good for her airplane probably better than an aircrew member who might fly a different airplane, a different tail number, and infrequently.  People take pride in ownership!  As volunteers, of course we all do this "job" "part time," which is an admirable tradition.

Agreed that standardization across the fleet is better for operational reasons, unfortunately we fall short of this ideal.  The cost for having 100% standardization is simply too high.  We've done better as an organization, though, since buying newer aircraft.  Most of our equipment is well-installed.

In general, it is likely that the corporate airplane will be the best for the mission--I might even concede that's true greater than 99% of the time.  We need to reserve the right to use member-furnished equipment, however, when it makes sense to do so.  Its simply unfortunate that use of member-owned airplanes has been discouraged, as the foundation of CAP came from just that.

[PHall]

Member-owned airplanes can still interface with the remainder of our fleet relatively cheaply.  A handheld radio and a ground Little L-per can provide reasonable capability.  Combine these with external antennae and now you have a platform that's nearly as capable as a corporate-owned asset.  As an aside, I'd interject that the crewmembers would be the make-or-break factor on real capability.

Its a shame that member-owned aircraft have been shunned over the past 10+ years.  A member is going to know his/her airplane as well or likely BETTER than our part-time crews.  An owner will take pride in their aircraft.  Its certainly a successful model, the Coast Guard Auxiliary makes good use of it.

If you use member-owned aircraft, the corporate birds won't get flown as much.
And as we all know, we have to put hours on the corporate birds to justify their existence.