What plane should be the CAP standard?

Started by RiverAux, June 12, 2007, 05:25:28 PM

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Spacecenter

Correct-about 400 hours on a G-1000 picked up at Cessna in mid-Aug last year.

We pay whatever the AF set rates are for whatever aircraft. The last plane we had was N265HP-a 230HP 182 (I misposted 172 in original post) so it costs more to fly than the new 182 Navlll. We got that from a unit that wasn't flying due to high utilization of our aircraft. They pulled that one-gave us the N265HP to build up the hours until the NAVll was picked up.

Yeah, we fly a lot. Proficency, some DF, some WADS, CD, O-Rides and the occasional mission. Got a find a few months ago off what started out as an ELT mission. We also do a lot of training. We've done Spectral, Becker and are doing a SAREX in two weeks on Grid, ELT and Scanner-Observer-MP ratings. Plus when it was the only one in SoCAL the now x-wingCC asked us to fly it to display (no funding-we paid for it) to assist other units with recruiting. We also treat it as a National CAP asset, not a Squadron Aircraft. By that I mean any qualified (by CAP regs) pilot can fly it. We sometimes have to fly other aircraft for missions when "ours" is scheduled by someone else.

And it's not all in the G-1000. When we do O-rides we try and have at least one other aircraft flying. Same thing for certain other missions in the area south of us.We've got 4 aircraft scheduled for our next training. One G-1000 (only one we could get) 2 normal gauges 182s and a 206.

Well, that's it for now.

Be Safe.

Matt Scherzi
CA434 Since 1991

SARPilotNY

1.  no more airvans
2. 182s for flatlands
3.  turbos for the Rockies and Sierras and the like
CAP member 30 + years SAR Pilot, GTM, Base staff

Sarge

I really feel strongly that getting rid of 172s is a HUGE mistake. Cadet flying will come to a halt if we flush the Skyhawks. Call it biased, but I leared to fly 25 plus years ago as a CAP cadet in a C172 and could not even imagine doing it in a 182 as a newpie pilot. The 182 is great for SAR, but that's not our only mission. My suggestion stands as keeping a mix of late model 172Ps (180HP) 182Ts,182NAVIII and 206's. Airvans are cool in my humble opinion, but I just don't see them catching on. Do we need to buy some new SkyCatchers from Cessna for cadet flying and perhaps inexpensive adult flight ops in the name of currency options? I betcha that the Independence guys would cut us a heck of a deal on 50-75 of 'em! What a great way to truly promote GA!  What say you?

An anonymous Squadron Commander
Fmr C/WO (Ret)- Mitchell # lost in fire at NHQ
Lt Col, CAP
SMSgt, USAF

SoCalCAPOfficer

"Do we need to buy some new SkyCatchers from Cessna for cadet flying and perhaps inexpensive adult flight ops in the name of currency options?"

The new Cessna Sky Catcher would be a good idea.   The cadets and seniors could start flying them with a Sport Pilot license.  Good for the cadets and good for the older seniors who may not choose to renew their medical.   Plus it wont hurt the wallet so more proficiency flying could be done.

However, for SAR the 182 cannot be beat.
Daniel L. Hough, Maj, CAP
Commander
Hemet Ryan Sq 59  PCR-CA-458

SarDragon

#44
That would require a serious overhaul of the current regulations, toward what end?

If a pilot won't/can't renew his medical, he can't fly missions. Being an O-ride pilot has more stringent rules than CAP Pilot, so that wouldn't work. Just exactly what would these pilots with Sport Pilot certificates do for CAP?

IIRC, our aircraft are primarily ES assets and used for cadet flying on a secondary basis. We're not in the flight instruction business, and we're not in the recreational flying business, either.

On top of all that, some current aircraft remain underutilized for their intended mission(s). Why add more planes to the inventory that will not be usable for that primary mission stated above?

[edit] I just looked at the specs - it doesn't meet the 60 hp/person rule.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

flyguy06

SARDragon, you are incorrect. I hav ebeen in CAP continuously since 1984 and I can tell you the primary reason for aircraft are to help inspire our cadets in aviation and aerospace. SAR is the secondary reaso. We can do SAR not only by air but by ground also but we can ONLY teach cadets about flying using aircraft.

SAR is important but cadet flying is equally as important

SarDragon

OK, given an equality in uses, the C-162, IMHO, still doesn't meet the regs, nor the requirements of the job.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

lordmonar

Quote from: flyguy06 on August 01, 2007, 04:22:43 AM
SARDragon, you are incorrect. I hav ebeen in CAP continuously since 1984 and I can tell you the primary reason for aircraft are to help inspire our cadets in aviation and aerospace. SAR is the secondary reaso. We can do SAR not only by air but by ground also but we can ONLY teach cadets about flying using aircraft.

SAR is important but cadet flying is equally as important

Flyguy....I know what you are saying....however....reality just don't work that way.

Look how much money the wing gets for Cadet O-rides and flight academies......now compare that to the number of discounted hours you get for Proficiency Flying and SAREXs.

As for what plane should the CAP standard......the OV-10 Bronco!
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

SarDragon

Quote from: lordmonar on August 01, 2007, 06:12:12 AMAs for what plane should the CAP standard......the OV-10 Bronco!

Yay-yuh!

Lotsa hp, two engines, might be able to configure for glider tow.

On the down side - ejection seats.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

lordmonar

Quote from: SarDragon on August 01, 2007, 06:34:26 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on August 01, 2007, 06:12:12 AMAs for what plane should the CAP standard......the OV-10 Bronco!

Yay-yuh!

Lotsa hp, two engines, might be able to configure for glider tow.

On the down side - ejection seats.

20 minutes and a socket wrench and I can fix that little problem.  :angel:
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

RiverAux

QuoteI hav ebeen in CAP continuously since 1984 and I can tell you the primary reason for aircraft are to help inspire our cadets in aviation and aerospace. SAR is the secondary reaso.
In my Wing the amount spent on SAR training, which mostly goes towards the plane, is many times that spent on cadet o-rides and if you add actual missions in it isn't even close.  Only one unit really does any cadet flight training.

There just isn't any comparison between ES use of CAP planes and cadet-related use of CAP planes. 


Jayson777

#52
QuoteAs for what plane should the CAP standard......the OV-10 Bronco!

OH HECK, YEA!!  Somebody else thought of it too!!  The Germans had an M model also, which had a plexiglas dome rear where another observer sat.  That would be cool!  :)

Tags - MIKE
Jay Short, 1Lt, CAP
PAO
SWR-OK-008

SarDragon

Quote from: Jayson777 on August 07, 2007, 09:23:53 PM
QuoteAs for what plane should the CAP standard......the OV-10 Bronco!

OH HECK, YEA!!  Somebody else thought of it too!!  The Germans had an M model also, which had a plexiglas dome rear where another observer sat.  That would be cool!  :)

Tags - MIKE

According to this:
QuoteThe OV-10B model was produced for Germany to use as target tugs. A target towing pod was mounted underneath the fuselage. A clear dome replaced the rear cargo door. The rear seat was moved to the cargo bay to look backwards out the dome.

and my memory of servicing them at NAS Brunswick, ME, on their way to Germany in the early 70s, they were B models. None of my sources show an M model.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret