Should CAP dump ARCHER?

[A.Member]

Once again, CAP was involved in a sizeable search for a missing aircraft (see Missing Aircraft Search in MN).  And once again, ARCHER proved to be a non-factor despite it's deployment in the early stages of the mission. 

The ARCHER program requires a significant amount of training, not to mention the significant cost of the platform.  Yet, after several years, we have yet to see any real documented successes (at least none that I'm aware of).   During the same time period, numerous successful searches/missions were completed using our "traditional" tools.

My understanding is that CAP has already re-evaluated the purchase decision on glass 182's and instead will pursue the wiser approach of retrofitting 172s with glass.  At what point to we re-evaluate the Airvan and the ARCHER platform? 

Is it time to ditch this costly platform and return to a more cost effective and proven approach that utilizes the 172?

[MIGCAP]

Ditch the Archer as a bad idea tht cost too much. Keep the AIRVANS until they wear out. Install a good DF, and use them to transport people to places they need to be. It's a great aircraft to transport ground teams to do ramp searches along a route of flight.

[Eclipse]

Keep Archer and reduce the effort-to-operator training, allow for wing-level training, and stop treating it
like it will break if you touch it.

One need not be a Ph.D in physics to operate the thing.

[A.Member]

Keep the AIRVANS until they wear out. Install a good DF, and use them to transport people to places they need to be. It's a great aircraft to transport ground teams to do ramp searches along a route of flight.

Use the Airvan to transport people to conduct ramp checks?  It could probably be argued that'd be an equally effective waste of money.   

Part of the issue with the Airvan is it's high cost/low performance ratio.   It does have the advantage of payload.  However, what is the true need for this?  Payload aside, performance is pretty much equal to that of the 172.  Yet, the cost to operate is >$128 hour - nearly double that of a 172.   Who wants to maintain currency, let alone proficency, in that airframe at that price?  That is part of the problem.

[Eclipse]

Keep the AIRVANS until they wear out. Install a good DF, and use them to transport people to places they need to be. It's a great aircraft to transport ground teams to do ramp searches along a route of flight.

Use the Airvan to transport people to conduct ramp checks?  It could probably be argued that'd be an equally effective waste of money. 

Yes, much better to make the UDF/GT's drive from point to point and waste time.  Why complete a route
search in a 1/2 day when you can do it in a day?

Outside Archer, if we can't use the extra payload to transport people and gear to forward areas in a disaster or mission, they aren't much use.

[A.Member]

Keep the AIRVANS until they wear out. Install a good DF, and use them to transport people to places they need to be. It's a great aircraft to transport ground teams to do ramp searches along a route of flight.

Use the Airvan to transport people to conduct ramp checks?  It could probably be argued that'd be an equally effective waste of money. 

Yes, much better to make the UDF/GT's drive from point to point and waste time.  Why complete a route
search in a 1/2 day when you can do it in a day?

Airvan requires 2 person crew (CAP rules) and if you removed the ARCHER equipment and installed a seat in it's place, another 5 passengers could be added.  That sounds OK until you consider reality.

The Airvan is no better at getting places than a 172 and both cost significantly more to operate than a cargo can.  At the end of the day, if you're lucky, the Airvan will have transported only one team around faster than if they had driven.  However, the reality is that we use multiple teams to divide and concour and airport checks are initiated with simple phone calls with follow up as required. 

If we want to talk honestly about the effective use of resources, lets talk about the deployment of ground teams with no focal point for a search.  Let's use the recent mission in MN as an example.   Is is reported that the search was to cover 2,000 square miles.   There were no ELT hits.  That's a signifcant area to cover and there are a large number of ground team resources available.   This is not a unique scenario.  In such a case, do you deploy ground teams?  If so, where and why?  You send them on ramp checks and to do some door knocking until more specific/actionable info is known.   Are you suggesting that instead, the Airvan be used to bounce a team of 7 from airport to airport when that aircrew could conducting a grid search?   Is that truly effective? 

[lordmonar]

I guess the question is do we dump the archer and GA-8 or keep the planes.

Or....do we see ways of keeping our investment and trying to make it work.

