Just curious, with the except of $$$$, Why aren't there Helicopters used in CAP? :)
^
Let's see here
COST
Depending on the size of helicopter --- its hourly rate
Maintenance -- approx 7-10 hr per flight hour
LIABILITY
training requirements that may reasonably exceed any CAP standard
The average CAP Form 5/ 91 would need restructuring to reflect the rotary wing world
AND Don't get me started on "CAP Standards" that "exceed PTS standards" CAP could not even dream of keeping up in the rotary world
Quote from: LBCAP150 on October 09, 2008, 05:37:19 PM
Just curious, with the except of $$$$, Why aren't there Helicopters used in CAP? :)
Well, you can't exclude money from the question. That speaks to the core of our organization and very specifically to the operations (ES) mission. It's a cost/benefit issue. We provide bang for the buck, that's our value proposition.
Current regulations prohibit it.
Not only keeping members qualified, but current, would be rather cost prohibitive.
Our insurance carrier would have a proverbial cow and, no doubt, our premiums would skyrocket.
Maintaining a fleet of helicopters would be very expensive.
We don't have that many rotary wing CFIs around that would be qualified to serve as check pilots for the even fewer people who have rotary wing ratings.
CAP allowed helicopters in the past. CAPM 55-1 "CAP Member-Operated Helicopter Operations" dates back to at least 1983, my earliest reference. Per the manual:
"The mission of CAP member-operated helicopters is for search and rescue on emergency services missions. Helicopters can be used for concentrated search efforts, confirming sightings and recovery of victims when justified. Member-operated helicopters will not be used for the sole purpose of transportation of personnel or equipment." There were even Helicopter Mission Observer and Scanner ratings, as well as training for flight line personnel.
CAPM 55-1 was superseded by CAP Regulation 55-1 which still allowed member-operated helo ops for SAR, DR, CN (CD) and OPLAN 1000 missions. The manual and reg contained helicopter marshalling signals, LZ setup and a section on remote area helo ops. Helicopter ops were removed from CAPR 55-1 in the October 1998 revision.
The program died for all the reasons listed.
Mike
Piston helicopters would not work for the type of flying we do for SAR. Hence, you would need turbine powered helicopters. Our MD500E's that we have at work cost us about $300 per hour to operate with maintenance, fuel burning at 25 gallons per house, and cost, and thats ASSUMING, you own or CAP owns their helicopters outright.
Training for helicopters to facilitate the types of environments they would be used in, ie. the Fossett search, require hundreds, if not thousands of hours of training. My Dept. does not let our pilots fly in the mountains until they have minimum 1500 hours Turbine helicopter time. Your R-22's and Schweizer 300 Pistons arent going to cut it.
Helicopters require extensive training far beyond whet is even required for a helicopter CFI to allow them to be used int he environments where they are the most effective. If you have a helicopter just to fly back and forth in a grid, you are wasting money. If you have them to facilitate rescues, you are going to need training and experience that goes far beyond a lot of abilities of most helicopter pilots. There are several private individuals that have used their personal helicopters to assist in SAR, and many have been met with devestating results.
You'd think I'd be a huge proponent of CAP helo ops, but I'm here to tell you I'm not. Why? Simple currency. SAR flying, and in particular rotary-wing SAR flying, is such a perishable skill that CAP and its pilots simply cannot afford to stay appropriately current for the mission.
I flew in a unit that had as one of its core competencies "search & rescue." Our pilots got the barest of SAR training, and the only reason we had any clue at all about SAR flying was that I'd gotten my old CO to send me the old SAR manuals (back when all the SAR management and grid search stuff was in one manual, etc) so we had something to train with. So here I was, 12,000 miles from home, teaching Army helicopter pilots how to fly SAR using CAP fixed-wing manuals and techniques. We did things like hoist operations, pinnacle landings, water landings, contour flying, etc, in support of SAR ops, and we had the time and flying hours to actually practice these things, and still we spent more time just doing "flying," and not "rotary-wing SAR flying."
And thats not even addressing things like operating & maintenance costs, insurance, pilot qualifications, etc.
