Routine Vehicle Maintenance

[Stonewall]

You're a vehicle custodian. It's time for routine maintenance (oil change, tire rotation, and inspection), what the next step?

Do you have the latitude to simply schedule and get the work done and use the fleet credit card thing?

Or do you have to first get an estimate for the routine maintenance, submit that estimate to wing, wait for approval, then schedule the service?

What's your wing's operating procedure for this type of maintenance?

[arajca]

Routine maintenance, as long as it's below $200, does not need to be approved to use the EFS card.

National is pretty good about approving maintenance as needed.

My wing - get it done as needed, subject to the $200 limit.

Make sure to upload the receipt to ORMS under the vehicle's Maintenance tab. Your wing may have some staff personnel who need to receive copies of the receipt as well. Mine - the wing administrator and transportation officer.

[kcebnaes]

Well, as you probably know, we get an estimate for any and ALL expense, regardless of the amount; send to wing/LGT; then wing/LGT then approves it, and then we can use the EFS card.

I really like that $200 limit rule that arajca mentioned. That makes total sense for things like oil changes, wipers, etc.

[arajca]

The $200 limit is built into the card from National.

Has the wing/LGT refused a sub-$200 repair/service?

[kcebnaes]

Nope. We just HAVE to get an estimate and approval before ANY work is completed.. (Stonewall and I are the same wing.)

[NIN]

Well, as you probably know, we get an estimate for any and ALL expense, regardless of the amount; send to wing/LGT; then wing/LGT then approves it, and then we can use the EFS card.

I really like that $200 limit rule that arajca mentioned. That makes total sense for things like oil changes, wipers, etc.

I could be wrong (I have been in the past), but I think we're limited to $500, except for tires.
 
My Wing LGT wouldn't stand for that much rigamarole on something like an oil change or wiper blades. Nor would my units.

[Stonewall]

Nope. We just HAVE to get an estimate and approval before ANY work is completed.. (Stonewall and I are the same wing.)

Right, so I am looking for some best practices in an effort to propose a better and more streamlined way of doing business in this area within our wing.

I know one wing has a $500 threshold before requiring "approval" and several wings have $200. I had to get a cost estimate for a stand oil change and tire rotation that totaled $57 before I could schedule the appointment for such work.

Last year, a squadron van required a new battery. Instead of me grabbing a battery at AutoZone and putting it in myself (or with their help, because they offer that), I had to take the van to the dealership, drop it off, have them run a diagnostic to identify what everyone already knew, then have the dealer forward an OFFICIAL estimate to wing, BEFORE they could replace the battery. In all, it took WAY TOO LONG to get the approval from Wing LG and then cost WAY TOO MUCH for a job that my 12 year old son knows how to do.

[TheSkyHornet]

The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.

[kcebnaes]

I fully agree. There's like two layers of extra work we have to do, that I thought was normal.It clearly isn't..

Stonewall-same thing for me with WIPERS a year or so ago. Needed wipers, couldn't change myself, had to get an estimate. 

[Stonewall]

Can someone point to the reg that states the cost threshold for approval? Some say NHQ allows anything under $200 does not require pre-approval.

Looking for the official guidance.

[arajca]

I could be wrong about the standard card limit. I do usually get a quote for tires and haven't had a problem.

[jeders]

In Texas, things like oil change, tire rotation, etc are considered minor mx and can be paid with the NHQ card up to $250.00 without any preapproval. Anything that is major mx (which includes batteries for some reason) requires preapproval from wing, which can take anywhere from hours to weeks.

[Holding Pattern]

Can someone point to the reg that states the cost threshold for approval? Some say NHQ allows anything under $200 does not require pre-approval.

Looking for the official guidance.

The official guidance is that the burden is on the WINGS to prove why a procedure isn't a burden to the membership.

CAPR 1-2:

5. Relevance, Efficiency and Sustainability. All directive publications or revisions thereof, to include prescribed forms, should be mindful of any additional administrative burden to CAP volunteers or employees. Therefore, OPRs must consider relevance, efficiency and sustainability of directive requirements when developing regulations, supplements and OIs.

Now let's look at your wing to see what procedure they created in OHWG:

https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/members/publications/approved-supplements-and-ois-by-region/great-lakes-region-supplements-and-ois

Hmm. Nothing there that I can see on this subject.

So where is this process defined? Why isn't it in a supplement?

[Stonewall]

I just called and spoke to a program manager at NHQ who handles this stuff - her name and number is on the slide deck so I decided to ask.

"Routine maintenance like oil changes and tire rotations don't need prior approval and the threshold for prior approval is $500."

Also, "why would you need to get an estimate approved for something as simple as an oil change?"

Good question, ma'am.

[PHall]

I just called and spoke to a program manager at NHQ who handles this stuff - her name and number is on the slide deck so I decided to ask.

