What plane should be the CAP standard?

Started by RiverAux, June 12, 2007, 05:25:28 PM

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

flyguy06

Thats my point. I wasnt talking so much about O-rides. You can do that in any aircraft. I was focusing on flight training for cadets. I dont know if a C 182 is the best equipment for that

Mustang

Quote from: Al Sayre on June 13, 2007, 02:23:43 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on June 13, 2007, 12:05:16 PM
Can you do O-rides and cadet flight training in a 182? Thats not advisable to me. I think they should keep the 172s.

O-rides? Absolutely!  Flight training is debatable, but I don't see why not.  If someone learns with a constant speed prop and cowl flaps, they will see it as natural.  The only real problem I see is that the elevator force on the 182 is considerably heavier than the 172, and some cadets of small stature might have trouble keeping it in the correct position while taxiing.  YMMV 

The primary concern is that airspeed control--a skill most student pilots are notoriously poor at--is much more important in the nose-heavy Skylane; come in a little slow on short final and you can find yourself running out of sufficient elevator authority to prevent the aircraft from landing on its nosewheel and damaging the firewall.   

Also, powerplant management is more critical in a high performance aircraft as well; shock cooling isn't much of a concern in a 172, but can be a costly mistake in a bigger engine.

Bottom line, there's a REASON--several, actually--why flying high performance aircraft requires a separate endorsement.
"Amateurs train until they get it right; Professionals train until they cannot get it wrong. "


flyguy06

Quote from: Mustang on June 13, 2007, 10:51:10 PM
Quote from: Al Sayre on June 13, 2007, 02:23:43 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on June 13, 2007, 12:05:16 PM
Can you do O-rides and cadet flight training in a 182? Thats not advisable to me. I think they should keep the 172s.

O-rides? Absolutely!  Flight training is debatable, but I don't see why not.  If someone learns with a constant speed prop and cowl flaps, they will see it as natural.  The only real problem I see is that the elevator force on the 182 is considerably heavier than the 172, and some cadets of small stature might have trouble keeping it in the correct position while taxiing.  YMMV 

The primary concern is that airspeed control--a skill most student pilots are notoriously poor at--is much more important in the nose-heavy Skylane; come in a little slow on short final and you can find yourself running out of sufficient elevator authority to prevent the aircraft from landing on its nosewheel and damaging the firewall.   

Also, powerplant management is more critical in a high performance aircraft as well; shock cooling isn't much of a concern in a 172, but can be a costly mistake in a bigger engine.

Bottom line, there's a REASON--several, actually--why flying high performance aircraft requires a separate endorsement.

Which is exactly why I dont think its a goood idea to make the entire fleet 182's.

Mustang

I agree that CAP needs to maintain a relatively diverse fleet to meet the needs of pilots with equally diverse experience levels.  Just as every wing should have 172s for cadet training and pilot development for those not yet meeting the requirements for mission pilot, every region should have a complex aircraft for pilots seeking to earn commercial pilot or flight instructor certificates.  I personally believe that we should be training every CAP pilot to commercial/instrument as a standard; this alone will make for better, safer flight operations.
"Amateurs train until they get it right; Professionals train until they cannot get it wrong. "


flyguy06

Quote from: Mustang on June 16, 2007, 09:39:13 PM
I agree that CAP needs to maintain a relatively diverse fleet to meet the needs of pilots with equally diverse experience levels.  Just as every wing should have 172s for cadet training and pilot development for those not yet meeting the requirements for mission pilot, every region should have a complex aircraft for pilots seeking to earn commercial pilot or flight instructor certificates.  I personally believe that we should be training every CAP pilot to commercial/instrument as a standard; this alone will make for better, safer flight operations.

I agree with that. As CAP pilots,we are "supposed" to be the image of a good General Aviation pilot. We are "supposed" to set the example of proper procedures and practices.

I dont know however about that having a complex plane in each Region.Thats  spreading it a little thin dont you think? I mean I am here in GA Iwould have to go all the way down to FL just to get a complex aircraft.

arajca

As for having 172's for cadet pilot training, CO only has 182's and a GA-8. 17'2 may work fine in West KansasEastern Colorado, but for the parts of the state where we need them, they don't work.

