Rumor Control - Corporate Vehicles

[Ricochet13]

Has anyone heard rumors regarding exclusive use of corporate vehicles at funded CAP activities?  No member owned vehicles to be used on ground sorties, etc.

[whatevah]

haven't heard that yet, but it's always been the case to use personal vehicles only when corporate vehicles were not available. Easier for insurance, easier to identify as CAP, radios pre-equipped, etc.

[Eclipse]

Nope, not true.

[lordmonar]

At missions all POVs must be approved by wing prior to their use.  They must be in WIMRs in order for you to get reimbursed.  Other then that there is no policy that I know of that you must use COVs like there is a policy for aircraft.

Having said that....I can understand and agree is such a policy were in force.  If we got COVs we should be using them for missions when ever possible.

[cap235629]

^^^^I agree, with one caveat.

Purchase vehicles that support ALL of our missions.
Our squadron currently has a corporate minivan.  We have 10 cadets so I understand, sort of.  I have been told that the vehicles are primarily for cadet transport, all other use is secondary.  We do however have it outfitted very well i.e comms and a soon to be installed mobile DF unit.

If you look at our vehicle use logs you will see that we use the vehicle more for missions than for cadet transport. 

here is the rub:

on every mission with the last 18 months this vehicle was on gravel or dirt roads the majority of the time.  Our part of the state goes rural VERY quickly.  The need for a vehicle with better off road capability (by of road I mean off "paved" road, I am not advocating 4 wheeling or mud bogging capabilities) becomes readily apparent the minute it rains.

Currently our wing has only 2 4 wheel drive equipped vehicles.  Both are at our wing headquarters in the most urban part of the state (another story...)  All squadrons are equipped with either a 12 passenger van or a minivan.  Though the 12 passenger van would be better than what we have, they are terrible off of a paved road as well.

Why not purchase a vehicle that bridges the gap?

Ford, GM and Chrysler all make SUV's that have 4 wheel drive and seating for 9.  Seems this would be a better choice.

Until then, I will continue to use my POV (a 4wd Explorer) any time it will be more appropriate (MOST OF THE TIME)

YMMV

[Eclipse]

At missions all POVs must be approved by wing prior to their use. 

Depends on the Wing. Certainly the POV has to be signed into the mission, but I've never had to have a POV's use approved.

7. Use of COVs, TUVs, and POVs.

b. Privately owned vehicle (POVs)
1) Use of POVs for transportation to and from CAP meetings, encampments, and other activities is solely at the risk of the individual CAP member and passengers. This is known as the "home-to-work-rule." CAP assumes no right of control, liability, or responsibility for such transportation.

2) The unit commander must approve, in writing, justification for use of a POV as official CAP transportation when adequate COVs are not available for such purposes. Approval is limited to unusual circumstances where lack of transportation or capability for CAP members adversely impacts important activities. Prior to granting such permission, the member is required to produce evidence of insurance coverage, state inspection (if required), and registration. The written approval for use of a POV will be kept on file in accordance with CAPR 10-2.

The question then becomes, what is "official CAP transportation"?  In my opinion this is different from simply using your POV for a mission.  I think "official CAP transportation" would be POV's designated by a CC or GTL, etc., as the vehicle for everyone to use, no choice, in lieu of a COV.

For one thing, not all missions have a muster at a central point.  Most, especially ELT searches, simply have assets going direct to the search area.  The transport to the area falls under 7-1 above, but whether continuing to use your vehicle makes it "official CAP transportation", is questionable.

We've got a fair number of COV's in my state, but rarely is there one between me and the mission, encampment, and other activity.  Its just a symptom of a big state.  So there's never been an issue with use of POV's for missions and other activities, nor reimbursements.

[LtCol Hooligan]

I think the main reason why they purchase vans is that 4x4s cost more and carry less people and equipment.  A 15 pax, although huge carries a lot of gear.  I too wish that we had 4x4s for missions, but at the same time, I have used 15 and 12 pax in prety rural and pretty snowy places and have not really had issues.  I think I got stuck 2x in 11 years of driving CAP vans in ND.  In all honesty, we can get to most of the places we need to with the vans, and really we probably shouldn't be there if we need 4 x 4.  Before I get flamed for that, as an IC, I have made the decision to have a 4 x 4 follow the GT into the field before on a just in case basis.  It was raining for many days and the roads were soaked.  They didn't get stuck, but just in case.

[Eclipse]

SUV's have their place, especially in rural areas, but they also tend to be a lot more expensive to maintain, especially for the hanger queen once-a-month use vehicles we have.

[RiverAux]

Our vans are fine for just about any county, city, or state maintained gravel road out there.  Now, if you want to go off on a minor Forest Service road or something like that, they will have some limitations, but that is not going to be a big concern most of the time. 

[lordmonar]

We need 4X4 for NIMS requirements....also we have had a couple of agencies say we had to have them if we were going to deploy.

