The 200 hour per aircraft goal

Started by RiverAux, April 07, 2013, 03:30:14 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RiverAux

For many, many years CAP has had a goal of putting 200 hours on each aircraft each year.  Now, this is averaged out over the fleet, but the clear message to a squadron is that if you're below that number you may lose your aircraft to someone that will fly it.  And the same goes at the Wing level -- if your average drops below 200 you may start to lose aircraft.

As far as I know, this 200 hour goal is pretty random and a goal of 150 hours per plane would be just as justified.

However, I think that the goal probably should be redesigned to take into account emergency and non-emergency flying. 

While a Wing can have some influence on how much emergency flying it does based on developing strong relationships with other agencies in the state, you really can't predict how much SAR or DR flying is likely to be done in any given year. 

That being said, over the long term you can predict that the Gulf Coast states (for example) are likely to have a fairly high percentage of DR flying and that interior states are not likely to have as much.  In the old days of ELT missions you could predict that the states with the most people (and most planes) would have the most demand for ELT missions.  So, while it isn't entirely under local control, you do need to take emergency flying into account. 

I guess what I am proposing that rather than a single 200 hour goal that it be broken down into an hours goal for SAR/DR flying an hour goal for everything else.  Exactly what might be reasonable would demand more analysis of our flying time allocations than I have the ability to perform, but lets say just for sake of discussion that we went with something like 150 hours of "routine" flying and 25 hours of SAR/DR flying. 

With the dual goals the analysis of use would go something like this.  Those that underachieved on routine flying would be most at risk for losing planes (since presumably they have more control over their ability to do this).  However, if they underachieve routine, but overachieve SAR/DR they would be buffered to some extent by the demonstrated need to have those planes there for emergency use. 

Based on these principles, I would propose that this be the priority list for keeping planes where they're at. 

Priority for Keeping Planes in Place
1.  Overachieve SAR/DR, Overachieve routine
2.  Overachieve routine but Underachieve SAR/DR,
3.  Overachieve SAR/DR but Underachieve routine
4.  Underachieve SAR/DR and Underachieve routine

Obviously, if over the long term (and not just based on a single year's data) you've got a wing that is regularly overachieving on both ends you might look at getting them some more aircraft and taking them from the wings that were underachieving on both. 

It would be a little harder to apply this to squadron level since due to the vagaries involved in moving planes around for maintenance, etc. its hard to say that X squadron flew Y hours unless you're going to track flying hours of each pilot in the wing, which probably isn't worth the effort (though it could be done). 

Am I nuts?

Flying Pig

Talking with our Wing Air Force Liason ( I dont remember what we called them) a couple years back, he laughed at the requirement and said "Yeah, I dont know.  Thats something CAP imposed on itself.  The Air Force doesnt care."

It should be more about whether or not you are responding when needed for missions and O-Rides.  Not "pilot proficiency".  I know of units who exceed their 200hrs completely with proficiency flying and havt responded to a search on ground or in the air in years. 

RiverAux

I tend to agree with you about that.  Never been a big fan of pushing member-funded flying as a way to pump up usage hours. 
If I've got a pilot thats been flying funded missions regularly I"m not going to ask them to spend their own money on proficiency flying.  And on the other hand I'm not thrilled about a guy who treats CAP sort of like a rental company and does a lot of proficiency flying, but not much mission work (though I can't say that I've personally seen that). 

Perhaps taking into account the percentage of funded flying budget (for non-emergency flying such as o-rides) utilized may be a better guide than just routine hours flown. 

ol'fido

#3
I don't like the 200 hour goal either. The bottom line should be are you fulfilling your missions. Are you maintaining pilot proficiency, are you flying SAR/DR missions when called on, are you getting your cadets o-rides in a timely and regular manner.  Our airplanes fly a lot in the summer. They fly at JFA, summer encampment, NESA, and CD missions as well as supporting our ES responsibilities. During the winter months they are flown much less due to weather issues. We can usually fly at or near the 200 mark averaged over the year, but you can run into headaches when you are expected to fly as much in January and February as you are in June and July. You can't arbitrarily divide 200 hrs by 12 mos. and say that you should be flying 16 or 17 hours a month all year round. In California, Florida, Hawaii, and the like you can probably do this. But not in states that have a lot of inclement weather during the winter months.

There is also the issue of maintenance. How much money does a wing spend for MX for a 100 hr. check? By requiring 200 hours on the plane, you are taking it in twice a year. One of my groups planes has been in MX for nearly a month. So far in the last 60 days, we estimate that we have had to cancel nearly 30 hours of scheduled flying due to maintenance issues or the plane being away for its 100 hr and not being turned around in a timely manner. The last report I heard was that there was a problem with the fuel system. It was down for nearly two weeks with a bad ASI just before leaving for the 100 hour.
Lt. Col. Randy L. Mitchell
Historian, Group 1, IL-006

EMT-83

I'm not sure that 200 hours is the best metric, but there needs to be something. With far more units than aircraft, some formula is needed to determine where the assets go. I'm sure we're all aware of folks that complain loudly that they never seem to have a plane assigned, but it just sits on the ground when one is made available.