Archer Limfacs.....not enough crews, only centeralized training, training too technical, flight profile very demanding.

If we kill the Archer we same the time and money we are spending on the training.  So do we keep the GA-8s?

Possible uses:
Transport....we can use it for medical transport, ground team stageing, DV transport, cargo transport.
Training....We can use it as a training platform.  One pilot trainee in the left seat, instructor in the right.  We have five seats to put in four Scanner/photo trainees and and an instructor.
SAR...put a becker on it and you have another SAR platform.
SUAV....outstanding platform for the sensor ball.  Lots of room for training an extra equipment for this program.

[SilverEagle2]

Ours has a Becker in it. Do most not?

[A.Member]

I guess the question is do we dump the archer and GA-8 or keep the planes.

Or....do we see ways of keeping our investment and trying to make it work.

Archer Limfacs.....not enough crews, only centeralized training, training too technical, flight profile very demanding.

If we kill the Archer we same the time and money we are spending on the training.  So do we keep the GA-8s?

Possible uses:
Transport....we can use it for medical transport, ground team stageing, DV transport, cargo transport.
Training....We can use it as a training platform.  One pilot trainee in the left seat, instructor in the right.  We have five seats to put in four Scanner/photo trainees and and an instructor.
SAR...put a becker on it and you have another SAR platform.
SUAV....outstanding platform for the sensor ball.  Lots of room for training an extra equipment for this program.

Agreed that the Airvan has other potential uses, probably the most benefial one being that of a small transport.  However, the larger question is whether the number/type of missions we engage in justify the time and expense to continue with it.  Again, the primary factor here being one of pilot proficency. 

For each hour in the Airvan, a pilot could get nearly two in a 172.  Would greater benefit to the organization be derived by selling the GA8s and purchasing other equipment/aircraft (we own 18,  I believe)?

[scooter]

If CAP dumps the ARCHER, it should also find someone else to fly GA8s.Like the forrest service or law enforcement.  This is the most uncomfortable aircraft I have ever flown. Its slow, poor performance at altitude, and the seats really really really suck after an hour. The best thing to replace is might be a refurbished 206. Fleet commonality at least.

[Major Lord]

Round file ARCHER, and install Thermal Imaging equipment in as many of our A/C as we can.  This equipment is battle proven (literally) for SAR, and opens us up for a wide variety of homeland security missions.

Major Lord

[Hawk200]

Round file ARCHER, and install Thermal Imaging equipment in as many of our A/C as we can.  This equipment is battle proven (literally) for SAR, and opens us up for a wide variety of homeland security missions.

Major Lord

I'd buy that. And any crew on the type of birds that use such a system would be a wide open field as far as recruiting goes, as well as ideal trainers for it.

If anyone knows, how many other organizations actually use an ARCHER system? Is this tech actually pretty widespread? Or were we the testing ground for it?

[Nolan Teel]

We use the GA8 we have in Dallas for many missions all over the State and region.  I'm not too fluent on ARCHER so I can't speak to keeping it or dumping it. I will say as an IC it's nice to be able to have an airplane that can carry more then 4 people and gear.  Also it's a great platform for aerial observation/fire watch.  The only down side is it's uncomfortable, but then again I'm 6'5', what airplane is comfortable.

[DG]

We use the GA8 we have in Dallas for many missions all over the State and region.  I will say as an IC it's nice to be able to have an airplane that can carry more then 4 people and gear.  Also it's a great platform for aerial observation/fire watch.  The only down side is it's uncomfortable, but then again I'm 6'5', what airplane is comfortable.

Are you able to remove the ARCHER to do this?

[Nolan Teel]

The Unit usually keeps Archer in it, but ive seen the airvan with archer out many times.  I do believe they try to keep it in just to have it mission ready.

[RicL]

I'm not too sure why CAP decided to field a prototype hyperspectral imaging system when there are proven high definition UV/Visible/FLIR solutions out there that are gyro stabilized and capable of tracking a fixed point.

I'd vote to ditch ARCHER and start writing grant applications like it's our business in order to outfit as many wings as possible with multiple FLIR/UV/VIS units.

