CAP Aircraft Purchases

[Al Sayre]

The statistical probability of a CAP airplane being in the clouds _and_ losing vacuum has gotta be near zero.  Backup AIs are for airplanes that regularly fly IMC or at night.

We've had it happen to two different aircraft in the last 6 months.  Fortunately, one of the aircraft has a back up vacuum pump, and the other was bad enough to be noticeable before it failed completely and the pilot was able to safely transition to VFR.

[airdale]

Interesting.  I still think statistically the probability is small, just because the airplanes spend so little time in IMC.  Maybe overstating it to say "near zero." 

[Auxpilot]

There has to be a backup AI in my opinion.

I disagree.  I think the airplanes could be made much safer than this baseline by adding a simple STEC-20 autopilot, then ditch the MX-20 and the backup AI and you are net money ahead.  Reasons:

1) These are day VFR airplanes.  The basic configuration that they now have is entirely adequate for the little bit of short-haul IFR flying that might occur.  The upgrade to the Aspen is frosting on the cake already.

2) An AP will reduce pilot fatigue flying to and from a mission.  It also has the potential, given the right SAR software in the G430 and a GPSS box, to automate a significant fraction or even all of some search patterns.  Again, less fatigue.  Also more accurate patterns and the pilot's eyes not quite so tied to the panel, so probably a tiny improvement in POD.

3) Punching the AP into wing leveler mode can be taught easily and reduces the risk of VFR-into-IMC accidents.

The statistical probability of a CAP airplane being in the clouds _and_ losing vacuum has gotta be near zero.  Backup AIs are for airplanes that regularly fly IMC or at night.

I would have to disagree on a couple of the points.

Day VFR airplanes? - Of all of the ELT missions that I have flown in CAP I would say 10% were during the day. All of the rest were at night, sometimes with limited visibility or over Long Island where looking off to the distance you only see a dark hole.

I would not advocate having the AP fly search patterns at 1,000 AGL. Too easy for the pilot to get caught up in something while the AP flys the crew into the side of a mountain. Unless you live in the flatlands, seldom is a search flown at a constant altitude.

Ditch the multi-function display? Maybe. How about not installing the Garmin unit and instead using the Aspen MFD next to the PFD which is propably cheaper and solves the backup AI issue at the same time?

It sounds like your wing enjoys a lot of long VFR days. Many do not and marginal VFR and night flights are best flown IFR if possible (in fact the 60-1 encourages it). During the winter months I bet that 30-40% of my units flights are during the dark.

The autopilot would be great but: 1) Can you add it aftermarket to a 172 if it is not already equipped with the servos etc? 2) If so, what is the autopilot retrofit cost vs. the multifunction display and backup AI (remember why we are going this route.)

The statistical propability of a AI failure under IFR is exactly the same as it is under day VFR but the result of an IFR failure can be deadly. Yes we fly less IFR than VFR but nevertheless we do fly IFR so why take that chance?

[airdale]

All good points & an interesting discussion.

Day VFR airplanes? - Of all of the ELT missions that I have flown in CAP I would say 10% were during the day. All of the rest were at night, sometimes with limited visibility or over Long Island where looking off to the distance you only see a dark hole.

OK.  I think that still begs the question of what the overall fleet percentage of day VFR is vs other flying where the IFR gear is more important.  I don't know the answer to that but it still seems likely to me that my statement is pretty much true.

I would not advocate having the AP fly search patterns at 1,000 AGL. Too easy for the pilot to get caught up in something while the AP flys the crew into the side of a mountain. Unless you live in the flatlands, seldom is a search flown at a constant altitude.

Certainly a debatable TRADOC point.  The STEC-20 I mentioned is strictly single-axis, no altitude function, so there is not quite the temptation to read a newspaper while George flies the airplane.  Also, my experience with the G1000 is the AP won't fly the tight turns at the end of the grid lines so the pilot is again necessarily involved.  But in the end, with experience, it may turn out to not be a good idea.  Also, to have any hope of doing it you need the GPSS steering box which is something like $1500 additional.

Ditch the multi-function display? Maybe. How about not installing the Garmin unit and instead using the Aspen MFD next to the PFD which is propably cheaper and solves the backup AI issue at the same time?

