FLIR?

[disamuel]

I just saw this article. I didn't realize that we had any aircraft equipped with FLIR:

http://www.capvolunteernow.com/news/?wyo_wing_adds_flir_capability_to_idaho_search_for_missing_calif_plane_family&show=news&newsID=17774

[sardak]

North Dakota Wing also has a FLIR equipped aircraft.  http://cap.loneprairie.net/flir-camera/

Mike

[Crosswind]

They were purchased by Wyoming Homeland Security and recently installed in the 182 in Casper and the Turbo 206 in Jackson.  Today was the first real-world mission with one of the units, as the install was just completed recently and the FLIR rep was in the state two weeks ago for initial training.  Great systems, and will be beneficial in daytime and nighttime ops.

[Flying Pig]

So is the pilot flying on NVGs?  Are they flying at night in mountainous terrain?

[Crosswind]

No NVGs onboard.  And the flight parameters are still being hammered out, but initially no nighttime flights lower than 2,000 AGL, along with oxygen, since 2,000 AGL is at least 7,500 ASL in most areas of Wyoming.  All VFR, no IFR.   The system works like a charm in the daytime, so it remains to be seen what night ops we might be called on to carry out.

[Flying Pig]

You guys are using it during the day only?   As someone with a couple thousand hours using the FLIR and piloting an aircraft with FLIR, I hope CAP understands and trains for the risks associated with it.  NVGs with an IR laser is the way to use a FLIR at night.  But Im sure none of that will happen. 

[Crosswind]

We're setting up night proficiency and training parameters, and all Wyoming pilots are mountain certified prior to becoming MPs.  The state military department is providing funding for night/FLIR training, and safety is, as it should be, priority number one.  In this environment we are all aware of the dangerous terrain we fly in, and adding a night component will mean additional mitigation of risk, something we're all supportive of.

[PHall]

Crosswind, I would listen to Flying Pig. He has a lot of hours flying helicopters on NVG's and using FLIR while flying the Sierras in California.

[Crosswind]

I respect his experience, and am not disagreeing with him.  NVG's are a non-starter with CAP for an aircrew.  This is new tech for us, and we're taking it slow.  We have two planes, North Dakota one with FLIR, so we're the beta testers for the equipment.  Hawaii and Illinois are next up for FLIR and it will be a group effort to establish safe and effective flights. 

[Eclipse]

NVG's are a non-starter with CAP for an aircrew.

NVGs are approved for use by Scanner and Observers, and have been for a number of years.

CAPR 60-1, Dec 2012:

"2-1. Basic Rules.
d. The use of night vision devices by the pilot flying CAP aircraft is prohibited.

Night vision devices are for use ONLY by scanners and observers who have completed nationally approved training in the use of this equipment. Only nationally approved night vision devices are authorized for use."

Though which NVGs are "nationally approved" is anyone's guess, ditto on the training.

That IL is next on the list to get a FLIR is news to us, though the list of "forgot to mention it to you" gets longer every day.
Who's paying for it?

[Flying Pig]

Id be interested in knowing what nationally approved training is.  If Im an FAA NVG IP, does that qualify?  My advice.... and people may not like it.... but Observers in night FLIR missions also be rated pilots.  You are flying as an observer using your NVGs.  An emergency happens over the mountains, the observer takes over and "assists" the pilot.  Or at a minimum, be able to hold heading and altitude until out of the terrain.   But Then you get into issues with NVG lighting int he cockpit, and whether or not you are wearing a Walmart set of NVGs or a real aviation set of NVGs

Honestly, flying NVGs isn't as big of a deal as people make it out to be.  I have over 600hrs of NVG PIC, and probably a couple thousand as an aircrew member.  But the one thing is a set of NVGs approved for aviation will run you about $13,000.   The FLIR with the IR laser and NVGs is amazing.

What model is it?  What features are they coming with?  Without a mapping system, there are seveal features the FLIR won't be able to do, but still a neat deal.  Is there any recorders?  You can get a good recorder with an SD card after market and it will plug right in with just a couple mods to an AV connector.   It will record voice as well.  (not always a good thing  )  Shoot..... that'd be neat to be part of implementing that and helping with training.

[SarDragon]

Crosswind, I would listen to Flying Pig. He has a lot of hours flying helicopters on NVG's and using FLIR while flying the Sierras in California.

Lighten up, Phil. All of Wyoming is higher ASL than more than the average altitude of California, so they are probably well aware of what's going on WRT flying at higher altitudes.