[dbaran]

I've been ARCHER qualified for a year and a half and am not aware of any ARCHER missions in CAWG - other than our obligatory 2 ARCHER sorties during USAF exercises and one demo to another branch of the military.   The plane flies for other things - but ARCHER isn't the reason it is flying.  The Wing ARCHER guy tried to do refresher training late last year for ARCHER operators, but couldn't get the budget approved.

Some Wings (MO and TX) have been successful with it, but in different areas.  Take a look at http://rmgsc.cr.usgs.gov/awg/index.shtml

ARCHER is not a good fit for CAP's existing business - it isn't good for searches unless you have a good idea of where the target is but just can't see it.  If it is to be useful, we'd need to talk to new customers about it.  That is something that is organizationally difficult or impossible - we have dozens of people spending time on tracking rusted assets like generators from 1937, but no one doing business development.  I had a couple of external agencies that were interested, but CAP's internal processes were so complicated and slow moving that I gave up trying.

[Gunner C]

I've been ARCHER qualified for a year and a half and am not aware of any ARCHER missions in CAWG

I know for a fact that PCR and SWR are running missions.  Have there been successes?  Yep, darned impressive ones, too.  Some just aren't publicized like they should.  Others' info are specifically not released because of requests of the customer.  (Please don't give me that "secret squirrel" crap - that's just the way it is on some projects).  They've made significant contributions to our national security in a couple of cases.

[LTC Don]

Once again, CAP was involved in a sizeable search for a missing aircraft (see Missing Aircraft Search in MN).  And once again, ARCHER proved to be a non-factor despite it's deployment in the early stages of the mission. 

Is it time to ditch this costly platform and return to a more cost effective and proven approach that utilizes the 172?

That's a good question, and I admittedly don't know the answer, but a better question to ask, arising from your first sentence is: Did the ARCHER fly any sorties that took it over the actual crash site?  And if it did, why didn't it see an all metal Piper?  If it did not fly any sorties over the actual crash site, then what is the purpose of your second question except just to bash ARCHER.

I find Gunner C's statement interesting.  I know nothing of ARCHER operations, but if they are indeed flying classified missions, then we certainly can't know what contributions ARCHER is indeed making to the collective effort.  Which kinda sucks because I would like to know more.

Cheers,

[RiverAux]

I voted yes, but only because the options were pretty limited.  I don't think anything has really been PROVEN one way or another since I have not seen of any real overall evaluation of the program.  For example, how many missing airplane searches has ARCHER been deployed on where the plane's flight path took it over the target?  In what percentage of those cases did it detect the target?  Is this percentage better/worse/same as the stats we generally use for visual searches? 

My only personal experience has been somewhat indirect -- on a missing airplane search mission where the ARCHER crew apparently tried to claim after-the-fact credit for a find they didn't have anything to do with. 

[ricecakecm]

I was involved in Missouri's ARCHER program from the beginning as the Wing DO.  My observations of the system are from the management perspective.  I got a Form 5 in the GA8, but never flew it very much or on an ARCHER mission.  I did run a few ARCHER missions, however.

Part of our success was a good working relationship with state agencies, which in turn led to relationships with federal agencies.  Part of the success was just pure luck, i.e. in the right spot at the right time.

The USGS website posted above came out of a mission I ran in 2007 during a flood in Southeast Kansas which resulted in an oil refinery spilling oil into the river.  We sent the GA8 down there to gather images (and then send them to USGS)  The first day we got stopped with cloud cover.  The second day we had a problem getting enough operators to make it work. We ended up bringing a couple of operators up from Texas (it was very rare to be able to do a last minute mission with an entire crew from Missouri...we usually brought folks in from out of state to round out the crew).

The problem isn't the ARCHER system.  It's a good system.  The problem is that the things it was intended to be used for, it doesn't do very well.  However, if you think outside the box, you can come up with missions for it.  That's what we did in Missouri and had some success with it.

