Vehicle Fleet Age.

[afgeo4]

Okay, so our group has recently received a van replacement (after a few years of not having one at all) and not to sound like I'm not grateful or anything because our group, although has over 200 members in a city of over 8,000,000 doesn't have many licensed drivers (we take the public transport quite a lot). Of course I'm very thankful to have a vehicle to use since not all activities we go to are in the City itself and we simply need transportation. We also can't use any of the city's airports to keep our aircraft, so we have to use Westchester Co (HPN), Teterboro (TET) or airports in Long Island like ISP... we need a van to get out there and to do UDF.

Okay... you might be asking, "what is he driving at here?"  Well... that new van is a 1991 Chevy and although it has just 45,000 or so on it, it's really old and has many rust spots. A few things don't work on it and many don't work well (like gauges lighting, wipers, etc). The question is... is 18 years too much for a corporate vehicle? What years are your vehicles?

The vehicle is fairly safe to operate, but it's... well, let me just say that its age is showing.  I don't want to get into the whole PR thing here because I get it. It's not good PR to be the oldest, rustiest vehicle on the road with blaring Civil Air Patrol decals, especially in a high priority wealthy city like NYC. I just want to know what the average age for our fleet is and if this is abnormal.

[RiverAux]

many don't work well (like gauges lighting, wipers, etc).

Doesn't sound too safe to me. 

Abnormal?  Probably not really. 

[DC]

I don't know exactly what year my squadron van is, but I'd estimate late '90s early '00s.

I have only seen a few CAP vehicles that are as old as you describe, and I don't think any of them were that old.

[Gunner C]

I know that you guys have a large group, but how did you guys get one of the newer ones? 

It might be possible to invest some money in some money in a face lift.  Since the vehicle is in good working order, the best way to proceed might be to raise some funds for repairs or see if you could get some businesses to donate materials/skills in its renovation.  You could get some PAO support to showcase what the businesses are doing to help you.  This could be couched in "saving government money" by keeping the vehicle useable.  This wouldn't hurt your recruiting, either.

[NC Hokie]

Our 1994 Dodge 12 pax is almost as old as yours, but yours is in much worse shape...I hope you're not on the hook for catching up all of the maintenance it's missed.

The good news is that you have an opportunity to use it enough to justify getting something better once it's finally retired.

[Eclipse]

Our 1994 Dodge 12 pax is almost as old as yours, but yours is in much worse shape...I hope you're not on the hook for catching up all of the maintenance it's missed.

Maintenance is not the responsibility of the unit or the Wing - the USAF pays for all repairs over and above oil changes, and lately they have been paying for those as well.

If you have a rust-bucket with faulty equipment, the vehicle needs to be rehabbed, and the USAF will do it assuming the paperwork is done properly.  This includes paint and decals.  In my Wing A/C inop is considered a safety issue in the summer.

About a year ago I received a 96 12-pack which had been fairly recently repainted and re-stickered, etc.    It had some issues with the ABS and other "less-than-major", but still important repairs. The USAF covered everything with no hassle and a quick check because the forms were completed properly and the Wing LG hand-held them.

This is another thing I will give my wing staff credit on, they are fast on turning around CAP DL's, the abstracts are now free, and vehicle maintenance is a non-issue.

I'd start making a list, or better yet take it to a dealer and get an estimate on zeroing out the vehicle and then start working the process.  Your units LGT should be able to work direct with Wing to expedite.

[Airrace]

Okay, so our group has recently received a van replacement (after a few years of not having one at all) and not to sound like I'm not grateful or anything because our group, although has over 200 members in a city of over 8,000,000 doesn't have many licensed drivers (we take the public transport quite a lot). Of course I'm very thankful to have a vehicle to use since not all activities we go to are in the City itself and we simply need transportation. We also can't use any of the city's airports to keep our aircraft, so we have to use Westchester Co (HPN), Teterboro (TET) or airports in Long Island like ISP... we need a van to get out there and to do UDF.

Okay... you might be asking, "what is he driving at here?"  Well... that new van is a 1991 Chevy and although it has just 45,000 or so on it, it's really old and has many rust spots. A few things don't work on it and many don't work well (like gauges lighting, wipers, etc). The question is... is 18 years too much for a corporate vehicle? What years are your vehicles?