I suspect that "Member Owned Helicopter Operations" was due to someone on the NB/NEC either owning/flying a helicopter, or having a DO or someone else with a helo. Spacing - MIKE
Remember, a helicopter is nothing more than a large collection of parts flying in close formation, held together with grease and copper wire. ;)
I think we should just contract with "TEAM AMERICA WORLD POLICE" for all our SAR and Homeland Security Missions, it would be much Cheaper, and they have cool Uniforms
Quote from: SarDragon on October 10, 2008, 03:53:59 AM
Remember, a helicopter is nothing more than a large collection of parts flying in close formation, held together with grease and copper wire. ;)
Well, Ill tell you this much, I would rather have an engine failure in a helicopter long before I would take one in an airplane. Being someone who sees the helicopter I fly in dismantled and put back together just about every two weeks, I can vouch that they are unbelievably complex a machines that are held together under strict tolerances. Although grease and copper wire is meant as a joke, they are made of some of the highest strength materials around. I would never fly SAR with anyone in a member owned helicopter that I did not know personally, and did not know first hand how their helicopter is maintained. Seeing the civilian world, and talking with our full time mechanic who came from the civilian helicopter maintenance world, he has some eye opening horror stories of what "professional operators" have done to cut corners to save money, and some even scarier stories about what he has been quietly asked to do by some of these operators looking to cut costs.
Here in CAP we can fly with as little as 200 hours and a Private. The training our helicopter pilots receive could only be reached in training with the military or Law Enforcement, or by working full time with a company who is footing the bill, who even then rarely take a newbie with a fresh certificate for employment. So again, you need to come to the civilian operator with 2500-3000 hours minimum just to start. If you think Im over stating, go to any helicopter employment site and some of the "minimums" for even entry level jobs are staggering.
Helo ops for SAR......heck yeah! Helo Ops for CAP.....ummmmm, NO. Not to mention, there are but a handful of pilots nation wide who would even qualify to do what would need to be done to exploit the value of a true SAR crew. Helicopters are very unforgiving, and turbine engines are even less forgiving. And yes, to do what we would morph them into, we would need turbines.
Thank you everyone for your input........
Something else to keep in mind...
We don't really NEED helicopters for the type of flying we do in SAR. We have little slow planes that fly over an area (slowly) with people looking out the windows. What could a helicopter do in this area that a plane cannot?
I suppose we can hover, but I hear that's much more difficult to do than people think, and it doesn't serve much more of a purpose than flying around in a circle does. Even if we could use helicopters, we certainly couldn't zipline out of them like pararescuemen, so that use of it is not an option.
I think the typical Cessna serves our purposes well enough. Until we get our SpecOps CAP uber-hardcore rescue teams into place, we just don't have much of a use for a helicopter at this time.
^ :clap:
The only reason we would need them would be to insert or extract people or medivac. We dont do any of that. Even at that end, we dont hover for SAR unless we are going to land. 99% of the time, we are flying in an orbit. It takes a beast of a helicopter to even hover at 10,000 ft, not to mention actually performing any mission.
So in all seriousness, would an airship be a worthwhile CAP platform?
They would seem to offer advantages in low airspeed and virtually unlimited loiter time for things like grid searches, border, and CN type missions.
I suspect they probably don't do well in windy places like the mountains, however.
There are a number of old Navy blimp and airship hangers still around in California.
Whaddya think?
Quote from: Flying Pig on October 10, 2008, 05:29:48 PM
^ :clap:
The only reason we would need them would be to insert or extract people or medivac. We dont do any of that. Even at that end, we dont hover for SAR unless we are going to land. 99% of the time, we are flying in an orbit. It takes a beast of a helicopter to even hover at 10,000 ft, not to mention actually performing any mission.
I guess it's all in how you define "beast" I flew UH-1Ns out of Cheyenne Wyoming for 5 years and did a bunch of mountain flying and you guys are right, it's all in the training. Min power takeoffs at 12,000 density altitude can be tricky at times, but not impossible.
I think the one benefit from helicopter SAR is the fact you can land and check things out. Went out on a "search" for a B-1 hatch that blew off in Colorado so we set up an expanding square search on the coordinates and out in the middle of nowhere in the search area there sits a junkyard. "What are the chances?" I thinks to myself! Well we get over the junkyard and we spot something that looks like it might have come off of an aircraft, but nothing like the description we got.
We land and sure enough it is the hatch with the the interior surfaces blown off exposing the zinc oxide painted interior. It was nice to be able to land, flip the thing over and say "Ah Ha!"
John Gniewkowski
Quote from: Ned on October 10, 2008, 05:40:18 PM
So in all seriousness, would an airship be a worthwhile CAP platform?
They would seem to offer advantages in low airspeed and virtually unlimited loiter time for things like grid searches, border, and CN type missions.
I suspect they probably don't do well in windy places like the mountains, however.
There are a number of old Navy blimp and airship hangers still around in California.
Whaddya think?
As long as we could advertise off the side of it I wouldn't have any problems with the idea...
I thought it was purely historical- since no German submarines were sunk with a CAP Helicopter we can't have them now. ;D
In the civilian world, a Huey is a beast. The one my Dept is looking to buy is $4.5 million dollars pushing 1800 shaft horse.