The other problem is the lack of crews, especially ARCHER operators.  This may have been fixed by now, but we started with 6 or 7 operators in Missouri.  A couple left the organization, so we were down to 4 or 5.  Others wouldn't always be able to get away from work.  So while I could usually get a crew for the front seats (I had plenty of pilots checked out in it), the back end crew was always tough to come by.  Thus the need to "import" operators from other wings from time to time (and we would send operators to other wings as well). 

As a side note, the GA8 worked well for us for Cadet O-rides.  You could take a bunch of cadets and it was fairly economical.  Our plane didn't have a hobbs meter, so all billing was done with the Tach, which runs slower at reduced power settings.  We also burned less fuel that way.  So we were able to complete rides in the same amount of flight time, but the time put on the plane and the fuel put into the plane was much less because we weren't flying around at 120 knots, but at 85 or so.


Just some thoughts from a guy who used to be involved with all of this.

[wingnut55]

Google Hyperspectral and try to learn something.  Hypespectral is a commonly used technology. Not new to the world. CAP HQ was convinced by well meaning Officers at NHQ. Unfortunately they did not follow advice from experts and we got sold a system that was never PROVEN because it is like the first model of P-51 mustangs, under powered (the GA-8) and the imaging (hypespectral system) is poorly designed.

CAP Should have spent the money on 10 systems that worked but instead 16 were purchased that had Half Butt capabilities. Then little common sense was used for training, people who had the greatest suck with their wing got to go. Most of them have never flown an actual archer mission, worse they probably never intended to fly either, they should be ashamed of themselves.

2 years ago the USAF offered to pay for upgrades for several systems to prove that they could work, and NHQ turned the USAF down. ( I know because I worked with the USAF for CAP on the project)

WE could have been a National Asset to many federal agencies with Archer. Yes there have been classified uses and they are classified, But without effective leadership it remains the most uncomfortable Airplane I have ever flown in and a multi million dollar Boondogle by NHQ. But we blame all of our problems on the Boogeyman Gen P, and not on our core inability to be dynamic and  leaders who cannot lead.

[Airrace]

Yes it's time to ditch this costly platform and return to a more cost effective and proven approach that utilizes the 172?

[Larry Mangum]

I have not seen a 172 in CAP service since I left MAWG for WAWG in 1999. It is just not powerful enough for the mountains out west. 

[bosshawk]

Larry: you are right, but the folks in most of the US only have 1500 ft TV antennas to worry about.  The 172 is fine for those wings: keep the 182s and 206s out here.

[321EOD]

I voted to keep it, even though it is unlikely I will ever get to see it!

Even though I work for the Govt (US local), have 20 years experience in IT, spent 10 years in the military working on some GREAT "secret squirrel" gear, spent time working with VIP protection teams.........I am not allowed to undertake ARCHER training because I'm not a US citizen :-O

Ironically, I'm an Australian citizen.... any guesses where the GA-8 is built?..... yep, Aussie!  http://www.gippsaero.com/

BTW, according to the manufacturers' website CAP is flying over 50% of GA-8s operating in the US...

[Flying Pig]

You cant take ARCHER training unless your a Citizen?  Thats lame.

[RiverAux]

Those Aussies might steal our secret kangaroo counting software

[321EOD]

Those Aussies might steal our secret kangaroo counting software

Don't need the software, we already know how many there are... TOO MANY!

[Gunner C]

I voted to keep it, even though it is unlikely I will ever get to see it!

Even though I work for the Govt (US local), have 20 years experience in IT, spent 10 years in the military working on some GREAT "secret squirrel" gear, spent time working with VIP protection teams.........I am not allowed to undertake ARCHER training because I'm not a US citizen :-O

Ironically, I'm an Australian citizen.... any guesses where the GA-8 is built?..... yep, Aussie!  http://www.gippsaero.com/

BTW, according to the manufacturers' website CAP is flying over 50% of GA-8s operating in the US...

That's a government requirement, not CAP.  We already had one foreign government making "friendly" inquiries.  IIRC, it has to do with laws regarding transfer of technology.  Yeah, I know - you can get MUCH better equipment out there, but that's the way it is, for better or worse.  But if another country got hold of the onboard guidance system, then they'd have something we don't want them to.  The rest are proprietary requirements of the contractor.

