Should CAP dump ARCHER?

Started by A.Member, November 18, 2009, 05:49:48 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Should the ARCHER program be scrapped in CAP?

Yes, it has proven ineffective and costly
No, the program is beneficial and needs more opportunity to shine

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?

"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

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.

"That Others May Zoom"

A.Member

Quote from: MIGCAP on November 18, 2009, 06:37:30 PM
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.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

Eclipse

Quote from: A.Member on November 18, 2009, 07:01:50 PM
Quote from: MIGCAP on November 18, 2009, 06:37:30 PM
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.

"That Others May Zoom"

A.Member

#5
Quote from: Eclipse on November 18, 2009, 07:12:44 PM
Quote from: A.Member on November 18, 2009, 07:01:50 PM
Quote from: MIGCAP on November 18, 2009, 06:37:30 PM
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? 
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

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.

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

SilverEagle2

Ours has a Becker in it. Do most not?
     Jason R. Hess, Col, CAP
Commander, Rocky Mountain Region

"People are not excellent because they achieve great things;
they achieve great things because they choose to be excellent."
Gerald G. Probst,
Beloved Grandfather, WWII B-24 Pilot, Successful Businessman

A.Member

#8
Quote from: lordmonar on November 18, 2009, 08:15:35 PM
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)?
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

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
"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

Hawk200

Quote from: Major Lord on November 19, 2009, 02:48:45 AM
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

Quote from: Nolan Teel on November 19, 2009, 03:07:32 AM
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

Quote from: dbaran on November 19, 2009, 05:26:55 AM
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

Quote from: A.Member on November 18, 2009, 05:49:48 PM
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,
Donald A. Beckett, Lt Col, CAP
Commander
MER-NC-143
Gill Rob Wilson #1891

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.