"Routine maintenance like oil changes and tire rotations don't need prior approval and the threshold for prior approval is $500."

Also, "why would you need to get an estimate approved for something as simple as an oil change?"

Good question, ma'am.

Call her back and ask if she could arrange to have an email sent to ALL wings reminding them that prior approval is not required for routine maintenance.

[Stonewall]

Okay, my intent is NOT to complain here, but to work on a better practice in my wing when it comes to routine vehicle maintenance.

Following a back and forth email dialogue with the LGT for my wing, he sent this email out.

We are making some adjustments to the process you follow in requesting an approval for regular maintenance visits of less than $100.

To avoid the necessity of a trip to the auto service facility to obtain a formal estimate, you may:

1. Phone the facility for an email estimate and send that to us.
2. Scan an ad and send that to us.
3. Email us, and request the dollar amount needed, based on your previous experience.

When using this type of estimate, please provide the name, address and phone number of the facility you intend to use.  Be sure to provide a list of the work you intend to have completed.

This does not change any other part of the maintenance procedure.  If you have any questions, please let us know.

We are in hopes that this adjustment will make your job of caring for a vehicle a bit easier.

I'm trying to collect data and maybe some feedback from other wings to see what works best, because this process, in my opinion, is far too convoluted and unnecessary for routine maintenance such as oil changes, battery replacement, and wiper blades.

[Eclipse]

prior approval is not required for routine maintenance.

This is only relevent where prior approval by the Wing is not required.

[arajca]

Okay, my intent is NOT to complain here, but to work on a better practice in my wing when it comes to routine vehicle maintenance.

Following a back and forth email dialogue with the LGT for my wing, he sent this email out.

We are making some adjustments to the process you follow in requesting an approval for regular maintenance visits of less than $100.

To avoid the necessity of a trip to the auto service facility to obtain a formal estimate, you may:

1. Phone the facility for an email estimate and send that to us.
2. Scan an ad and send that to us.
3. Email us, and request the dollar amount needed, based on your previous experience.

When using this type of estimate, please provide the name, address and phone number of the facility you intend to use.  Be sure to provide a list of the work you intend to have completed.

This does not change any other part of the maintenance procedure.  If you have any questions, please let us know.

We are in hopes that this adjustment will make your job of caring for a vehicle a bit easier.

I'm trying to collect data and maybe some feedback from other wings to see what works best, because this process, in my opinion, is far too convoluted and unnecessary for routine maintenance such as oil changes, battery replacement, and wiper blades.

The term "micromanager" springs front and center. While I understand and appreciate trying to keep maintenance costs under control (I work for a fleet maintenance facility at a resort), this kind of crap is ridiculous, especially when the folks paying the bills specifically say they don't care about preapproving maintenance costs under $500.

[PHall]

prior approval is not required for routine maintenance.

This is only relevent where prior approval by the Wing is not required.

prior approval is not required for routine maintenance.

This is only relevent where prior approval by the Wing is not required.

But is it required in this wing? According to the poster and a quick look at the approved supplements page, there is no written requirement for a pre-approval. Matter of fact there is nothing at all. If the wing is going to require a pre-approval then they're going to have to put out some kind of instruction saying that it's required.

[Eclipse]

^Kinda missed the point.

No one in this thread is new enough not to know of Wing staff who simply make up
policies on the fly, which then couple with uninformed members who simply do
what seems "must be right" even if it isn't.

In some cases the staffer themselves are operating under a wive's tale that predated them
and will live until some cracks a regs or says "no".

[NovemberWhiskey]

I've no doubt this policy is motivated by someone's idea of how best avoid waste of corporate funds, and is well-intentioned. However, this kind of "little picture" stuff is maddening.

[Stonewall]

I've no doubt this policy is motivated by someone's idea of how best avoid waste of corporate funds, and is well-intentioned. However, this kind of "little picture" stuff is maddening.

Agreed. That's been my assessment since I first had to replace the battery in a van. What should have taken 15 min of my time ended up requiring me to take a day of vacation from work.

I was relatively new to the wing and unfamiliar with the process, that's why I was caught off guard. It has taken me a second experience trying to get routine work accomplished to discover it wasn't a one-time hiccup. Good intentions, which are honorable, don't always cut the mustard. At some point someone has to ask the tough questions and get the right answers.

[Stonewall]

Well, wrote up a draft supplement to 77-1 for my wing and sending it up the flagpole. It is my first attempt at writing a supplement, and hopefully my last.

[TheSkyHornet]

Ah, yes. That weird CAP-ism when the Wing Logistics Director is also your Group Logistics Officer.

No doubt it's also been a "best practice" that was probably inherited and existed in someone's AO for quite some time. The rationale makes sense for trying to monitor expenditures, but the logic doesn't make sense in the red tape and process that exists to make that happen. It backfires time and again.