Quote from: Flying Pig on October 10, 2008, 06:10:30 PM
In the civilian world, a Huey is a beast. The one my Dept is looking to buy is $4.5 million dollars pushing 1800 shaft horse.
Must be a 214 you guys are looking to buy, the old H model (212) was something like 1100 shaft horse power.
Spent 3700 hours in various H-1 models in Army training and in the Air Force and never appreciated it as a beast--in a world of MH-53's and H-60's even a twin Huey is the VW Bus of the helicopter world! ;D
^
^
The Huey isn't the beast .... it's the $4.5 mil that is.
Worked on em 21 yrs ... built pretty much like a small tank. Unlike some of today's plastic helicopters
Quote from: Ned on October 10, 2008, 05:40:18 PM
So in all seriousness, would an airship be a worthwhile CAP platform?
They would seem to offer advantages in low airspeed and virtually unlimited loiter time for things like grid searches, border, and CN type missions.
I suspect they probably don't do well in windy places like the mountains, however.
There are a number of old Navy blimp and airship hangers still around in California.
Whaddya think?
I think it's full of hot air. ;)
Oh, wait, you're talking about helium filled stuff.
From my conversations with old blimp maintainers when I was at Lakehurst in the 70s, they were almost as big a maintenance hog as helos. With modern technology in some areas, that might be alleviated, though.
Yes, bad in windy areas. Hovering isn't easy, either. Back to doing orbits to control altitude.
Hangars - been in one of them lately? They were in bad shape when they were in constant use back in the 70s. I can imagine what they're like now, after years of disuse.
It is an interesting thought, though.
There are so many variants of the Huey as far as conversions now. DynCorp has the Global Eagle converstion, Bell now makes the Huey II, there are variants being modified that take 205 frames and put 212 blades on them, tractor tail rotors, tail boom strakes, fast-fins, the list goes on.
We are looking at the Global Eagle or the Bell Huey II.
A while back there was talk about using a single-engine pusher plane called the "Optica" for SAR. I didn't think it was a good platform, the payload with full fuel was low. Considering the weights of some of us, plus the gear we pack, I didn't think it would work.
But some other platforms were being considered, as I recall.
Not helicopters, however. I'd rather have a sister in a brothel than a brother in a rotary-wing aircraft!
^ How about you let your sister fly in the helicopter?
Quote from: G+10 on October 10, 2008, 05:58:40 PM
Quote from: Ned on October 10, 2008, 05:40:18 PM
So in all seriousness, would an airship be a worthwhile CAP platform?
They would seem to offer advantages in low airspeed and virtually unlimited loiter time for things like grid searches, border, and CN type missions.
I suspect they probably don't do well in windy places like the mountains, however.
There are a number of old Navy blimp and airship hangers still around in California.
Whaddya think?
As long as we could advertise off the side of it I wouldn't have any problems with the idea...
All we need is the scrolling sign
(http://images09.sb.wigflip.com/E/n/qU0TjRGxtd.gif)
QuoteRe: Civil Air Patrol Helicopter
« Reply #22 on: Yesterday at 10:29:05 PM »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A while back there was talk about using a single-engine pusher plane called the "Optica" for SAR. I didn't think it was a good platform, the payload with full fuel was low. Considering the weights of some of us, plus the gear we pack, I didn't think it would work.
But some other platforms were being considered, as I recall.
Not helicopters, however. I'd rather have a sister in a brothel than a brother in a rotary-wing aircraft!
Quote from: Flying Pig on October 11, 2008, 09:31:41 PM
^ How about you let your sister fly in the helicopter?
Don't tell Mom I'm a flight nurse - she thinks I'm a piano player in a brothel >:D
I have always thought that an airship or blimp would be a perfect SAR platform. Just this week I saw some of the new designs and models through my work. There are a lot of new designs out there like Lockhead's solar powered high altitude airship. Blackwater also has a very interesting unmanned/manned blimp that goes on the market next year. These are being marketed to the military and government agencies for communications and homeland security purposes. CAP could be a part of this new revolution!
PAUL
Quote from: G+10 on October 10, 2008, 05:58:40 PM
Quote from: Ned on October 10, 2008, 05:40:18 PM
So in all seriousness, would an airship be a worthwhile CAP platform?
They would seem to offer advantages in low airspeed and virtually unlimited loiter time for things like grid searches, border, and CN type missions.
I suspect they probably don't do well in windy places like the mountains, however.
There are a number of old Navy blimp and airship hangers still around in California.
Whaddya think?