[Crosswind]

FlyingP - It's the FLIR 8500.  Handheld controller, and a TeraDeck wi-fi video streamer which transmits the video to an iPad for the FLIR operator, and the MO or trainer in the right seat.  We do have a digital recorder as part of the install.

We tried to keep the install as light as possible, and went with the iPads instead of the laptop version, which would have required the removal of a seat.  As it stands, it pushed back our CG several inches, so W&B is extremely critical.

This model does have the laser, along with the HD camera and FLIR.  The laser is only visible to ground teams with NVG, so it might come into play working with LE in some missions.

[Flying Pig]

Crosswind, I would listen to Flying Pig. He has a lot of hours flying helicopters on NVG's and using FLIR while flying the Sierras in California.

Lighten up, Phil. All of Wyoming is higher ASL than more than the average altitude of California, so they are probably well aware of what's going on WRT flying at higher altitudes.

Don't get in an argument on my behalf......  However, altitude wasn't really the issue.  My point was that I hope people aren't flying night time FLIR missions in the mountainous terrain. 

The IR laser is a great feature.   Did it come with the 1.8x zoom?

[The Infamous Meerkat]

All technobabble aside, it was really nice to know that while I was on the ground, that FLIR asset was overhead tracking everything on the mountain. Adds a real sense of security in my mind and with the lack of information we had on this search, it was just one more opportunity we had to find some kind of a clue.

[Crosswind]

The IR laser is a great feature.   Did it come with the 1.8x zoom?

Yes, it does have the 1.8x zoom, a great feature.  At least in training, the 1.8 is the go-to IR mode.  We've also got expanded tracking capability, PCORR, white centroid, black centroid, Scene.  The white centroid does a nice job of picking up signatures.

[Flying Pig]

What altitude AGL are you flying?  Did they spring for any kind of mapping system or is it just the camera and the  iPad?

[Crosswind]

What altitude AGL are you flying?  Did they spring for any kind of mapping system or is it just the camera and the  iPad?

Daytime 1500 AGL, prelim rules minimum 2,000 AGL at night.  No mapping, but hey, we're not complaining  

[Eclipse]

An old article, but has some nice photos of the WYWG FLIR pod.

http://www.codyenterprise.com/news/local/article_455c5bb8-83b4-11e3-a5f3-0019bb2963f4.html

[coudano]

I would think that a really good camera lens (manual focus/zoom) would be as or more important to most of what we do, than IR.

[SarDragon]

IR expands our vision, and lets us see more things.

I'm not saying equip every lane with it, because of expense, but those planes that have it are improved tools for some of the things we might be tasked to do.

[lordmonar]

Not to mention IR gives us the ability to operate more at night.

[Flying Pig]

I would think that a really good camera lens (manual focus/zoom) would be as or more important to most of what we do, than IR.

Eeeeehhhhhh.... not really.  FLIR is a great tool during the day also.   We continually use it for searches.  A couple times I've done a day search for some dirtbag visually with the MK1 Eyeball and before we clear, give the FLIR a few sweeps back and forth and whattayaknow... there he is.  Crashed airplane where the engine may still have residual heat, or an area where there may have been a fire and the ground is still hot.  It will light up like a road flare.  The biggest thing people neglect with the FLIR is the reverse polarity.  Black Hot vs White Hot.  You will see things in black hot that don't stand out in white hot.  I tend to do the majority of my FLIR searches in black hot, not white hot.     Heck.... being a FLIR instructor would be something that could entice me to carve time out of my day to get back into CAP

Im not a big supporter of searching with daytime optics.  Ive done it, tried it, played with it.. once I missed the freakin' RIOT that was happening just outside the edge of the screen when all I had to do was look out the window.  Night time you have no choice.  Day time, search with your eyes and use the optic to zoom in if you cant get low enough to ID something but don't search with it. 

[coudano]

I was thinking more of AP than searches.
Pointing a Nikon with an inappropriate lens out the window is pretty janky, when we clearly have the alternative to hang a pod with potentially telephoto in it, outside.

[Panzerbjorn]

The challenge, as I see it, is along the lines that we have/had with ARCHER.  When you hook a FLIR system up to a bird, you now dedicate that aircraft to FLIR duty, and that's pretty much about it.  You lose the versatility of that aircraft to do things like o-flights and lift relief supplies.  I've seen a FLIR system put in a 206, and the FLIR operator's terminal and operator took up most of the back.  If you out it in a 182, you'd have to remove the front right seat, and the operator is doing their thing from the back seat.  That being said, the GA-8 would be a very suitable platform for the system much like the Surrogate Predator models out west.