Mustang

Quote from: flyguy06 on June 16, 2007, 10:26:28 PMI dont know however about that having a complex plane in each Region.Thats  spreading it a little thin dont you think? I mean I am here in GA Iwould have to go all the way down to FL just to get a complex aircraft.

No, they should be rotated amongst the wings within each region for a few months at a time for that very purpose.   I don't agree with resource hoarding by the "big" wings.  One needs only 10 hrs instruction in a complex aircraft, which is easily doable in 2 months with advance warning/preparation.

arajca:

So what.  That's the argument that's screwed cadets out of affordable flight training in every mountainous state.   So what if one aircraft out of ten isn't as capable a SAR platform as the rest?  It's still fine for the eastern half of the state, and there isn't a state in the nation that's solely mountainous terrain over 8,000 feet.  Besides, nobody said SAR was the only reason we have those assets.
"Amateurs train until they get it right; Professionals train until they cannot get it wrong. "


arajca

Quote from: Mustang on June 17, 2007, 03:09:32 AM
Quote from: flyguy06 on June 16, 2007, 10:26:28 PMI dont know however about that having a complex plane in each Region.Thats  spreading it a little thin dont you think? I mean I am here in GA Iwould have to go all the way down to FL just to get a complex aircraft.

No, they should be rotated amongst the wings within each region for a few months at a time for that very purpose.   I don't agree with resource hoarding by the "big" wings.  One needs only 10 hrs instruction in a complex aircraft, which is easily doable in 2 months with advance warning/preparation.
What is the point in training in a complex a/c if it not going to be constantly available. Each wing has it for two months and schedules training for it. Then they don't see it again for a year when it comes back for training. You've just spent you're trainig dollars on non-usuable training.

As for resource hoarding, each a/c is supposed to get 200 hrs flight time minimum annually. Failure to get the 200 hrs can and has led to a/c being moved to areas that will use it. For a couple years, CO had a C182 that was WY's. They couldn't maintain the 200 hrs on any of their a/c, so the region/cc moved one to CO - with the understanding that when WY has properly utilizing their a/c, they would get it back. They did about two years ago. CO did maintain the 200 hrs usage while it was in CO.

Quotearajca:

So what.  That's the argument that's screwed cadets out of affordable flight training in every mountainous state.   So what if one aircraft out of ten isn't as capable a SAR platform as the rest?  It's still fine for the eastern half of the state, and there isn't a state in the nation that's solely mountainous terrain over 8,000 feet.  Besides, nobody said SAR was the only reason we have those assets.
True, but SAR is the main use of those assets. What would be the point of having an a/c that is not usable throughout the entire state? Also, how would you provide flight training in that a/c for the cadets on the west side of the state?

RiverAux

I think we got off track from my original question a bit....lets assume that there will always be a little room for regional variations that would allow deviation from the "standard".

My question remains... is there another model of aircraft other than the Cessna 172/182 that would meet our needs?  I am particularly concerned about the weight issue -- are there any new 4-seat high-wing airplanes being produced that would allow for carrying more weight (people and equipment) than the 182s we're committed to buying? 

SJFedor

I've actually been a proponent of getting a C-208 Caravan.

Imagine all the toys you could load in there.

And you could have your entire incident staff on board, mobile airborne ICP!

Actually, I heard of a high wing 4 seater from Canada, maybe? I don't remember, it was a few years ago, the price was better then a 172 and it held a bit more weight.

To me, it seems like Cessna kinda has a corner on the market for this category. Not many people are making high wings that suit our purposes anymore.

And besides, Cessna is US built, for the US CAP!

....by foreign parts....

Steven Fedor, NREMT-P
Master Ambulance Driver
Former Capt, MP, MCPE, MO, MS, GTL, and various other 3-and-4 letter combinations
NESA MAS Instructor, 2008-2010 (#479)

flyguy06

I disagree that SAR is the main reason we have aircraft in CAP. There are those of us that have no interest inSAR but wan to share and teach youths about flying. That is my main purpose for beingin CAP and for using CAP aircraft to teach youths how to fly and to get their licenses. I do participate in SAR at a very minimal level.