The vehicle is fairly safe to operate, but it's... well, let me just say that its age is showing.  I don't want to get into the whole PR thing here because I get it. It's not good PR to be the oldest, rustiest vehicle on the road with blaring Civil Air Patrol decals, especially in a high priority wealthy city like NYC. I just want to know what the average age for our fleet is and if this is abnormal.

Be glad to just have a vechicle. Our squadron has no van and the vechicle we have was donated by a member. Get the items repaired so it's safe!

[brasda91]

1995 12-pax Ford.  Paint is still in good condition, no rust, and no dings.

[jimmydeanno]

Our unit has a 1996 Ford E-350 Clubwagon, 12-Pax.  It currently has 42561 miles on it, four-thousand of which we've put on this year.

It's in great condition, no rust, shiny paint, etc.  However, the last two years we've had to have some maintenance done (courtesy of the American Taxpayer).  We've had the ABS sensors changed, new brakes all around, new batter, serpentine belt and water pump.  We also had a recall item for some valve in the master cylinder.

I think the oldest vehicle in our wing is a 1986 Dodge 12-Pax.  That thing needs to be scrapped.  The paint is all powdery (they won't paint it because it's too old), it has rust, dents, etc.  The ceiling inside is coming down, there's holes in the seats, etc.  It only has 30K miles on it.  It needs to go.

So, don't start dropping money out of your squadron account to have it fixed.  Put in the maintenance request and have the USAF pay for it.  They hardly ever pay for an expense afterwards, unless it was an emergency repair.

[Flying Pig]

Your units have vans?  Wow.  I have a 60 member unit with nothing.

[jimmydeanno]

Your units have vans?  Wow.  I have a 60 member unit with nothing.

...and ours is 84, what's that matter?  Someone has to have the 1,500 some odd vans we have...

[Major Carrales]

We have a 1991 Dodge.

[Eclipse]

Our unit has a 1996 Ford E-350 Clubwagon, 12-Pax.  It currently has 42561 miles on it, four-thousand of which we've put on this year.

It's in great condition, no rust, shiny paint, etc.  However, the last two years we've had to have some maintenance done (courtesy of the American Taxpayer).  We've had the ABS sensors changed, new brakes all around, new batter, serpentine belt and water pump.  We also had a recall item for some valve in the master cylinder.

Ditto - ABS sensors seem to be a real issue for those mid-90's Ford vans.

[Eclipse]

Your units have vans?  Wow.  I have a 60 member unit with nothing.

Has your unit / group ever formally requested one?

When you submitted the request were any available to issue?

Do you have the activity-participation level outside the squadron to support the need for a vehicle?  Does your Group already have several or is there another in fairly close to proximity?

[EMT-83]

If you need to use a POV because you don't have a van, remember to document this and send the paperwork up the chain of command - every time. That, along with  your properly submitted request for a vehicle, should help keep you in mind when group/wing has a new van to issue.

[Flying Pig]

Your units have vans?  Wow.  I have a 60 member unit with nothing.

Has your unit / group ever formally requested one?

When you submitted the request were any available to issue?

Do you have the activity-participation level outside the squadron to support the need for a vehicle?  Does your Group already have several or is there another in fairly close to proximity?

Yes
Yes
Yes
No

What can ya do huh?  Someday our ship will come.

[MikeD]

Your units have vans?  Wow.  I have a 60 member unit with nothing.

...and ours is 84, what's that matter?  Someone has to have the 1,500 some odd vans we have...

In before me.  We have the same vintage.  I think it's still running ok. 

[JCJ]

Our unit has a 1996 Ford E-350 Clubwagon, 12-Pax.  It currently has 42561 miles on it, four-thousand of which we've put on this year.

It's in great condition, no rust, shiny paint, etc.  However, the last two years we've had to have some maintenance done (courtesy of the American Taxpayer).  We've had the ABS sensors changed, new brakes all around, new batter, serpentine belt and water pump.  We also had a recall item for some valve in the master cylinder.

I think the oldest vehicle in our wing is a 1986 Dodge 12-Pax.  That thing needs to be scrapped.  The paint is all powdery (they won't paint it because it's too old), it has rust, dents, etc.  The ceiling inside is coming down, there's holes in the seats, etc.  It only has 30K miles on it.  It needs to go.