Or better yet, keep the Apollos with the good SAR software.  Hit the used avionics market and buy up enough for 10 or 20 years of spares.  IIRC, the Aspen needs an external NMEA GPS feed, so you have to have some kind of box that provides this.

It sounds like your wing enjoys a lot of long VFR days. Many do not and marginal VFR and night flights are best flown IFR if possible (in fact the 60-1 encourages it). During the winter months I bet that 30-40% of my units flights are during the dark.

Well, the first rule of project management is to define the problem you're trying to solve.  Maybe my impression/generalization is wrong.  I wonder if anyone did a problem description and requirements definition in any kind of formal way before picking out this particular set of avionics.

The autopilot would be great but: 1) Can you add it aftermarket to a 172 if it is not already equipped with the servos etc? 2) If so, what is the autopilot retrofit cost vs. the multifunction display and backup AI (remember why we are going this route.)

The STEC-20 can be added.  IIRC the cost is around $6K.  Definitely in the ballpark with the MFD even without the electric AI.

The statistical propability of a AI failure under IFR is exactly the same as it is under day VFR but the result of an IFR failure can be deadly. Yes we fly less IFR than VFR but nevertheless we do fly IFR so why take that chance?

Well, you're going to take a chance by leaving out something.  The question is only which chance are you better off taking.  My point is simply that if the budget is fixed, it seems to me that a simple single-axis AP would enhance safety more than a fancy MFD and a backup AI.  If you can have the AP _and_ the electric AI, then great!  If you can have it all, go for it!  Known ice, anyone?

(BTW, I mention the STEC simply because I am familiar with them.  I'm sure there are others.)

[Trung Si Ma]

That is great question? There has to be a backup AI in my opinion.

And in the opinion of Aspen Avionics and the FAA since it is in the STC installation guide as a required component.

[SJFedor]

Also more accurate patterns and the pilot's eyes not quite so tied to the panel, so probably a tiny improvement in POD.

There should NEVER be an improvement on the POD based on the pilot's eyes. His job is to fly the aircraft, not be searching, nor buried in the panel.

[airdale]

There should NEVER be an improvement on the POD based on the pilot's eyes. His job is to fly the aircraft, not be searching, nor buried in the panel.

ROFL.  I knew that would be coming as I typed the words.  So many theoreticians in CAP, one was bound to step forward.  I've looked out the window and, if you're an MP, you have too.

Re the AI, of course.  So obvious.  Gotta have it in case the electronic gizzie goes paws up.

[SJFedor]

There should NEVER be an improvement on the POD based on the pilot's eyes. His job is to fly the aircraft, not be searching, nor buried in the panel.

ROFL.  I knew that would be coming as I typed the words.  So many theoreticians in CAP, one was bound to step forward.  I've looked out the window and, if you're an MP, you have too.

Re the AI, of course.  So obvious.  Gotta have it in case the electronic gizzie goes paws up.

I don't deny that, but one shouldn't be looking out there enough to affect the POD. Looking out occasionally is not bad at all, but when I have MP students (or Form 91 candidates) that spend more time looking on the ground then anywhere else, I have a problem with that.

It's not theory, it's how mission pilots (should be) trained.

[Larry Mangum]

As an Observer, I want a pilot that is concentrating on flying the plane and not scanning the ground. 

[DG]

Interesting.  I still think statistically the probability is small, just because the airplanes spend so little time in IMC.  Maybe overstating it to say "near zero." 

Huh?

You are telling me you don't fly IMC?

And you don't know anybody who flies IMC?

[sparks]

By definition the Scanner and Observer scans and the pilot flies. The pilot's responsibility is to fly the plane not do target scanning.
IMC is relevant since crews may need to launch in IMC conditions to reach a VFR search area. Same thing applies to a return trip, VFR search area but IMC return airport.

[airdale]

Huh?

I don't know why this concept is so difficult.  Let me try again:  I believe that CAP airplanes fly very little IMC as a fraction of total flight hours, hence the need to equip them extensively for hard IFR is not great.  Simple gets it done.  In a world of scarce resources a simple AP will probably produce better a safety bang for the buck than will an MFD.

To your direct question, the answer is "Of course not."  I fly a lot more hard IFR outside of CAP than I do inside CAP though.  And ... even for that I would much rather have a simple AP and VOR/DME electronics than a G430 and no AP.