On top of that...now come the same restrictions that came with the introduction of ARCHER.  'A pilot must have x number of PIC hours and carry an Instrument/Commercial rating to fly the FLIR bird'.  So you significantly limit the number of pilots who can use that bird with having the same requirement of 200 hours per year on the airframe to keep it.

If challenges like that can be overcome beyond just the acquisition and maintenance cost of the FLIR system itself  I'd love to see it implemented.

[coudano]

apparently it's a permanent install?

it should be a snappable mod
want flir? snap on flir and put the flir kit in the back seat
want telephoto? snap on telephoto instead
want px? pull out the terminal and put the bench in.

is the pod gyro stabalized?  will it do a ground lock? will it automatically track a mover?  will it cue to a poi (coordinates)?
or is it manual steer only?
is the laser a rangefinder?

[lordmonar]

The challenge, as I see it, is along the lines that we have/had with ARCHER.  When you hook a FLIR system up to a bird, you now dedicate that aircraft to FLIR duty, and that's pretty much about it.  You lose the versatility of that aircraft to do things like o-flights and lift relief supplies.  I've seen a FLIR system put in a 206, and the FLIR operator's terminal and operator took up most of the back.  If you out it in a 182, you'd have to remove the front right seat, and the operator is doing their thing from the back seat.  That being said, the GA-8 would be a very suitable platform for the system much like the Surrogate Predator models out west.

On top of that...now come the same restrictions that came with the introduction of ARCHER.  'A pilot must have x number of PIC hours and carry an Instrument/Commercial rating to fly the FLIR bird'.  So you significantly limit the number of pilots who can use that bird with having the same requirement of 200 hours per year on the airframe to keep it.

If challenges like that can be overcome beyond just the acquisition and maintenance cost of the FLIR system itself  I'd love to see it implemented.

Being a GFSO instructor (that the surrogate predator to everyone else) we have to pull the back seat to get all the equipment in.   But we don't have to do it that way in every platform.  The comparison to ARCHER is not really a good one.....the ARCHER system was mismanaged.  There should be no reason why a C-182 or C-206 with a pod on it can't be used for other tasks.   

[lordmonar]

apparently it's a permanent install?

it should be a snappable mod
want flir? snap on flir and put the flir kit in the back seat
want telephoto? snap on telephoto instead
want px? pull out the terminal and put the bench in.

Being a maintenance guy......this is a bad idea.  Make it permanent.  Spend the money to get a pod that has all the do-dads that you want.

[PHall]

The challenge, as I see it, is along the lines that we have/had with ARCHER.  When you hook a FLIR system up to a bird, you now dedicate that aircraft to FLIR duty, and that's pretty much about it.  You lose the versatility of that aircraft to do things like o-flights and lift relief supplies.  I've seen a FLIR system put in a 206, and the FLIR operator's terminal and operator took up most of the back.  If you out it in a 182, you'd have to remove the front right seat, and the operator is doing their thing from the back seat.  That being said, the GA-8 would be a very suitable platform for the system much like the Surrogate Predator models out west.

On top of that...now come the same restrictions that came with the introduction of ARCHER.  'A pilot must have x number of PIC hours and carry an Instrument/Commercial rating to fly the FLIR bird'.  So you significantly limit the number of pilots who can use that bird with having the same requirement of 200 hours per year on the airframe to keep it.

If challenges like that can be overcome beyond just the acquisition and maintenance cost of the FLIR system itself  I'd love to see it implemented.

The GA-8 would be suitable if it wasn't seriously underpowered and if it had some real seats and not the torture devices they have installed right now.

[Panzerbjorn]

The challenge, as I see it, is along the lines that we have/had with ARCHER.  When you hook a FLIR system up to a bird, you now dedicate that aircraft to FLIR duty, and that's pretty much about it.  You lose the versatility of that aircraft to do things like o-flights and lift relief supplies.  I've seen a FLIR system put in a 206, and the FLIR operator's terminal and operator took up most of the back.  If you out it in a 182, you'd have to remove the front right seat, and the operator is doing their thing from the back seat.  That being said, the GA-8 would be a very suitable platform for the system much like the Surrogate Predator models out west.

On top of that...now come the same restrictions that came with the introduction of ARCHER.  'A pilot must have x number of PIC hours and carry an Instrument/Commercial rating to fly the FLIR bird'.  So you significantly limit the number of pilots who can use that bird with having the same requirement of 200 hours per year on the airframe to keep it.