So, don't start dropping money out of your squadron account to have it fixed.  Put in the maintenance request and have the USAF pay for it.  They hardly ever pay for an expense afterwards, unless it was an emergency repair.

What jimmydeano said.  It's not really USAF paying to repair it, it's CAP using our appropriated O & M funds (which are federal grants administered by USAF).  This is the same fund that funds aircraft maintenance.  It turns out that alot of aircraft maintenance money has been saved with the change to consolidated maintenance, so there is now alot more $ available for vehicle maintenance.  So you should definitely try to get planned maintenance approved for NHQ funding (through your CoC & wing maintenance procedures) before committing local funds.  These days they are able to say "yes" much more often than in days of old.

For those who are wondering why not just buy new vehicles instead of repairing old ones, in "Fed-speak" acquisition funds are different from O & M funds and they can't be interchanged.  Every year there is a request for funding for vehicles but the amount approved is never as much as needed for a complete ground fleet overhaul.

[cap235629]

well I guess we are on the opposite end of the problem.  Our vehicle is a 1995 minvan.  It has 186,000 miles on it.  It runs well, has an ice cold AC, burns a little oil (not as bad as one of our "two-stroke" 182's) and is used for a ground team vehicle as well as transport for 14 cadets.  Our squadron has a total of 36 members and have deployed on 6 live missions in the last year.  Of these missions, only 1 was prosecuted strictly on paved roads. 

Our wing just received a new 12 passenger van that was procured as a replacement for, get this, a 4 wheel drive SUV that was stolen and destroyed.  I am at a loss.......

[DC]

well I guess we are on the opposite end of the problem.  Our vehicle is a 1995 minvan.  It has 186,000 miles on it.  It runs well, has an ice cold AC, burns a little oil (not as bad as one of our "two-stroke" 182's) and is used for a ground team vehicle as well as transport for 14 cadets.  Our squadron has a total of 36 members and have deployed on 6 live missions in the last year.  Of these missions, only 1 was prosecuted strictly on paved roads. 

Our wing just received a new 12 passenger van that was procured as a replacement for, get this, a 4 wheel drive SUV that was stolen and destroyed.  I am at a loss.......

You can fit 14 cadets into a minivan? 

What are y'all doin', strapping them to the luggage rack?

[cap235629]

^^

That is why I am at a loss.  We do not have the vehicle we need.......

From either side, ES or Cadet programs....

[afgeo4]

As a side note, the vehicle is not unsafe unless it's very hot out (I didn't want to use it the last SAREX), but it doesn't "feel" safe.

I think repainting a 1991 van that has so many things wrong with it is a waste of money. The vehicle should be retired until something happens to it and its passengers and a new one should be acquired.

I am all for Dodge Sprinter Diesel. Fairly expensive to purchase, but extremely reliable, comfortable and inexpensive to operate. The high roof ones are excellent for mobile command centers and commo vans.


BTW... I was told that they gave us the oldest van in the Wing fleet because it's NYC and they assumed it would be bumped and dinged, even though the last van we had was never in ANY accident.

[afgeo4]

^^

That is why I am at a loss.  We do not have the vehicle we need.......

From either side, ES or Cadet programs....

Sounds like what you need is a Yukon XL 4x4 or a 2009 Ford E-350 4x4

[badger bob]

Major vehicle maintenance has been budgeted for a number of years. requests for vehicle paint and body work come from the same fund, and are generally approved during the fourth quarter of the fiscal year once the level of maintenance spending budgeted is sufficient to cover the mecahanical and safety items.

For the last two years, due to the lower expenses in the aircraft maintaince since consolidated maintenance, vehicle preventative maintenance has also been covered= oil changes, belts, filters etc.

Currently, nearly two thirds of our vehicle fleet is over 10 years old. Aproximately 35 vehicles are funded for replacement giving a current replacememnt cycle of 30 years. We know that is insufficent, however it requires a increase in a congressional appropriation in the federal budget at a time that many budgets are being cut. We will work on it, but it will take a little time.

[ZigZag911]

As a rule of thumb, we really ought to consider 'grounding' any vans older than the younger cadets!