Mustang

Quote from: arajca on June 17, 2007, 04:37:43 AM
What is the point in training in a complex a/c if it not going to be constantly available. Each wing has it for two months and schedules training for it. Then they don't see it again for a year when it comes back for training. You've just spent you're training dollars on non-usuable training.

It's not non-usable training at all.  Operating a gear handle is no special skill.  The point is two-fold: 1) an increasing number of our operations require a commercial pilot certificate to fly, which requires 10 hrs training and the FAA practical test in a complex aircraft, even if you'll never touch a complex aircraft ever again, and 2) addition of a commercial ticket and an instrument rating can't help but make an individual a better--and safer--pilot.  Whether you've continually got access to a complex aircraft subsequently is wholly irrelevant;  the value is in earning that commercial ticket.

QuoteTrue, but SAR is the main use of those assets. What would be the point of having an a/c that is not usable throughout the entire state? Also, how would you provide flight training in that a/c for the cadets on the west side of the state?

Who said SAR is the "main" use of our aircraft assets?  Not the people who paid for them! What would be the point of having an a/c that is not usable throughout the entire state?  Flight training and pilot development!  You can use a 172 for primary training, even at high elevations, just fine.  I have flown a C-152 in and out of airports situated as high as 5600' in June/July without difficulty. Every wing has pilots not yet experienced enough to fly our high-performance aircraft, and to our discredit, rather than helping develop their skills, we simply tell them to punt and come back when they've got the hours.  But many of them don't bother to come back at all.
"Amateurs train until they get it right; Professionals train until they cannot get it wrong. "


Dragoon

I recently noticed how the new 182 actually carry less than the 180HP 172s with full fuel.  Annoying. 

Since gas cost + environmental constraints have made defueling not feasible for most of us, our options are to accept the low payload or leave the plane partially fueled and deal with the increased risk of tank condensation.

I think a mix of aircraft is good, but at the same time it seems from what I've read that transitioning back and forth from glass to "steam" gauges ain't easy.  Might make sense to standardize Wings on glass one at a time, rather than spread the new planes out.

SJFedor

When they're fully fueled, yup, they don't hold too much. Cessna luckily realized this, and made a visible level in the fuel tank where you can fill it up to a "reduced fuel" load. It's become the standard around here that, with the newer 182's (and 172's), to only fill them to the reduced fuel load level, otherwise, they effectively become a 2 man aircraft.

Steven Fedor, NREMT-P
Master Ambulance Driver
Former Capt, MP, MCPE, MO, MS, GTL, and various other 3-and-4 letter combinations
NESA MAS Instructor, 2008-2010 (#479)

flynd94

Quote from: Dragoon on June 21, 2007, 06:58:31 PM
I recently noticed how the new 182 actually carry less than the 180HP 172s with full fuel.  Annoying. 


Do really need that much avgas.  At reduced fuel, you still have 5.5 hours of flight time.  I don't know about where you are but, in CA we don't have sorties that last that long.  Plus, my bladder won't hold out that long.  We have been keeping out C182Q (2950GW) at reduced fuel for 5+ years and, yet to have a water in the tank issue
Keith Stason, Maj, CAP
IC3, AOBD, GBD, PSC, OSC, MP, MO, MS, GTL, GTM3, UDF, MRO
Mission Check Pilot, Check Pilot

Spacecenter

Someone complained about the cost. Let's see-$100 an hour for a G-1000 new 182 versus about $100 an hour for a 35yo 172 with unknown history and only FAA mandated maintenance by any A&P. The hourly rate for the new 182 we manage is less than the 172 it replaced.  It is not a mission of CAP to provide cheap airplanes for members to fly. Don't get me wrong-I do all I can to reduce costs for our members-including meals donated at training. I just have seen too many people come in just for a cheap plane to fly.


Someone mentioned cadet primary training-Can anyone provide a NHQ validated number on cadets that actually did all their training in a CAP airframe and got their private rating during the last fiscal year versus say 2003?

Fuel issue-yes there is one. We fill to the tabs and flight plan according. We also verify with a dipstick. We also match at times people to the (usually training) mission. 