If challenges like that can be overcome beyond just the acquisition and maintenance cost of the FLIR system itself  I'd love to see it implemented.

The GA-8 would be suitable if it wasn't seriously underpowered and if it had some real seats and not the torture devices they have installed right now.

Yeah, but it's what we gots!

[PHall]

The challenge, as I see it, is along the lines that we have/had with ARCHER.  When you hook a FLIR system up to a bird, you now dedicate that aircraft to FLIR duty, and that's pretty much about it.  You lose the versatility of that aircraft to do things like o-flights and lift relief supplies.  I've seen a FLIR system put in a 206, and the FLIR operator's terminal and operator took up most of the back.  If you out it in a 182, you'd have to remove the front right seat, and the operator is doing their thing from the back seat.  That being said, the GA-8 would be a very suitable platform for the system much like the Surrogate Predator models out west.

On top of that...now come the same restrictions that came with the introduction of ARCHER.  'A pilot must have x number of PIC hours and carry an Instrument/Commercial rating to fly the FLIR bird'.  So you significantly limit the number of pilots who can use that bird with having the same requirement of 200 hours per year on the airframe to keep it.

If challenges like that can be overcome beyond just the acquisition and maintenance cost of the FLIR system itself  I'd love to see it implemented.

The GA-8 would be suitable if it wasn't seriously underpowered and if it had some real seats and not the torture devices they have installed right now.

Yeah, but it's what we gots!

You ever fly in one?

[Panzerbjorn]

The challenge, as I see it, is along the lines that we have/had with ARCHER.  When you hook a FLIR system up to a bird, you now dedicate that aircraft to FLIR duty, and that's pretty much about it.  You lose the versatility of that aircraft to do things like o-flights and lift relief supplies.  I've seen a FLIR system put in a 206, and the FLIR operator's terminal and operator took up most of the back.  If you out it in a 182, you'd have to remove the front right seat, and the operator is doing their thing from the back seat.  That being said, the GA-8 would be a very suitable platform for the system much like the Surrogate Predator models out west.

On top of that...now come the same restrictions that came with the introduction of ARCHER.  'A pilot must have x number of PIC hours and carry an Instrument/Commercial rating to fly the FLIR bird'.  So you significantly limit the number of pilots who can use that bird with having the same requirement of 200 hours per year on the airframe to keep it.

If challenges like that can be overcome beyond just the acquisition and maintenance cost of the FLIR system itself  I'd love to see it implemented.

The GA-8 would be suitable if it wasn't seriously underpowered and if it had some real seats and not the torture devices they have installed right now.

Yeah, but it's what we gots!

You ever fly in one?

Yes.

[Flying Pig]

apparently it's a permanent install?

it should be a snappable mod
want flir? snap on flir and put the flir kit in the back seat
want telephoto? snap on telephoto instead
want px? pull out the terminal and put the bench in.

is the pod gyro stabalized?  will it do a ground lock? will it automatically track a mover?  will it cue to a poi (coordinates)?
or is it manual steer only?
is the laser a rangefinder?

The FLIR 8500 will do all of that but you need a mapping system to interface with it.  Aero Computers, Meta Map, etc.  Thats about another $120K

[blackrain]

As I recall way back 2-3 years ago (may still be in progress) CAP had subject matter experts working on advanced technology integration of things (ADRS?)like FLIR etc....... for CAP. The idea was to standardize systems and training across CAP. Anybody know where they are on this?

[THRAWN]

As I recall way back 2-3 years ago (may still be in progress) CAP had subject matter experts working on advanced technology integration of things (ADRS?)like FLIR etc....... for CAP. The idea was to standardize systems and training across CAP. Anybody know where they are on this?

Probably reassigned to a high priority tasking like the NCO project....

[JeffDG]

apparently it's a permanent install?

it should be a snappable mod
want flir? snap on flir and put the flir kit in the back seat
want telephoto? snap on telephoto instead
want px? pull out the terminal and put the bench in.

Being a maintenance guy......this is a bad idea.  Make it permanent.  Spend the money to get a pod that has all the do-dads that you want.

For insert/remove, do you need to do a 337 for the plane?  The gear would impact W&B...can it be done by an A&P, or do you need signoff by an IA?

I'm just a pilot, don't understand the Part 43 stuff at all.

[lordmonar]

There would have to be an STC done for the specific modification for the make and model of the aircraft.  New Weight and Balance for the modification would have to be done.

And A&P can do the maintenance but the mod would have to be signed off by an IA.

[JeffDG]

There would have to be an STC done for the specific modification for the make and model of the aircraft.  New Weight and Balance for the modification would have to be done.