[davidsinn]

As a rule of thumb, we really ought to consider 'grounding' any vans older than the younger cadets!

Why? My wife's POV is older than half my cadets.

[afgeo4]

As a rule of thumb, we really ought to consider 'grounding' any vans older than the younger cadets!

Technically, our van is old enough to be a senior member. 

[Eclipse]

As a rule of thumb, we really ought to consider 'grounding' any vans older than the younger cadets!

Why?  A properly maintained vehicle can literally last forever, and most of our vehicles sit 4-5+ days of the week, and even then only drive a few hours when used, or they are used on highway trips which most of us would acknowledge are good for vehicles.

If NHQ wants to replace my vans with hybrids, I'll take them, but until then, I'm happy with what I have.

[SarDragon]

^^

That is why I am at a loss.  We do not have the vehicle we need.......

From either side, ES or Cadet programs....

Sounds like what you need is a Yukon XL 4x4 or a 2009 Ford E-350 4x4

Go for a 'Burb instead - same available options where it counts operationally, and cheaper.

[ZigZag911]

As a rule of thumb, we really ought to consider 'grounding' any vans older than the younger cadets!

Why? My wife's POV is older than half my cadets.

I suspect your wife's POV has been better maintained than most CAP vehicles.

[davidsinn]

As a rule of thumb, we really ought to consider 'grounding' any vans older than the younger cadets!

Why? My wife's POV is older than half my cadets.

I suspect your wife's POV has been better maintained than most CAP vehicles.

I wouldn't bet on it. Her car has an interesting history.

[Eeyore]

We had, until last week, a 1990 Chevy Beauville that was in pretty good shape. The age of the vehicle is not the problem, it's how well they are driven/taken care of.

Some of the problems I've seen are members don't always drive/take care of the vehicles better than their own. They should be driven as if they were a brick of gold, with only about 38 (soon to be 48) new vans coming to CAP a year, you are more likely to come across a brick of gold than a new van in some areas.

[sparks]

Even sitting vehicles rot, corrode and deteriorate. Those of us in the "salt belt" can attest to rotting body panels and exposed metal frame work including brake and fuel lines failing. Yes, more money can keep an old vehicle running (been there and am doing that) but unreliability of old systems that fail randomly and frequently make buying a replacement the better choice. If the replacement money isn't appropriated we'll be using cell phones and towing services more often. There's nothing more enjoyable than having the CAP van crap out heading to a summer encampment with a load of cadets, Yippee!

[ZigZag911]

Of necessity, these vehicles have multiple drivers, which is never good for a car or van.

They are operated irregularly, sometimes infrequently.

We are transporting young people --our cadets, other peoples' kids! -- in them.

I honestly feel even well maintained CAP vehicles should not be kept longer than ten years or 100,000 miles, whichever comes first.

[Thom]

Of necessity, these vehicles have multiple drivers, which is never good for a car or van.

They are operated irregularly, sometimes infrequently.

We are transporting young people --our cadets, other peoples' kids! -- in them.

I honestly feel even well maintained CAP vehicles should not be kept longer than ten years or 100,000 miles, whichever comes first.

If you can make a significant Cost/Benefit Ratio or Total Cost of Ownership argument, or especially a documentable Safety case, please do so and bring it to your Chain of Command.  They can then take that proposal and supporting documentation up the line until it reaches CAP-USAF who holds the purse strings, or can talk to those who do.

I wish you luck, but in the current economy your case will need to be STRONG to get the money freed up to put us on a 10 year schedule for vehicle replacement.

IF you were able to convince the NB, BoG, NEC, CAP-USAF, USAF AETC, Congress, etc. that CAP should not have vans over 10 years old, I believe the most likely action taken there would be to simply REMOVE all CAP vehicles over 10 years old and leave us with 1/2 to 1/3 (??) as many total vehicles.  I don't think anyone would suddenly cough up the money for replacement vehicles.

Sometimes reality is harsh.

But, good luck.  I hope you (or someone) can push it through and get the extra funding.

Thom Hamilton

[Spike]

Can anyone here beat a 1979 Chevy??

[Al Sayre]

I've got a 20 lb sledge hammer, bring it by. 