[JR]

The problem with ARCHER is not with the technology, but the way it is both managed and used.  From personal experience, we had requested ARCHER support after a missing plane search was suspended and gave general locations where to look and requested that we be contacted BEFORE it overflew its search area to verify it's tasking.  We heard nothing until weeks later when National told us that the sortie was already flown with negative results.  We then found out they did not even come close to searching the area we gave them.  The missing plane was eventually found by hikers. 

This is not an isolated case,  but speaking with others, very common.  Whenever ARCHER was deployed to followup on a suspended missing plane search, they got negative results because they searched the wrong area.  In addition, mission base staffers do not know how to plan or manage this asset because they do not understand the technology.  This was brought out during a CAP/USAF conference on ARCHER in June, 2008.  The conference recommended that ARCHER aircrew training be tightened up AND adequately funded.  But they also recommended that mission base operations and planning staffs be trained on its use and capability.  There was also a recommendation that this may necessitate a separate qualification rating for operations and planning staff.

Most of the posts I see here appear to be emotional, knee jerk reactions to the poll question.  I believe the technology is valid, but we could have chosen a better platform like a Cessna 208.  What I also believe is needed is a deeper evaluation of ARCHER's deployment and use up until now to find out what works and what doesn't.  If we decide it is still useful, buy a new, more capable platform to use it with.

[RiverAux]

JR brings up a very good point that I'd never really thought of.  I'm a pretty darn active OSC(T)/PSC/AOBD and SMC graduate and I'm not aware of anything out there that tells me how to best use an ARCHER system if one were available to me. 

How much are we using the ARCHER system in SAREX's in wings where they are not based so as to get the staff trained on what they can and can't do?  Would the "receiving" Wing need to fund it to get it to come to their state for this purpose?

However, the real weakness of the ARCHER system is that you would need probably 10-15 people per position trained in it to really make that system "expeditionary" --- meaning being able to send it out of state on an emergency basis.  For a normal CAP plane, if you don't have at least 6 people for each position, you run the risk of not being able to fly a local mission at any given time and to be ready for a out-of-state mission that might run a week, you probably need 5-10 people.  Given the technicalities of ARCHER and the airframe, it is going to be even harder to maintain sufficient readiness. 

And the more people you have to have on standby, the harder it is going to be to keep them adequately trained.   

So, what you need with the ARCHER is a very large pool of people around that plane that are willing and available for multi-day missions out of state.  Are we meeting that goal?  I don't really know.   

[JR]

I submit this letter published by National HQs on 5 June 2008 that outlines where we stood on the ARCHER program at that time.  This letter outlines the issues at hand concerning effective and efficient use of the system as well as the training of pilots and crews.

http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/2008_06_05_ARCHER_FC5DC244B56A2.pdf

I am surprised that many of those posting comments here seem to be unaware of this letter.  It is an appendix to the current CAPR 60-3.

My last comment is that if all we want to do with the GA-8s is use them as transports or cadet "O" rides, then let's keep them.  However, if we really want an effective platform to continue using ARCHER, then let us buy a platform that is truly both capable and useful.  We went cheap when we bought the GA-8s and now we are getting exactly what we paid for.

[Flying Pig]

The problem with ARCHER is not with the technology, but the way it is both managed and used.  From personal experience, we had requested ARCHER support after a missing plane search was suspended and gave general locations where to look and requested that we be contacted BEFORE it overflew its search area to verify it's tasking.  We heard nothing until weeks later when National told us that the sortie was already flown with negative results.  We then found out they did not even come close to searching the area we gave them.  The missing plane was eventually found by hikers. 

This is not an isolated case,  but speaking with others, very common.  Whenever ARCHER was deployed to followup on a suspended missing plane search, they got negative results because they searched the wrong area.  In addition, mission base staffers do not know how to plan or manage this asset because they do not understand the technology.  This was brought out during a CAP/USAF conference on ARCHER in June, 2008.  The conference recommended that ARCHER aircrew training be tightened up AND adequately funded.  But they also recommended that mission base operations and planning staffs be trained on its use and capability.  There was also a recommendation that this may necessitate a separate qualification rating for operations and planning staff.