And A&P can do the maintenance but the mod would have to be signed off by an IA.

At each removal/insertion?

[a2capt]

I used to fly a C172 with a sky sign on it. If the sign/computer were installed, the aircraft was certified for the utility category only. If the stuff was not installed, it was back to normal.

[JeffDG]

I used to fly a C172 with a sky sign on it. If the sign/computer were installed, the aircraft was certified for the utility category only. If the stuff was not installed, it was back to normal.

Really?  Isn't Utility is less restrictive than Normal?

[coudano]

There would have to be an STC done for the specific modification for the make and model of the aircraft.  New Weight and Balance for the modification would have to be done.

And A&P can do the maintenance but the mod would have to be signed off by an IA.

I would think that it would affect the drag profile of the airplane as well, having a big ball sticking out one side but presumably not the other.

[lordmonar]

There would have to be an STC done for the specific modification for the make and model of the aircraft.  New Weight and Balance for the modification would have to be done.

And A&P can do the maintenance but the mod would have to be signed off by an IA.

At each removal/insertion?

no at the modification

[a2capt]

Let me rephrase that, the C172, because of other modifications was moved into the utility category, and with the sign/computer installed it was restricted. Essential crew only, and to be flown with the intention of operating the equipment only.

[SarDragon]

I used to fly a C172 with a sky sign on it. If the sign/computer were installed, the aircraft was certified for the utility category only. If the stuff was not installed, it was back to normal.

Really?  Isn't Utility is less restrictive than Normal?

No. I just looked in a 172N POH, and the 172 CG box is much smaller for the Utility category than it is for the Normal category.

[Flying Pig]

The FLIR mounted to the fuselage diesnt have much of a drag profile.  The camera I used to haul around sighed about 80lbs and I never had an issue with it, although I was flying a T206H.  My biggest gripe with CAP is that they put these sensors on 182s.  A turbo would make a world of difference when carrying around the extra weight.  And instead of cramming your people in a 182, transfer them a 206 for some extra room.

[blackrain]

As I recall way back 2-3 years ago (may still be in progress) CAP had subject matter experts working on advanced technology integration of things (ADRS?)like FLIR etc....... for CAP. The idea was to standardize systems and training across CAP. Anybody know where they are on this?

Probably reassigned to a high priority tasking like the NCO project....

Probably right......I'm guessing cost may be the issue.....Looks like a higher end system will cost about  as much as the airframe.......but sure would up CAPs relevance/capability.

[lordmonar]

As I recall way back 2-3 years ago (may still be in progress) CAP had subject matter experts working on advanced technology integration of things (ADRS?)like FLIR etc....... for CAP. The idea was to standardize systems and training across CAP. Anybody know where they are on this?

Probably reassigned to a high priority tasking like the NCO project....

No....no one on that team is part of the NCO project.....if you want throw stones....find another target.

[Spaceman3750]

What about hand held flir binoculars? Search with the eyeball, follow up with flir, like FP said. No STC or installation costs for something handheld. I have to assume that something designed for snipers would work from 1k agl.

[Flying Pig]

Ive used them.... worthless from an aircraft.

[PHall]

What about hand held flir binoculars? Search with the eyeball, follow up with flir, like FP said. No STC or installation costs for something handheld. I have to assume that something designed for snipers would work from 1k agl.

And a real fast way to get airsick too.

[Flying Pig]

What about hand held flir binoculars? Search with the eyeball, follow up with flir, like FP said. No STC or installation costs for something handheld. I have to assume that something designed for snipers would work from 1k agl.

And a real fast way to get airsick too.

Preach it brutha!

[Spaceman3750]

What about hand held flir binoculars? Search with the eyeball, follow up with flir, like FP said. No STC or installation costs for something handheld. I have to assume that something designed for snipers would work from 1k agl.

And a real fast way to get airsick too.

Good thought, I'm not an air guy.

[Eclipse]

I'll take anything anyone will give me for "free" and add it to the tool box, the minute
it cost anything, including soft costs and time (which many people fail to acknowledge)
it need to be tied directly to mission and purpose, with some actual possibility of using it.

Training a whole wing, or even nationally, on platforms which are limited in deployment and/or
controlled by a closed club, or worse, marketing a skill based on that, is self-defeating.

FLIR, ASP, GIIEP, ARCHER, even SDIS, is meaningless to the average member if they can't get involved,
and meaningless to the outside world if we aren't engaged with agencies who will call us to use it.
Further, injecting it into the organization randomly could have negative consequences when
it isn't used to its potential.