[DC]

I've got a 20 lb sledge hammer, bring it by. 

[ZigZag911]

Of necessity, these vehicles have multiple drivers, which is never good for a car or van.

They are operated irregularly, sometimes infrequently.

We are transporting young people --our cadets, other peoples' kids! -- in them.

I honestly feel even well maintained CAP vehicles should not be kept longer than ten years or 100,000 miles, whichever comes first.

If you can make a significant Cost/Benefit Ratio or Total Cost of Ownership argument, or especially a documentable Safety case, please do so and bring it to your Chain of Command.  They can then take that proposal and supporting documentation up the line until it reaches CAP-USAF who holds the purse strings, or can talk to those who do.

I wish you luck, but in the current economy your case will need to be STRONG to get the money freed up to put us on a 10 year schedule for vehicle replacement.

IF you were able to convince the NB, BoG, NEC, CAP-USAF, USAF AETC, Congress, etc. that CAP should not have vans over 10 years old, I believe the most likely action taken there would be to simply REMOVE all CAP vehicles over 10 years old and leave us with 1/2 to 1/3 (??) as many total vehicles.  I don't think anyone would suddenly cough up the money for replacement vehicles.

Sometimes reality is harsh.

But, good luck.  I hope you (or someone) can push it through and get the extra funding.

Thom Hamilton

I think we're skating on borrowed time regarding vehicle maintenance & safe operation -- a serious enough accident involving cadets, besides being a tragedy no one wants to see, could result in devastating litigation against CAP...I hope I'm wrong, I'm certainly no expert in this area, just my opinion....I do understand the economic situation

[Eclipse]

I think we're skating on borrowed time regarding vehicle maintenance & safe operation -- a serious enough accident involving cadets, besides being a tragedy no one wants to see, could result in devastating litigation against CAP...I hope I'm wrong, I'm certainly no expert in this area, just my opinion....I do understand the economic situation

I'm sorry the above is a text-book definition of a straw-man argument.

You simply drop this on the table and expect it to be accepted at face value.  We're not "skating on thin ice" our vehicles are well-maintained and safe.  If they aren't, it because of local issues, because the money is there as is the will.

Of course an accident involving cadets would be a "tragedy".  So? Its just as likely it would be caused by an outside party, distracted driving, or karma, as poor maintenance.

If you know of a van that's a safety issue, you need to ground it and report it immediately, otherwise don't paint my like-new equipment with your "death trap" brush.

[billford1]

The 14 passenger vans are popular for their capacity to carry people and cargo. No one can make a case for their safety. We have 6 passenger pickup trucks, 7 passenger minivans and 4WD SUVs. Having been injured in a car crash I have a big concern for occupant safety above all. As unpopular as they are minivans I've seen nowadays seem to be engineered for maximum safety. If CAP buys vehicles for among other things transporting CAP members I think that the principles of ORM should apply.  If a Military vehicle crashes and Soldiers die nobody sues the Govt although someone could be prosecuted for criminal negligence. If a CAP vehicle crashes and Cadets are killed you can believe there will be nothing to stop the grieving parents from going after CAP and anyone else they can if the CAP vehicle is over 10 years old, and if an attorney has an investigator who can find anything that was wrong with the vehicle.

[Eclipse]

If a Military vehicle crashes and Soldiers die nobody sues the Govt although someone could be prosecuted for criminal negligence.

People sue the federal government and the military every day.  The FTCA allows for waivers in situations which involve negligence of the employee within the scope of their employment.  I can assure you there have been plenty of lawsuits by grieving families over dead soldiers in non-combat situations.

If a CAP vehicle crashes and Cadets are killed you can believe there will be nothing to stop the grieving parents from going after CAP and anyone else they can if the CAP vehicle is over 10 years old, and if an attorney has an investigator who can find anything that was wrong with the vehicle.

There's nothing to stop them from suing if the accident happens coming home from the dealer with a brand new mini-van. The age of the vehicle has little to do with whether surviving parents would sue CAP.  They are likely to regardless.

[c172drv]

I am all for Dodge Sprinter Diesel. Fairly expensive to purchase, but extremely reliable, comfortable and inexpensive to operate. The high roof ones are excellent for mobile command centers and commo vans.

