Vehicle Fleet Age.

[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.