[wingnut55]

I took this from the USAF Budget it covers 2007 -2013
FY2007           FY2008             FY2009           FY2010             FY2011               FY2012            FY2013
$692,000        $869,000         $889,000       $910,000           $923,000         $941,000          $960,00

This is the Description

This program includes vehicles to support Civil Air Patrol (CAP) operational and management activities. The CAP program includes the procurement of vehicles to provide transportation for cadet and senior members attending meetings and functions of the AF auxiliary. Operational support applications include command and control for search and rescue, counterdrug, disaster relief, and training missions authorized as AF missions for their auxiliary. Failure to provide funding for these vehicles will increase safety risks for transportation of over 20,000 CAP cadets and numerous ground teams who travel multiple times per year in support of rescue/relief missions and cadet activities. Several CAP vehicles are at their life expectancy, which necessitates

So who keeps telling us these vehicles are only for Cadet operations, why purchase Vans only?? come on NHQ get on the ball we need some 4X4s out here and maybe some trucks.

For nay sayers here is the link

http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080204-086.pdf

[ELTHunter]

At missions all POVs must be approved by wing prior to their use.

I do not think this is true.  I couldn't find anything in 60-3 that required that use of POV's be approved.  If you know where it is, I'd like to know, as I have wondered this before.  In TN Wing, the SD will not approve reimbursement for a POV unless it is on WMIRS AND you have a letter from your commander or the IC approving it for use.  However, I couldn't find any basis for this in the regs and always assumed this was his policy.

They must be in WIMRs in order for you to get reimbursed.  Other then that there is no policy that I know of that you must use COVs like there is a policy for aircraft.

Agreed

Having said that....I can understand and agree is such a policy were in force.  If we got COVs we should be using them for missions when ever possible.

My problem with the policy is that we should "train like we fight"  The powers that be want to only use COV's because they want to keep the miles up on them to justify having them.  However, my POV, like many others, is better equipped for a mission than most of the COV's we have.  Additionally, they push to use COV's at SARX's, but when it's 0300 and it's time for a real mission, nobody wants to come out and give you the keys to a COV, so why don't you just drive your own.

I don't mind equipping my POV with all the required stuff that a COV has.  I don't mind driving it on a mission.  What I do mind is making me jump through all kinds of hoops and making it very inconvenient to drive it on a SARX and then when it's not convenient for them to have me drive a COV, well, go ahead and drive mine.

As you might have noticed, this is a little bit of a sore spot for me.

[ELTHunter]

I think there are only about four COV's within a 30 mile radius of my unit.  However, one of these is a suburban that, most of the time, stays hitched to a FEMA trailer for use as a "mobile command center" (even though it will not be used on 99.9% of missions).  Another of the four is assigned to some HLS officer from Region or National, and yet another is a 15 PAX van that is about three years old.  When we got it, we were forbidden to use it as a ground team vehicle.

That leave basicly one vehicle for four five units with maybe for ground teams and an IC staff between them.

[wingnut55]

Maybe a fraud, waste, and abuse complaint should be filed with your IG, if the USAF purchased the vehicles for CAP to use for search and Rescue and Sarex transportation . Not just for Cadet transportation. see my previous on USAF funding for CAP vehicles. If you ask for U.S. funding and then restrict the use well figure that out. What is that called?

Sorry I forgot, if you filed a complaint that went to National kiss your CAP career goodbye, at least you will not make it  to Group or wing commander.

[cap235629]

Our vans are fine for just about any county, city, or state maintained gravel road out there.  Now, if you want to go off on a minor Forest Service road or something like that, they will have some limitations, but that is not going to be a big concern most of the time. 

With respect, you have apparently never driven in rural Arkansas.  Our last ELT mission in our squadron required us to not only drive on a non improved roadway, but up a "private" road to the private landing strip out in the middle of the boonies.  This is more the rule than the exception.

Our area of responsibility is predominately rural (at least 1/2 is part of the National Forest system) and road "maintenance" in most parts of the area only includes running a grader down the road every couple of years or so.  The money just isn't there for much else

as far as costs for the vehicles

MSRP for 2009 Ford Expedition 4X4 $37050 
MSRP for 2009 Ford 12(11) PAX E150 Van $27635
MSRP for 2009 Chevy 15(12) PAX VAN $34115
MSRP for 2009 Chevy Suburban 4X4 $43215
MSRP for 2009 Dodge Durango 4X4 $31410
MSRP for 2009 Dodge Sprinter 12 PAX Van $42150

All this means is that the cost is more for a 4X4 but as mentioned we need 4WD to be NIMS compliant.

I am sure the actual price paid by government contract is substantially less and will be probably much lower in the future due to the massive bailout of the auto industry (any other veterans remember the millions of K-Cars DOD bought when Mr. Iacoca got his bailout?)

Maintenance may be an issue but only if major repairs are needed and then only on 4WD components (15 PAX vans are very expensive to work on as well)

[RiverAux]

Please don't make assumptions regarding someone else's experience.

[lordmonar]

If we want to become NIMS compliant we will have to get 4X4 vehicles.

[openmind]

If we want to become NIMS compliant we will have to get 4X4 vehicles.

Do you (or anyone...) have a cite to that NIMS requirement?  I haven't been able to find it in my initial searches.

Thanks!


openmind

[lordmonar]

Opps....misspoke.

http://www.nimsonline.com/resource_typing/Wilderness%20Search%20and%20Rescue%20Team.htm

4X4 are not required...but recommended.

I do know that the last time a county SAR director requested CAP ground teams...they required us to have 4X4's.

[cap235629]

it is a recommended standard until Type 1 then it is a requirement