Most of the posts I see here appear to be emotional, knee jerk reactions to the poll question.  I believe the technology is valid, but we could have chosen a better platform like a Cessna 208.  What I also believe is needed is a deeper evaluation of ARCHER's deployment and use up until now to find out what works and what doesn't.  If we decide it is still useful, buy a new, more capable platform to use it with.

I think we all know that there is no way on Gods green earth that CAP will ever fly Turbo Props.  Although a 208 is pretty sweet.   Im still scratching my head about the GA-8 and wondering who decided to go with that?

[PHall]

The problem with ARCHER is not with the technology, but the way it is both managed and used.  From personal experience, we had requested ARCHER support after a missing plane search was suspended and gave general locations where to look and requested that we be contacted BEFORE it overflew its search area to verify it's tasking.  We heard nothing until weeks later when National told us that the sortie was already flown with negative results.  We then found out they did not even come close to searching the area we gave them.  The missing plane was eventually found by hikers. 

This is not an isolated case,  but speaking with others, very common.  Whenever ARCHER was deployed to followup on a suspended missing plane search, they got negative results because they searched the wrong area.  In addition, mission base staffers do not know how to plan or manage this asset because they do not understand the technology.  This was brought out during a CAP/USAF conference on ARCHER in June, 2008.  The conference recommended that ARCHER aircrew training be tightened up AND adequately funded.  But they also recommended that mission base operations and planning staffs be trained on its use and capability.  There was also a recommendation that this may necessitate a separate qualification rating for operations and planning staff.

Most of the posts I see here appear to be emotional, knee jerk reactions to the poll question.  I believe the technology is valid, but we could have chosen a better platform like a Cessna 208.  What I also believe is needed is a deeper evaluation of ARCHER's deployment and use up until now to find out what works and what doesn't.  If we decide it is still useful, buy a new, more capable platform to use it with.

I think we all know that there is no way on Gods green earth that CAP will ever fly Turbo Props.  Although a 208 is pretty sweet.   Im still scratching my head about the GA-8 and wondering who decided to go with that?

Say it with me, "Low Bidder".

You know, the GA-8 has the same engine as the C206. If you stuck the same three bladed prop the C206 has on it you could at least do something about the less then thrilling rate of climb.
Heck, there may even be a STC for this mod already!

[Flying Pig]

Which is what I thought was wild when I started researching the specs.  I fly a Turbo 206 everyday.....and it sucks wind at times.  Not to mention sticking that same engine on a BIGGER airplane.

[bosshawk]

The same people made the ARCHER and GA08 decision that make all of the other decisions that come out of National.

That letter that was referenced made its rounds and has now apparently been forgotten.  I hear of nothing that is being done to change or improve the sensor nor the airplane.

After having run two very extensive test sessions with the system here in CAWG a couple of years ago, I made a suggestion to the CAP/USAF officer in charge of the whole fiasco: I recommended that the sensors be removed from the aircraft and carefully stored and that the planes be sold.  His response: thanks for your thoughts.

With more than 40 years of imagery reconnaissance experience, the whole subject makes me want to upchuck.

[MIGCAP]

What we have is decisions made by folks who are the farthest away from the mission as we can arrange. Either they have little experience or none. They buy stuff cause they are "cool" not because they are useful. After they get them they lose interest quickly and the systems fall by the wayside in terms of support. Specifically:

Archer: interesting idea, no mission, no customer, unproven technology from a SAR point of view. Also a very expensive arena for a small player like us to play in. Some folks wanted to fly the GA-8, and play with a sophisticated sensor, so they bought it. After they flew it (It's a pig) and played with the sensor (cool, but not useful) they bailed out. Now we are stuck with it. The concept that a SAR force has this thing and no FLIR or SLIR capability is enough for a GAO investigation.

SDIS: Good idea to retrofit into existing aircraft, spent all the money on glass 182's so they had to but a satellite interface and service from a company that can't provide it. Therefore more expensive equipment that nobody can use and nobody wants.  We killed slow-scan which while not optimal at least worked. Again sombody wanted to play with this stuff but not support it.