Someone posted about high altitude ops in a 172. Well-add in density altitude and you have the potential for another NTSB Report. Then there was when our MCAS El Toro Aero Club lost an airframe on take-off at Tahoe due to density altitude.

Sometimes the 60hp rule is a pain when you want to do a flight out here. But it's something we know about, and live with. Sometimes you have to make rules for the lowest common denominator. I remember doing a medivac flight to the USS Independence on the hook in St. Thomas Harbor on a 4th of July around 1987. We we in a commercial Jet Ranger. As soon as we shut down the deck crew started chaining us down with huge chains. They were dead stop in the harbor! I thought that showed a lack of common sense. One of the pilots told me later that the rule is to always chain every airframe. You don't give someone discretion on a safety-related situation so that the maximum safety levels are maintained.

I don't agree that we need a diverse group of aircraft to meet the diverse training of our different pilots. We need our diversely experienced pilots to meet the training and operational needs of the CAP and CP aircraft.  Our requirements are pretty low (FAA PP for the most part) as are our time requirements.

And yes-we need 206's and Alaska (and maybe Hawaii) need some different aircraft but in CONUS we can all successfully and safely prosecute all of our non-Archer missions with a G-1000 equipped (or standard gauge) 182. The biggest problem I have seen in the transition is older (not necessarily age-related) pilots who chose not to make the transition-even when NHQ was funding 5 flight hours for training.

Just my opinions-I respect yours, just might not agree with you.

Matt Scherzi


Happy 4th!!!
CA434 Since 1991

DKruse

Quote from: Spacecenter on July 04, 2007, 03:23:11 PM
Someone complained about the cost. Let's see-$100 an hour for a G-1000 new 182 versus about $100 an hour for a 35yo 172 with unknown history and only FAA mandated maintenance by any A&P. The hourly rate for the new 182 we manage is less than the 172 it replaced. 

I'm surprised to hear this figure about 172s.  Fuel must be significantly higher in CA than it is here in MN.  I just completed a CAPF5 checkride last weekend.  Logged 2.0 hours, showed 1.5 hours tach time, and spent a total of around $88.  That's fuel and maintenance charges combined.

There are many places in the country where it costs a lot more to operate the 182 over the 172.  Not that I'm complaining.  As soon as I have the required PIC time, I'll be transitioning to the 182.

Dalen Kruse, Capt., CAP
St. Croix Composite Squadron
NCR-MN-122

Ad hadem cum gloria. Faciamus operum.

Spacecenter

The 100 buck rate wasn't for a CAP airframe (even though our old 172 did run about that due to AF mandated maintenance reserve due to horsepower-about $20 more per hour than 182 Navlll). Avgas is over $4.25 a gallon self serve. Maint is what, about $41-44  (just changed), do the math.

Here is a link to renting some comparable aircraft from where we hanger our bird.  SoCal is not cheap. http://www.flyafi.com/aircraftrental/aircraftrental.html

on the subject of utilization, we are at about 400 hours in less than 11 months, plus we fly some other corp birds.

CYA

Matt Scherzi
CA434 Since 1991

DKruse

I see where you're coming from.

If you walk into an FBO around here, a 172 will cost $90-$100/hour depending on age of the aircraft and fuel surcharges.  Avgas at our airport is currently $4.29/gallon, so things looks to be on par with CAWG in that sense.

However, MNWG members only have to pay $20/tach hour for maintenance fees for a 172. 

It's interesting to see the differences between wings in these matters.

400 hours is impressive.  We've been getting between 250-300 hours/year on our bird.
Dalen Kruse, Capt., CAP
St. Croix Composite Squadron
NCR-MN-122

Ad hadem cum gloria. Faciamus operum.

Mustang

Quote from: Spacecenter on July 05, 2007, 03:46:34 AMon the subject of utilization, we are at about 400 hours in less than 11 months, plus we fly some other corp birds.

That 400 hrs is for the G-1000-equipped bird, correct?  Similarly-equipped C-182s, if available for rental at all, are going for somewhere in the neighborhood of $165/hr.
"Amateurs train until they get it right; Professionals train until they cannot get it wrong. "