We had a van that was a real gem of a vehicle. It had a terrible shimmy when it exceeded about 50mph on the highway. Every time it was brought up, Transpo came in to inspect it. And, of course, every time, they didn't find anything. Finally, a member video recorded their drive. The thing went haywire. Despite the numerous times it was offered to be taken to the auto shop for just an inspection and an estimate, it was rejected. Logistics had to be the ones to make that call. It took months. Last I understood, they ended up "repairing it," but the problem still existed. We eventually told Wing we didn't want a van anymore, and they gave it to another unit.

[PHall]

Ah, yes. That weird CAP-ism when the Wing Logistics Director is also your Group Logistics Officer.

No doubt it's also been a "best practice" that was probably inherited and existed in someone's AO for quite some time. The rationale makes sense for trying to monitor expenditures, but the logic doesn't make sense in the red tape and process that exists to make that happen. It backfires time and again.

We had a van that was a real gem of a vehicle. It had a terrible shimmy when it exceeded about 50mph on the highway. Every time it was brought up, Transpo came in to inspect it. And, of course, every time, they didn't find anything. Finally, a member video recorded their drive. The thing went haywire. Despite the numerous times it was offered to be taken to the auto shop for just an inspection and an estimate, it was rejected. Logistics had to be the ones to make that call. It took months. Last I understood, they ended up "repairing it," but the problem still existed. We eventually told Wing we didn't want a van anymore, and they gave it to another unit.

That's called "Death Wobble". Usual cure is to check the front suspension to make sure the alignment is right and not damaged and that all of the bushings are good. Many vehicles like the Ford F-450 I drove at work needed a steering stabilizer to control the death wobble.
That usually cured the problem

[arajca]

Ah, yes. That weird CAP-ism when the Wing Logistics Director is also your Group Logistics Officer.

No doubt it's also been a "best practice" that was probably inherited and existed in someone's AO for quite some time. The rationale makes sense for trying to monitor expenditures, but the logic doesn't make sense in the red tape and process that exists to make that happen. It backfires time and again.

We had a van that was a real gem of a vehicle. It had a terrible shimmy when it exceeded about 50mph on the highway. Every time it was brought up, Transpo came in to inspect it. And, of course, every time, they didn't find anything. Finally, a member video recorded their drive. The thing went haywire. Despite the numerous times it was offered to be taken to the auto shop for just an inspection and an estimate, it was rejected. Logistics had to be the ones to make that call. It took months. Last I understood, they ended up "repairing it," but the problem still existed. We eventually told Wing we didn't want a van anymore, and they gave it to another unit.

That's called "Death Wobble". Usual cure is to check the front suspension to make sure the alignment is right and not damaged and that all of the bushings are good. Many vehicles like the Ford F-450 I drove at work needed a steering stabilizer to control the death wobble.
That usually cured the problem

Not always. We had a van with the same issue. The unit took it to a couple of shops who checked the front end and said it's fine. Finally, we were able to rotate it out and I took a test drive. Serious wobble, but not the death wobble. After limping it back the parking lot, I crawled under it and shock the drive shaft. It had over a 1/4" of play at both ends. There is no reason any competent shop couldn't find it. End result, National retired the van as it was 16 years old.

[Eclipse]

((snipped up))
It had a terrible shimmy when it exceeded about 50mph on the highway. Every time it was brought up, Transpo came in to inspect it. And, of course, every time, they didn't find anything.

1 - One would have to assume the tester was comfortable with the concepts of "50" and "highway".
CAP has a lot of "surface street / under 50 / daytime only" drivers, especially in COVs.

2 - Assumed the vehicle the tester drove to the test wasn't in worse condition (we all know one).

I've taken over POC or driven my share of CAP vehicles and it's flabbergasting sometimes the
condition they are in, and the lack of regular maintenance they got because the local POC,
who is the only person willing to do it, "knows better / can't be bothered / drives a heap themselves".

"I pulled that backup alarm - really annoyed my neighbors."

"I can tell the pressure just by kicking the tires."

"It was like that when I got it."

"Why did you run it dry?"
"I didn't have the money for oil."
"There's a credit card in the vehicle binder with the inspection log"
"What inspection log?"

Usually coupled with "Will wing pay for a light bar?  It's a safety issue!"

[arajca]

There are endless stories of real life face palms regarding vehicle maintenance. I'll refrain - for now.

On a more related noted, we implemented a supplement requiring units to have the vehicle assigned to them serviced every April/May and Oct, to include tire rotations, unless the usage dictated a more frequent schedule. We that 6 vehicles with more frequent schedules. This takes away any notion of "I don't think it needs it yet" (despite the last service being 10,000 mi and 2 years before). This was approved by National after going through the proper process.