Remember this is the organization that thinks that a 15 Passenger van is a good SAR vehicle, and a seven passenger van has any use in CAP at all other than airport pickups. I'm not against vans to transport cadets to stuff, but that is one third of our mission and eighty percent of our vehicles. These are the folks who think ICS 300 and 400 has any use to somebody in CAP. Yes they are cool, and it lets us wear the TPU in from of the fire department, but if any of us are made the IC/AOBD/GBD of a real disaster then I'm getting out, quickly.

You don't acquire things then go looking for a mission for them to perform. You get the missions then evaluate new technology to see if it can perform the mission. We are not in a "If you build it, they will come." situation.

Concentrate on proven technology, low cost, ease of training, and enhancements to our missions. We need to put poeple in charge of our ES mission area that have actually been on a mission in the last few years, then we might have a fighting chance.

We simply have it backwards, dump Archer, if the aircraft are really not useful from a transport point of view, sell them and buy FLIR for at least one aircraft in each wing.

[wingnut55]

Interesting points but it is all rhetoric, empty words, just the guys in the trenches bellyaching.


Bottom line is the SAR guys (most ICs) see ARCHER as a waste of time and effort.

I can pontificate the use of Hyperspectral Imaging, but no one cares, NHQ keeps it around because no one at NHQ can make a decision. They made a mistake and can't fix it, doing so is admission that they made a mistake.

As much as I love the Science involved, I agree with Bosshawk.

[JR]

MIGCAP and Wingnut55 both have good points.  It's too bad that this message board is more of a way to vent rather than a vehicle for making change happen.  After 12 years as a CAP member its obvious to me that National does not care what we think.

Anyways, we've made some bad decisions and have spent money like drunken sailors on liberty for technology that was not adequately researched or thought out.  I don't agree that CAP needs to dump all it has invested in.  ARCHER and the G-1000 aircraft can be useful if crews are adequately trained, suitable platforms used, the missions properly tasked and funded.

However, we have a long way to go to join the 21st Century when it comes to using simple technology that actually works.  The fundamentals of SAR still apply - competent Mission Pilots and aircrews that can plan and execute a sortie in which the search pattern is properly flown and the crew actively scanning.  But at the same time there is plenty of low cost, off the shelf technology we could be using to help aircrews perform their taskings.

Some simple examples:

1) We bought Garmin GPS trackers and assigned them to crews to assess where they went and how effective they were in covering the grid. It was quite a revelation to see the difference between what the crew said they did and what they actually flew.

2)  We print screen shots of grid assignments to issue to aircrews so they can document sightings and other locations and clues.  We get an annotated document instead of scratchy drawings and unreadable notes.

3)  We have synchronized digital cameras with GPS trackers to produce Delorme maps that you can click on a location and see the photos of the target.

4) We provide weather radar imagery via the Internet to provide crews real time weather in the search area.

As I said before, we don't need flashy, complex and expensive technology.  All that I described  is simple, off the shelf technology that doesn't cost a lot.  Yet missions are being conducted now-a-days that don't even have a copier or Internet access.  This is inexcusable.

When we first issued the trackers I had older Mission Pilots accuse me of challenging their integrity and competence.  However, the newer, younger Mission Pilots were all over this and could not wait for us to download their tracks so that they could see how they performed.  Now, there is virtually no resistance to using the trackers. 

This same dynamic is playing out over the use of ICS-NIMS.  There are still those who will not accept ICS-NIMS saying it does not apply to what we do.  Yet, these same people expect that CAP will be the lead organization in a multi-agency emergency response.  This is foolishness.  As MIGCAP stated, we may be IC/AOBD/OPs qualified based on CAP standards, but we are not ready for big league ES operations with agencies that demand higher standards of their ES personnel.  We are not even close.

We need to start thinking out of the box on how we can do our missions more efficiently and effectively as well as safely.  Don't give me the excuse that all this technology doesn't find missing airplanes.  It doesn't.  It helps our aircrews find missing airplanes.