AF wastes money doing missions CAP can do at little cost

[JayT]

Yeah davedove and others, I guess it's better to have the USAF spending $25,000 an hour trying to teach their aircrews to take disaster images than to practice doing what these aircraft were designed and built to do -- fly low-level bombing missions!

So tell me, when they've perfected this new capability of theirs, do you think CAP will be getting more or less disaster recon missions than we do now?

PS to Mr. Eclipse: I stand by my headline, which is neither profane nor obscene, but the opinion of an informed taxpayer.

So, why don't you go through every USAF mission every flown back to 1947, and see how many meet your standards for an effective use of tax payer money?

Why is it important that CAP get's these disaster recon missions, exactly? Is it more important that the job gets done in the best way possible, or that you're the one in the cockpit?

[Pumbaa]

Come on Sparky, the whiners need something to complain about...  Whaaaaa CAP is not used enough... whaaaaa We can do it cheaper... whaaaaaa.....

[DNall]

Everyone in the military is dedicated to service to their country. When a disaster hits, they want to do their part. If you're a blackhawk pilot or an MP then that's easy. If you're a bomber pilot, you feel useless. If there's a way for you to make a useful contribution while operating on your existing training budget & operating in a way that meets proficiency standards for your primary mission, then it becomes 1AF/CC's call what resources he'll put on the board & what he won't. He's the chessmaster making all the decisions on air resources. We're just a pawn, as any other resource would be.

[a2capt]

As was also noted, taking pictures of disasters .. is still taking pictures. The B-52 has camera equipment on board for something. It's still training and they go through the same steps. Just what the camera sees is different.

[Pumbaa]

Can CAP do Thermal Imaging, real time? Can it do infrared?  Can it get images that are of such detail you can read the plates on a car?  Can we go out in virtually any kind of weather?

I think you know the answer to that.  For the most part we are hand holding a camera.  That has its purpose.

Seems to me that the AF has tools in the shed and they use them.  The CAP tools have limitations.

We have to know what our own limitations are, rather than crying that a B-52 is taking "our" photo missions.

If CAP wants to be relevant in the upcoming years it will need to invest in technology that can be put on a lot more planes.  REAL TIME image processing that does not need aircrew intervention such as emailing the images via satellite.  Infrared video/ cameras, FLIR. The list goes on...

Again, hand holding a camera at 105mm will not give you all the details that the cameras in mama blues planes.

How many of you have tried to shoot at 300mmat 1000 AGL? Hand holding?  Try vibration and bounce. 

[Eclipse]

Can it get images that are of such detail you can read the plates on a car?

Yes.  A 10+ Optical camera with at least 5Megapixels will get you there, and that's tech that is 5 years old.

How many of you have tried to shoot at 300mmat 1000 AGL? Hand holding?  Try vibration and bounce. 

I have, keep the lens off the glass and get a good pilot, its not that big a deal.  Otherwise, I agree with the rest of what you said.

[DNall]

We have to know what our own limitations are, rather than crying that a B-52 is taking "our" photo missions.

If CAP wants to be relevant in the upcoming years it will need to invest in technology that can be put on a lot more planes.  REAL TIME image processing that does not need aircrew intervention such as emailing the images via satellite.  Infrared video/ cameras, FLIR. The list goes on...

absolutely

How many of you have tried to shoot at 300mmat 1000 AGL? Hand holding?  Try vibration and bounce. 

I have, keep the lens off the glass and get a good pilot, its not that big a deal. 

While technically true, you're still going to get a percentage of unusable images. 20-30% in our recent experience. When operating in TFRs under time hacks to have the data processed & returned & a massive take order, there isn't time to leisurely tool around making sure you got each shot just right or retaking them. Also, it's very tiring to keep yourself propped up & off the sides of the aircraft. After a few days you're beat to hell. I'm just saying it's a serious challenge; not as easy as it sounds; and, lots of room to improve that technology.

[Eclipse]

After a few days you're beat to hell. I'm just saying it's a serious challenge; not as easy as it sounds; and, lots of room to improve that technology.

Too true - its amazing how physically intense it is. 

You're just sitting in the back of the plane taking photos, and I've come out sweat dripping and exhausted.

[DNall]

you shulda come down for all the work here recently. It was educational.

[Smithsonia]

CAP got into the SAR business for the reasons stated in this thread. A B-24 went down in December 1942 near Taos NM. A B-17 found it. B-17s flew at $400.00 PER HOUR. The B-17 tried in vain to drop rescue supplies and organize a rescue party. The first drops were half a mile a away. In deep snow they might as well dropped those items in the ocean. It wasn't until the Alamosa, CO. CAP courier service was asked to "see what you can do."

An intrepid pilot and observer were dispatched. They actually landed on Bald Mountain (Also known as Mt. Baldy) in a 65HP Taylorcraft not once, twice or three times but 8 different times to bring relief supplies that sustained the crew of 10 men for 3 days until the ground team could make their way through the snow for the final rescue. At that time the primary tasking of the CAP was expanded to include SAR. Everything old is new again.

Taken from the Neprud book. (Flying Minutemen)

[Eclipse]

An intrepid pilot and observer were dispatched. They actually landed on Bald Mountain (Also known as Mt. Baldy) in a 65HP Taylorcraft not once, twice or three times but 8 different times to bring relief supplies that sustained the crew of 10 men for 3 days until the ground team could make their way through the snow for the final rescue. At that time the primary tasking of the CAP was expanded to include SAR. Everything old is new again.

Dumb question, but if they could land 8 times, why didn't they just evac everybody via air?

Even with serious injuries, getting to medical help has to be better than laying in the snow.