[flynd94]

I don't know who posted it earlier but, CAP doesn't need the G1000.  We don't fly mission's in hard IFR and, if we do, what's wrong with steam gauges.  We have been using them for how long?

All we need is basic AC (C182, C206, Turbo C182) with steam gauges and, the GX55.  I agree with the earlier post that suggested we buy up the spare inventory of them.  I have flown both G1000/steam(w/GX55) and, prefer the steam.  You take to much of a weight hit with the G1000.  We could of saved the AF/taxpayer a ton of money by just refurbishing the aircraft we had or, purchasing steam.

We are the victim of someone wanting a new sexy plane.  I can tell you this as both a CAP Check Airman and, as a professional pilot, I have seen a steady decline in airmanship.  Pilots nowadays rely on technology way to much.  Long gone are the "stick and rudder" pilots. 

Flame away, just one guy's opinion

[SarDragon]

According to someone's prior post, Cessna doesn't make steam gauge A/C any more.

[Auxpilot]

I don't know who posted it earlier but, CAP doesn't need the G1000.  We don't fly mission's in hard IFR and, if we do, what's wrong with steam gauges.  We have been using them for how long?

All we need is basic AC (C182, C206, Turbo C182) with steam gauges and, the GX55.  I agree with the earlier post that suggested we buy up the spare inventory of them.  I have flown both G1000/steam(w/GX55) and, prefer the steam.  You take to much of a weight hit with the G1000.  We could of saved the AF/taxpayer a ton of money by just refurbishing the aircraft we had or, purchasing steam.

We are the victim of someone wanting a new sexy plane.  I can tell you this as both a CAP Check Airman and, as a professional pilot, I have seen a steady decline in airmanship.  Pilots nowadays rely on technology way to much.  Long gone are the "stick and rudder" pilots. 

Flame away, just one guy's opinion

Flame burners on (only kidding)

I too have reservations about the need to spend so much on the G100 182's. I like the retrofitting of the 172 option better myself because it's way more bang for the buck and it gives us what we need without overkill and a completly new learning curve.

Regarding the decline in airmanship, I'm on the fence about that one. Your are most likley correct that folks are depending on the technology more than ever but I don't see that as being all bad.

When I learned to fly Loran was just hitting the market and everyone said it was the end of the "stick and rudder" pilot. On the "glass half full" side, I think that the technology has made us all a lot safer and much better pilots. Things are so easy now that we can spend a lot more time aviating and a lot less time navigating. As a visual person, my situational awareness flying the ILS with a GPS in front of me is 500% better than trying to figure out where I am looking at the steam gauges. Not to mention that I have XM weather and all the other navigatonal stuff all in one neat package.

Folks will say "what happens when the technology goes dark?" which is a valid point. I still practice with those pesky vor's and even fly the occasional X Country with just a map but my training time is better spent mastering the technology and getting 100% out of it.

[wingnut55]

Hey are they putting radios in aeroplanes?

[NIN]

Hey are they putting radios in aeroplanes?

Once they can figure out how to make the tubes resistant to the vibrations from the motor...

[flynd94]

SarDragon,

Yes, Cessna stopped making steam gauges but, when we placed our original order I believe we could of kept the line open.

Auxpilot,

My observation of pilots becoming dependent on technology comes from my experience as a Line Training Captain, Line Check Airmen for a Part 135 freight company.  I had trainee's who didn't have any SA unless they had a moving map in front of them.   This is why I am a firm believer in teaching students in round dial first.  I also believe doing your Instrument rating in a glass cockpit aircraft is an accident waiting to happen. 

Before everyone calls me a old curmudgeon, I am on a 37 year old pro pilot.

[CASH172]

Why not just turn off the MFD and PFD and have the student learn to use visual references.  It's how I got back to looking outside after doing my instrument training. 

[KyCAP]

Hrm... Steam Gauge NAV II 182T.  Yep.. Got one of those here in KY.  However, as of last year... There was NO way to get an aftermark STC for installing an autopilot into it... And NHQ didn't buy one in them in 2004.   

I have hand flown that plane from KY to New Orleans.   Give me a G1000 with an autopilot and NexRad.

I still contend that the solution is closer to buying up used G1000 NAV III 182s that standardize the fleet rather than retrofitting and entering more "stuff" into the fleet.