If it's useful in one wing, it's useful in all of them, and we should be spending time creating
national programs that find a way to deploy them across the board.

It is no more a savior for CAP then the "magic member" most commanders hope will
walk through their door and fix their program unbidden.

[lordmonar]

If it's useful in one wing, it's useful in all of them, and we should be spending time creating
national programs that find a way to deploy them across the board.

Not always true......and the corollary is definitely not true...."not useful everywhere not useful anywhere".

It is no more a savior for CAP then the "magic member" most commanders hope will
walk through their door and fix their program unbidden.

I don't think anyone is saying it is a silver bullet.  I certainly know the limitations of an IR camera on an airborne platform.   
Is it better then the Mark-1 Eyeball alone?  You bet!  But it does not make the Mark-1 obsolete.  Nor does it mean that it can be used everywhere (COWG would have a lot of problems trying to use the 182-SP).

The danger is the speculative investment.   ARCHER was thought to be all that.....well it wasn't.  Add to that bad training pipeline and management......well you know.

But all that aside.....CAP needs to look at tech solutions to enhance/expand/improve our mission performance.   Sometimes this means we are going to buy a turkey....

[JeffDG]

If it's useful in one wing, it's useful in all of them, and we should be spending time creating
national programs that find a way to deploy them across the board.

That's not even close to being true.  And it illustrates the basic problem with "standardize everything" thinking.

Different situations have different requirements, and tools and training should be tailored to meet the requirements that exist.

There is little use for "Mountain Flying" in Florida, but by the thinking above, if it's useful in one wing, it must be useful in all, and therefore we must make Mountain Flying mandatory for all Mission Pilots, including those in a state where the highest elevation is approximately what crop-dusters fly at.

Water survival is another one.  Well, we fly over-water missions in Florida, so by-God, North Dakota, all your aircrew must be Water Survival trained.  And because Winter Survival is a useful skill for a North Dakota ground team, you better believe that Puerto Rico Wing will be making it a mandatory part of their curriculum.

[JeffDG]

But all that aside.....CAP needs to look at tech solutions to enhance/expand/improve our mission performance.   Sometimes this means we are going to buy a turkey....

I would propose that Wings or Regions be given some, for lack of a better term, R&D budget to work with, rather than everything needing to be a big national program.  Let people do some, controlled, experimentation with technologies, and see what works.  If SER can make a FLIR system work, great, then adopt it nationally.  If NER tries out UberNewTech 2.0 and it fails, the issue is contained in a smaller region, and we can try something different.

Only if you accept the possibility of failure from time to time can you actually develop new things.

But we'll never get there is everything has to be spun up and run out of NHQ where committees have to be formed and before you even start writing requirements you need a dozen people to agree on what kind of donuts are necessary for the kick-off meeting.

[Eclipse]

If it's useful in one wing, it's useful in all of them, and we should be spending time creating
national programs that find a way to deploy them across the board.

That's not even close to being true.  And it illustrates the basic problem with "standardize everything" thinking.

Fair enough, then don't market it as a capability nationally, or even discuss it much outside the wing where it
is being used.

FLIR, ASP, ARCHER, SDIS, whatever is shiny this week, are all marketed, both internally and externally as if they
were standard capabilities available everywhere (that's certainly the underlying insinuation).

[JeffDG]

If it's useful in one wing, it's useful in all of them, and we should be spending time creating
national programs that find a way to deploy them across the board.

That's not even close to being true.  And it illustrates the basic problem with "standardize everything" thinking.

Fair enough, then don't market it as a capability nationally, or even discuss it much outside the wing where it
is being used.

FLIR, ASP, ARCHER, SDIS, whatever is shiny this week, are all marketed, both internally and externally as if they
were standard capabilities available everywhere (that's certainly the underlying insinuation).

OK, I can agree with you on that...

They're making a concerted effort with GIIEP...except for the fact that we have people we've trained years ago that can't get it to show up on their CAPF 101s.  Equipment is out in the field now, and thanks to the partnership with NG, we can get access to more when needed.

[Eclipse]

^ From what we've been told locally, like many other CAP things, before we can even get out of our own way,
GIIEP is being phased out for other systems.  I can't cite anything, only what we're told by the nice people
who hand us the luggage.  Considering it's 10 years old, that's not surprising.

[JeffDG]

^ From what we've been told locally, like many other CAP things, before we can even get out of our own way,
GIIEP is being phased out for other systems.  I can't cite anything, only what we're told by the nice people
who hand us the luggage.  Considering it's 10 years old, that's not surprising.