While nice in theory in practice I've seen that these vehicles just don't hold up.   I fly for an airline and a lot of hotels had these vehicles.  I say had because almost everyone got rid of them in a year because of poor maintenance reliability from every area of the vehicle.

John

[billford1]

If a Military vehicle crashes and Soldiers die nobody sues the Govt although someone could be prosecuted for criminal negligence.

People sue the federal government and the military every day.  The FTCA allows for waivers in situations which involve negligence of the employee within the scope of their employment.  I can assure you there have been plenty of lawsuits by grieving families over dead soldiers in non-combat situations.

Don't people have to get the U.S. Govt's permission to sue? I haven't heard much about such suits but you may have better information. What is FTCA?

If a CAP vehicle crashes and Cadets are killed you can believe there will be nothing to stop the grieving parents from going after CAP and anyone else they can if the CAP vehicle is over 10 years old, and if an attorney has an investigator who can find anything that was wrong with the vehicle.

There's nothing to stop them from suing if the accident happens coming home from the dealer with a brand new mini-van. The age of the vehicle has little to do with whether surviving parents would sue CAP.  They are likely to regardless.
[/quote
I agree with you that if there's a tragic outcome there will be lawsuits no matter what. I will however make the case that new passenger vehicles have a lot more safety designed into them then they did in the 1990s. One thing Auto Makers look at more closely now is how their vehicle is rated by insurance companies compared to say a Toyota minivan which will protect its occupants a lot better than a late 90s Chevy Astro.

[ZigZag911]

I think we're skating on borrowed time regarding vehicle maintenance & safe operation -- a serious enough accident involving cadets, besides being a tragedy no one wants to see, could result in devastating litigation against CAP...I hope I'm wrong, I'm certainly no expert in this area, just my opinion....I do understand the economic situation

I'm sorry the above is a text-book definition of a straw-man argument.

You simply drop this on the table and expect it to be accepted at face value.  We're not "skating on thin ice" our vehicles are well-maintained and safe.  If they aren't, it because of local issues, because the money is there as is the will.

Of course an accident involving cadets would be a "tragedy".  So? Its just as likely it would be caused by an outside party, distracted driving, or karma, as poor maintenance.

If you know of a van that's a safety issue, you need to ground it and report it immediately, otherwise don't paint my like-new equipment with your "death trap" brush.

You are citing the example of one CAP vehicle, and I'm truly glad to hear that yours is in good shape.

I am discussing a systemic approach to how we do things, how we've done things for decades...some CAP vehicles are 'hangar queens' soaking up an inordinate amount of maintenance money; some are simply long past any reasonable service life...it needs to be addressed in some better way than saying "this is all we're going to get, deal with it".

[ZigZag911]

BTW, Eclipse, I think FTCA does not apply to cadets, at least those under 18.

[billford1]

I just wonder if the AF/DOD wouldn't have some motivation fund CAP to do some kind of "Clunkers" trade in package deal with one of the big 3. I'm sure Chrysler would be happy to load CAP up with fleet priced Grand Caravans or heck clearance priced 2008 Pacificas all with a 7 year 100,000 mile warranty. Surely someone in Congress could make a case for this in exchange for one less bridge in the Florida Everglades. They could sweeten the proposal by making the case that the new vehicles have far lower green house gas emissions than the 80's and 90's sleds they would replace. Oh yes, Did I mention fuel economy? CAP may be poor but the Govt will print money if they can put a good spin on it.

[Eclipse]

BTW, Eclipse, I think FTCA does not apply to cadets, at least those under 18.

In the case of this discussion, the FTCA applies to the federal government and its agents and entities, and is the law which normally bans people from suing them.  Cadets serving in an AFAM status would be protected under the statuate.  FTCA does not provide protection to us or the corporation for non-AFAM
missions and activities.  This is one of the reasons CAP-USAF has been pushing to fly proficiency hours
as "B" missions instead of "C".  In addition to it being better training for CAP, "B" missions afford FTCA and FECA benefits to members.

You're probably thinking of FECA which provides benefits to members injured in the line of duty on AFAMs,
and in that case I believe you are correct that you have to be over 18 to qualify.

[ZigZag911]

Thanks, I think I did have FECA in mind