Critical AOA

Quote from: ol'fido on April 07, 2013, 07:14:01 PM
There is also the issue of maintenance. How much money does a wing spend for MX for a 100 hr. check? By requiring 200 hours on the plane, you are taking it in twice a year.

Yes but one will be incorporated into the annual inspection so you are only talking about one additional inspection per year. 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."   - George Bernard Shaw

ol'fido

Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on April 08, 2013, 01:36:41 AM
Quote from: ol'fido on April 07, 2013, 07:14:01 PM
There is also the issue of maintenance. How much money does a wing spend for MX for a 100 hr. check? By requiring 200 hours on the plane, you are taking it in twice a year.

Yes but one will be incorporated into the annual inspection so you are only talking about one additional inspection per year.
I'll take your word for it,Dave. I'm not a pilot type.
Lt. Col. Randy L. Mitchell
Historian, Group 1, IL-006

bosshawk

Randy: the Wing doesn't fund the 100 hr inspection: National does with their contracted maintenance.  In fact, the Wings don't even pay for the movement of the aircraft from home station to the maintenance site: National does.  For the trivia minded, the Wings submit the paperwork and National either reimburses them or sends a check directly to the maint shop.

Oops, that was the system when I quit two and a half years ago: assume that it is still the same.  I was an aircraft manager for four CAP planes over the span of 18 year

I don't know for sure, but suspect that the 200 hour requirement from National is a SWAG, based on the amount of maintenance funding available in the National budget, divided by the 550 aircraft, with a standard amount per hour used to fund maintenance.  That is about as technical as I suspect that the whole thing actually is.
Paul M. Reed
Col, USA(ret)
Former CAP Lt Col
Wilson #2777

RTFB

Consider the following:
Airplane A flies 100 hrs/yr and its average maintenance cost is $X/yr.
Airplane B flies 200 hrs/yr and its average maintenance cost is _____

If you answered "2x", you would probably be wrong.  Yes, you have to pay for twice the number or oil changes & 100 hr inspections; but the more frequent use of Airplane B would generally result in fewer squawks to be fixed during those inspections or unscheduled maintenance.  Anyone who deals with aircraft maintenance knows that sitting still breaks airplanes.  Seals & hoses fail, batteries die, fuel systems get dirty, vacuum pumps and alternators go bad, etc.   And those are just the easy/cheap things to fix.  Cylinder walls & constant-speed props are where the money really flies out the door.

I'm speaking from a very big-picture perspective, which is what an operator of a 500+ aircraft fleet (like CAP) must do.  I'm sure you can come up with some isolated examples of heavily-used airplanes running up exorbitant maintenance bills, but you'd be using outliers to argue against a statistically significant conclusion.  The bottom line is that, the more the plane flies, CAP spends less on maintenance per flight hour.

Here's another item to consider.  Some aircraft engines enjoy the benefit of a TBO extension when they are flown often.  Instead of having to overhaul or replace an engine at a TBO of 2000 hrs, the engine may get a bonus 200-400 hours of life if it meets a minimum frequency of use during those first 2000 hrs.  Considering an engine replacement costs >$20,000, this is a $2000-4000 value.  The Lycoming IO-540 in the Cessna 182T has such an extension policy.  I believe the average monthly use must be >40 hrs to qualify, so this is probably not a factor in CAP's push to get 200 hrs/yr.  But it's yet another reason why increasing utilization lowers cost of operation.

sparks

CAP isn't permitted to fly beyond TBO so that advantage won't work. The 200 hours requirement was derived from a study (I don't have it) which determined the breakeven point of an engine reaching TBO or corroding in place due to lack of use. The idea is that 200 hours of use would reach TBO due to reduced internal corrosion. I always thought the Air Force imposed the 200 hour requirement, now the LO says we did it ouselves? Can that be verified?

The requirement no longer is a fleet average of 200 hours but is 200 for every airframe. Now DOs' have to move aircraft around to get time on less flown airframes.

For some Wings which have minimal mission rsources 200 hours is a tough goal to reach. In todays environment with reduced ELT missions and cadets who aren't interested in O-Rides, achieving the minimum time could be impossible. Expecting members to pay for flying to make up the difference also isn't realistic when the shortfall is significant. 


FW

Years ago, it was determined to fly the fleet an average of 200hr/year/aircraft.  This was done to minimize maintanence/replacement costs; for it has been shown numerous times aircraft fly longer and more effecient when flying vs staying stagnent in the hanger/on tiedown. 

If there is a trend towards a significant drop in flying hours, I would expect the size of the fleet to decrease.  I would hope for an increase in missions though, for decreasing the fleet is the beginning of something I fear; for many reasons.

Critical AOA

Quote from: RTFB on September 03, 2013, 04:34:36 AM
Consider the following:..................

As an A&P / IA with 30 years of aviation maintenance experience, let me just add one thing to this post:

:clap:
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."   - George Bernard Shaw

lordmonar

Putting 200 hours on an aircraft should not be a issue.

If each squadron with an aircraft was mandated.....mandated to maintain 9 or ten crews (that is 9 pilots, 9 observers and 9 scanners and no double billeting) and each crew was tasked to do at least 1 hour a month to maintain profeciancy.