Hell, if they'd just get a production run of the Sprint Air Cards that are legal for use in the air...that's the big thing we can't do on our own.

[Eclipse]

I would propose that Wings or Regions be given some, for lack of a better term, R&D budget to work with, rather than everything needing to be a big national program.  Let people do some, controlled, experimentation with technologies, and see what works.  If SER can make a FLIR system work, great, then adopt it nationally.  If NER tries out UberNewTech 2.0 and it fails, the issue is contained in a smaller region, and we can try something different.

Making a system "work" is wasted time unless you can staff and man it consistently, even when "Old Joe" is sick.
Most of what CAP does, from a tech standpoint, is personality-based, and folds when the personality dies or gets fed up.

We should not be "developing" anything (i.e. the incredible failure that was ARCHER).  We should do what everyone else does,
buy stuff that is decidedly mature, and then develop the people resources to run those systems.

As an organization we have shrunk to the point where we are no longer (assuming we ever were)
able to respond to anything more then a rain storm without bringing in resources from all over the country,
and then the first day is spent arguing about situation systems, search tech, and radio channel plans.

But no, why would we standardize?

[lordmonar]

If it's useful in one wing, it's useful in all of them, and we should be spending time creating
national programs that find a way to deploy them across the board.

That's not even close to being true.  And it illustrates the basic problem with "standardize everything" thinking.

Fair enough, then don't market it as a capability nationally, or even discuss it much outside the wing where it
is being used.

FLIR, ASP, ARCHER, SDIS, whatever is shiny this week, are all marketed, both internally and externally as if they
were standard capabilities available everywhere (that's certainly the underlying insinuation).

That would assume that the assets and their crews can't be used outside of their localities....which is not true.   The GF aircraft based in NVWG and LAWG can and do travel to other locations to support customers.   ARCHER was supposed to be a regional asset that traveled to where it was needed.

[Eclipse]

That would assume that the assets and their crews can't be used outside of their localities....which is not true.   The GF aircraft based in NVWG and LAWG can and do travel to other locations to support customers.   ARCHER was supposed to be a regional asset that traveled to where it was needed.

"Supposed to" and "is" are about a Grand Canyon away from what ARCHER or these other platforms are.

The special aircraft became hangar queens or basically personal aircraft for a select few members who could fly them
(based partially on typically unnecessary CAP training "extras").

Not to mention the bar was so high on operator training that it essentially all but excluded those pre-selected to participate.

The number of times the ASP has been used outside the bandcamp it was clearly intended to support is statistically zero.

[lordmonar]

That would assume that the assets and their crews can't be used outside of their localities....which is not true.   The GF aircraft based in NVWG and LAWG can and do travel to other locations to support customers.   ARCHER was supposed to be a regional asset that traveled to where it was needed.

"Supposed to" and "is" are about a Grand Canyon away from what ARCHER or these other platforms are.

The special aircraft became hangar queens or basically personal aircraft for a select few members who could fly them
(based partially on typically unnecessary CAP training "extras").

Not to mention the bar was so high on operator training that it essentially all but excluded those pre-selected to participate.

The number of times the ASP has been used outside the bandcamp it was clearly intended to support is statistically zero.

I agree.....but I also consider things going forward.    If CAP experments with a new technology there is no reason not to advertise that nationally.  We should not throw out the baby with the wash water.   Just because ARCHER got mismanaged (both on the training side and the operations side) is not a reason to completely stop trying to do centrally managed limited asset programs.

[Eclipse]

I agree.....but I also consider things going forward.    If CAP experments with a new technology there is no reason not to advertise that nationally.  We should not throw out the baby with the wash water.   Just because ARCHER got mismanaged (both on the training side and the operations side) is not a reason to completely stop trying to do centrally managed limited asset programs.

The you advertise it as a "pilot" or "limited" program, not insinuate it's what ever member and customer can expect.

The reality is that a big chunk of members never get a single "real" mission, never touch advanced technology, heck,
never even venture outside weekly meetings, yet even units in podunk nowhere show photos of this stuff on their
science-fair boards as if they were doing it themselves.

[Spaceman3750]

Here's a crazy idea... Is there a way we can use those fancy P25 radios to beam pictures to the ground faster and legally(er) than the slow Sprint cards? It's all just data whether it's voice or pictures right?

[Eclipse]

Here's a crazy idea... Is there a way we can use those fancy P25 radios to beam pictures to the ground faster and legally(er) than the slow Sprint cards? It's all just data whether it's voice or pictures right?