[Flying Pig]

^Thats a pretty cool story.  Id never heard of it.  I need to get that book.  I wondered about picking up the crew also, but Im thinking a 65 Hp Taylor craft on Mt. Baldy is just about maxed out on weight anyway!

While were on the subject of optics....My Dept Air unit is most likely going to be upgraded from the basic Gyrocam to the Thermal/Video Gyrocam.  At a cost of about $320,000. Thats with install on a C206.  I think the Airvans would be better off equipped with this than the ARCHER.  For those who have never used FLIR, I can assure you, its the way to go for SAR.  FLIR can be used day or night as well.  Ive found people hiding in bushes during the day with FLIR where the eye couldnt see them. The Gyrocams color video also has a night time Night Vision mode as well.   We will be upgrading our monitor to the AeroMap or the Avelex monitor.  The nice thing about the monitors is that they are 12-15 inch LCD and the monitor itself has a 3 hour memory so you can video your target and it stores in the monitor, or, you can record to a thumb drive.  The monitor is about $8000, although there are monitors that are as little as about $1500.  Yeah....quite a cost but this is what the big kids are using now and this is the quality our customers are rapidly coming to expect. So for a comparison, what did ARCHER cost per plane?

http://www.gyrocamsystems.com/images/product_views/pdf/comp-C02-050808-IR.pdf

[Smithsonia]

Eclipse. Eight trips on to Mt. Baldy, without rescuing anyone? Not a dumb question at all. Take the Year 1942. Take the Norton Bomb sight. That was 2 trips. The men were expendable the secret of that bombsite, was not. (This is from my own deduction. In the book it says secret material was removed -- so add code books too.) The CAP also took out the machine guns. Eight trips out. First drop items were, chocolate, cigarettes, whiskey, matches, and water. How times have changed. Now we'd all get court marshaled for flying with tobacco and hooch.  They also brought in winter gear, sleeping bags, food, flare gun, and cans of sterno. There was one dead man among them and they didn't want to abandon his body. (another deduction on my part.)

[Pumbaa]

For the last month I have been flying pretty much 3-4 days a week doing CD.  After flying for nearly 4 hours per mission I am beat to hell as the Observer/ Photographer.  On average I take about 100 photos.

I generally shoot at 100mm with a Canon DSLR camera.  I swap out lens and go to my Canon Image Stabilizing lens and shoot 300mm.  And yes, a number of images get thrown out. "Not a big deal???  hog wash...  You try and stay on target at 300mm, you are going to be tired and in some case puke.

I have found that 300mm can bring you to the pukes if you are not careful.. I have also found that the best way to shoot is an extremely high shutter speed.  I shoot 800-1600 iso with a 1/5000th+ shutter speed.. yes that is 1/five thousandths plus.

Even with the quality I shoot, it still does not compare to the optics in the AF birds.

I shot these yesterday for a training class I am putting together.  Both are at 300mm.  Doable?  Yes.. but not easy.

The full image I can zoom in quite nicely.  but again, if not flying low, slow and steady you will get blur up close.

[Flying Pig]

Nice crib!  Local dope dealer? I dont see the weed.

[Pumbaa]

No that's my crib..

Like I said, took some other images that are not CD...  Doing a training class in Syracuse, NY in November.

Don't want to have the thread nazi's thinking I am showing CD images.

[Flying Pig]

Holy cow.....nice!  As someone who is currently taking a short break from trenching for sprinklers......I bow in your presence.

[Smithsonia]

I've been working on an optics package and photo upgrade for the scanner position. I started that conversation on Emergency Services Under Upgrading the Scanner.

[O-Rex]

Keep in mind that in many cases, funding for these types of USAF missions are "sunk costs," that is training money and other funds that can be legally diverted for a win/win (just as CAP does.)

Nothing beats low & slow high-res imagery, and USAF is well aware of it, and DOES utilize it.

We'll get some, but not all of it: there's plenty to go around. . .

[BuckeyeDEJ]

The picture quality they get is probably a heck of allot better then what CAP photos are.

Agreed... a 3000 lb airplane, with a scanner in the back seat holding an 8 megapixel Nikon SLR with a telephoto lens? or a B-52, gross weight 450,000 lbs, with a 22 MP or BETTER fixed digital camera... you can't ask for a better platform for aerial photography.

Brian
PAWG

The higher resolution only matters if you're trying to read license plates from flight level 400. That Nikon body with 8 MP is more than adequate for disaster assessment imaging, from as much as a mile high.

At some point, that increased resolution means nothing, unless you plan to enlarge an image to infinite proportions and not have it fall apart.

How many of you have tried to shoot at 300mmat 1000 AGL? Hand holding?  Try vibration and bounce. 

I have, keep the lens off the glass and get a good pilot, its not that big a deal.

While technically true, you're still going to get a percentage of unusable images. 20-30% in our recent experience. When operating in TFRs under time hacks to have the data processed & returned & a massive take order, there isn't time to leisurely tool around making sure you got each shot just right or retaking them. Also, it's very tiring to keep yourself propped up & off the sides of the aircraft. After a few days you're beat to hell. I'm just saying it's a serious challenge; not as easy as it sounds; and, lots of room to improve that technology.

If 20-30 percent of your take is unusable, and you're shooting a still life from the air, that's probably pretty reasonable. That's why you shoot quantity to get quality.

Heck, I've come back from NFL, MLB and NCAA baseball/football games with a much higher percentage of unusable photos (and even the best shooters are in the same boat). Many times, those games are played under insufferable lighting, and of course you need a fast shutter and a fast "film" speed.

Incidentally, sometimes, we miss the shots. I chuckled inside a little when a photog from an unnamed metro newspaper missed a play one time, then yelled "SH@T!" in the photo bay.

/end war story