Add to that a mandate to fly at least 3 hours a month O-rides.

That's 12 hours just manditory flying..that's a 144 just doing O-rides and Pro flying.

Add 10 hour for SAREX's each quarter that 184 hours and then you are looking at 16 hours of actual missions to make up the differences.

CAP's problem is that we post an expectation of what we want to fly with out giving any mandate of how we should be doing that flying.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Eclipse

If every active member in CAP did their staff job at just a 50% level for an entire quarter, this author included, we would not be having these discussions.

"That Others May Zoom"

SamFranklin

You're the GAO or AF IG. You're trying to find waste in government. You come over to CAP and look at the fleet. You're gonna ask, "Why 550 aircraft? Why not 420 or 610? How many are required to accomplish the mission?"  That's a tough question.

And while procurement is a special color of money, maintenance is not. Were the fleet smaller we could save Uncle money or spend more on cadets / training / staff / widgets / shoe trees.

The 200 hr rule is an educated guesstimate based on tempo, geography, and finances. Were I Mr GAO I'd ask tough questions on why we are keeping a fleet at 550 (plus 49 gliders) when our own math points to needing 501 aircraft.  { 100,300 hrs / 200 hrs per AC }

I say cut the fleet to 510 (2% cushion) and see what happens.


SunDog

It appears aircraft location is as political as logical - we expeience the same under utilization at the same locations every year.  Small state, but we may have up to three aircraft located at Wing HQ's airport for most of the year; end of FY scramble ensues as aircraft are re-located temporarily to airports near the pilot center-of-gravity.

Geography matters a bit, but not too much. We really need pilots in order to put 200 hours on; we get some pilot attrition from the CAP hassle factor, some from loss of interest, and some with frustration at GOBN'ing missions. Looks like a slowly evolving net loss for us - sort of oozing, instead of flowing, out the door.

Outside the GOBN, my guess is most CAP MP's I know fly about 1/3 of their annual hours in CAP. That's anecdotal, not measured.

I think 200 hours is a decent target, as good as any; 10 distinct crews per squadron isn't realistic. I mean 10 pilots isn't tough, but 10 MP's? For our Wing, not likely.  I think I heard the target is 5 MP 's per aircraft.  We have very long serving IP 's who don't "do" MP, or don't do it any longer. Still, 200 hours seems a legimate goal - can't see a quality squadron leaving an airplane parked, only flying it on O rides or other funded missions.

But with the price points converging, C17/B12 vs club rental, sometimes it's a lot easier to fly other than CAP - one stop at AicraftClubs.com vs multiple web site visits, phone calls, emails, etc. The CAP mission is attractive, for sure, and keeps many of us around. But it isn't hard to spend more time feeding the system than flying the plane.


sardak

Here are the numbers from WMIRS as of  15 minutes ago:

2013
183 hours minimum - exceeded by 5 wings and 1 region (SER), only NatCap and CT are above 200, with NH at 199.
131 national average - exceed by 27 wings and 1 region

2012
200 hours minimum - exceeded by 22 wings
177 national average - exceeded by 34 wings

2011
200 hours minimum - exceeded by 23 wings
183 national average - exceeded by 31 wings

2010
200 hours minimum - exceeded by 32 wings
202 national average - exceeded by 32 wings

2009
200 hours minimum - exceeded by 35 wings
206 national average - exceeded by 30 wings

Mike

SunDog

Wow. That's a grim trend line. Aging and/or declining pilot pool? Declining mission? My squadron has lost a few more active pilots than we've gained over the last ten years - meaning guys that are still flying, but no longer active in CAP.

Not all big drama departures; just family, work, etc. Some we did lose to the bureaucratic hassles - no one thing, just the preponderance of frustrations. That shut me down for quite a while. I came back, others have not.

BHartman007

When I first joined (yeah, it was only a few months ago), I sat in on an aircrew meeting. They were walking new squadron pilots through how to set up a mission in wmirs and get a flight release. I remember thinking that I'd gladly pay another $80/hr to the fbo just to avoid the hassle. I can have a plane there in 30 minutes with zero paperwork. Even at half the cost I don't know how much I'd fly the squadron plane for proficiency once I'm form 5.

Wing Assistant Director of Administration
Squadron Deputy Commander for Cadets

RTFB

Quote from: BHartman007 on September 07, 2013, 03:57:05 AM
When I first joined (yeah, it was only a few months ago), I sat in on an aircrew meeting. They were walking new squadron pilots through how to set up a mission in wmirs and get a flight release. I remember thinking that I'd gladly pay another $80/hr to the fbo just to avoid the hassle. I can have a plane there in 30 minutes with zero paperwork. Even at half the cost I don't know how much I'd fly the squadron plane for proficiency once I'm form 5.

Really?  I can create a WMIRS sortie and complete the pre-flight sections of the e104 in less than 5 minutes, including pulling the TAFs & METARs from ADDS.  I don't know anything about you personally, but let me say that many people blame their computer/web incompetence on CAP's processes.  Not that there aren't a million other things about CAP's bureaucracy to complain about...