Last time I checked, data rates for P25 were measured in "K" and would make 1990 AOL seem speedy.

P25 Phase 3 was supposed to address it, and again, last I checked the project was scrapped. like 4 years ago.

[Al Sayre]

VHF-FM narrow band operates in the 140 MHz range this means that in modulating the base frequency of 140 MHz the maximum frequency change is +/- 5 KHz (audio ranges) hence a maximum data transmission rate would theoretically be 10Kbps. 

[JeffDG]

VHF-FM narrow band operates in the 140 MHz range this means that in modulating the base frequency of 140 MHz the maximum frequency change is +/- 5 KHz (audio ranges) hence a maximum data transmission rate would theoretically be 10Kbps.

I looked once, and P25 digital was 9,600 bps.

Now, I have used modems slower than that, but not for a LONG time, and NOT to transmit high-resolution imagery.

What you could do with it would be hook it up to a GPS and maybe a text-terminal type thing as a situational awareness transmission and text messaging capability...it's amazing what a Raspberry Pi will do!

[Spaceman3750]

Well, I thought I had a good idea for a minute. Wonder how far 2.4GHz goes on a 2k ft antenna .

[Flying Pig]

I know CAP is not ever going to have full time aircrews manned and standing by 24/7... however a perspective on my end.  My last LE air unit did have full time aircrews that flew probably 25-30hrs per week.  Id say 75% of that time was at night using NVGs and FLIR.  With my current unit/employer we do not have full time LE observers.  We have a bunch of deputies who are assigned and each come in 2 days per week to cover the month.  That equates to about 3-4hrs of flight time per month per observer.  And they still are terrible at using the FLIR.  Terrible to the point of almost worthless.  It will take me a couple of years of just saturating them with scenarios every time we get in the helicopter.  It is extremely labor intensive on the part of the pilot because I am flying at night, on NVGs AND trying to instruct the observer how to use and tweak the FLIR.  For people in CAP who get into the program, its imperative that people understand that using a FLIR is much more than setting Manual Gain and Level and then just swinging the FLIR back and forth.   When you think you are good at it, you probably arent.  Simply based on the exposure a CAP FLIR operator is going to get.  Thats one of the issues I have with it.  How much is this thing really going to get used.  And when it is called into action, when was the last time the operator used it with any proficiency?

[sarmed1]

If it's useful in one wing, it's useful in all of them, and we should be spending time creating
national programs that find a way to deploy them across the board.

That's not even close to being true.  And it illustrates the basic problem with "standardize everything" thinking.

Different situations have different requirements, and tools and training should be tailored to meet the requirements that exist.

There is little use for "Mountain Flying" in Florida, but by the thinking above, if it's useful in one wing, it must be useful in all, and therefore we must make Mountain Flying mandatory for all Mission Pilots, including those in a state where the highest elevation is approximately what crop-dusters fly at.

Water survival is another one.  Well, we fly over-water missions in Florida, so by-God, North Dakota, all your aircrew must be Water Survival trained.  And because Winter Survival is a useful skill for a North Dakota ground team, you better believe that Puerto Rico Wing will be making it a mandatory part of their curriculum.

I think that CAP looks at this as more of a you may be called to:__________________. So yes you are a land locked MP, but if CAP puts out an "all call" for crews/aircraft to come to say Florida for a large scale mission, they want crews to be "universally" deployable, (hence have water survival) and not figure out how to coordinate on site just in time type of training with already limited rescources.

Practically I can see say having all personnel complete an initial training/qualification, and maybe meet some sort of compute based refresher on the didactics ever 2 years.  Then only require a brief hands on skill refresher as a "just in time" prior to or onsite of a large scale "deployment"

MK

[a2capt]

Mismanaged training. Imagine that. Yup, you show up for a class that the instructor was 'forced' to give, that the instructors' motive is to remain the only one qualified, so he gives out ambiguous information, blows through the topics so fast, leaves out key details, for a test that you could only take once.

[Eclipse]

One of the major problems with a lot of these initiatives is that because of the way CAP does its
inventories (and due in large part to historical shenanigans by members), everything has to be
issued to a "person", and generally "people" don't like to be held responsible for stuff they
don't have in their possession.

So the camera/flir/GPS/GIIEP/shiny beepy thingies is in "Jim's garage" and Jim's out of town/4 hours away/mad at CAP/won't let anyone else touch it.

The answer is "enough to go around,  assigned where needed and in accessible locations", however that takes money and trust.