As long as we could advertise off the side of it I wouldn't have any problems with the idea...
Even though helicopters and airships may be a better SAR platform than Cessnas, there is no beating the cost/benefit for fixed wing aircraft. However, it would be more fun taking in some helium and talking like Alvin and the other Chipmunks ;D
Airships are not good for SaR. They're slow to move into the AO then slow progressing over the area. What they're good at is staying up in a small area for a long time. That's perfect when you don't have satellite coverage or for comm support. If you wanted realtime satellite-like optics over an area (like an Olympic city) for a long time, then yeah it'd be great. If you're looking for a lost plane, not so much.
Helicopters are absolutely better for SaR than fixed wing. The best search you can do is 30kts under 500ft with a lot of time below that altitude checking things out, even landing as necessary. That's about a hundred times more effective than what we do in cessnas, of course the cost to reach the same POD would be enormously higher.
There are times when you need a helicopter & fixed wing just isn't going to get it done no matter how much you overfly an area. We coordinate with the state when we need that.
Quote from: DNall on October 12, 2008, 05:58:04 AM
Airships are not good for SaR. They're slow to move into the AO then slow progressing over the area. What they're good at is staying up in a small area for a long time. That's perfect when you don't have satellite coverage or for comm support. If you wanted realtime satellite-like optics over an area (like an Olympic city) for a long time, then yeah it'd be great. If you're looking for a lost plane, not so much.
Helicopters are absolutely better for SaR than fixed wing. The best search you can do is 30kts under 500ft with a lot of time below that altitude checking things out, even landing as necessary. That's about a hundred times more effective than what we do in cessnas, of course the cost to reach the same POD would be enormously higher.
There are times when you need a helicopter & fixed wing just isn't going to get it done no matter how much you overfly an area. We coordinate with the state when we need that.
Fixed wing vs rotary wing is an apples and oranges argument.
Fixed wing is the only way to go for large area searches, i.e. route search and grids.
Rotary wing are good for specific targets, i.e. ridgelines.
Its all a matter of using the right tool for the job at hand.
Quote from: Ned on October 10, 2008, 05:40:18 PM
So in all seriousness, would an airship be a worthwhile CAP platform?
They would seem to offer advantages in low airspeed and virtually unlimited loiter time for things like grid searches, border, and CN type missions.
I suspect they probably don't do well in windy places like the mountains, however.
There are a number of old Navy blimp and airship hangers still around in California.
Whaddya think?
Quite honestly...that is a great thought for future mission capabilities. With newer style "airships" coming online (I have read of several recently) I can see them being GREAT "high bird" platforms but their slowness might not make them such good SAR platforms.
Quote from: PHall on October 12, 2008, 06:11:06 AM
Fixed wing vs rotary wing is an apples and oranges argument.
Fixed wing is the only way to go for large area searches, i.e. route search and grids.
Rotary wing are good for specific targets, i.e. ridgelines.
Its all a matter of using the right tool for the job at hand.
Maybe green apples to red apples.
You can certainly cover more territory with fewer aircraft in a fixed amount of time with fixed wing, but the quality of coverage is not nearly as good, so you may need to fly a grid several times to get the POD you can expect from one helo flight.
The best air search you could run would be to flood an area with helos on quarter grids, but that's an enormously expensive & logistically insane op. There's also probably not enough SaR search competent aircrews in any area from any agency to do it right.
So yeah, the most practical search is going to be light fixed wing (CAP) with helos as you say for specific high value & low accessible areas. The skill level & airframe you'd need on that type of rotary flying is beyond almost all civilian agencies (meaning I don't know of one). For the tougher end of that spectrum, I wouldn't even trust Army pilots.
QuoteYou can certainly cover more territory with fewer aircraft in a fixed amount of time with fixed wing, but the quality of coverage is not nearly as good, so you may need to fly a grid several times to get the POD you can expect from one helo flight.
You can fly a grid a whole bunch of times with fixed wing before your cost exceeds that of flying it with a helicopter once. That being said, there are obviously certain situations when a helicopter is the right tool for the right job. Missing airplane searches generally are not going to be that job due to the vast amounts of terrain that usually need to be searched.
Helicopters are always the right choice. It just depends on whether or not your budget can support it.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 12, 2008, 09:42:21 PM
You can fly a grid a whole bunch of times with fixed wing before your cost exceeds that of flying it with a helicopter once. That being said, there are obviously certain situations when a helicopter is the right tool for the right job. Missing airplane searches generally are not going to be that job due to the vast amounts of terrain that usually need to be searched.
Actually, that's not true....
Quote from: Flying Pig on October 10, 2008, 12:25:08 AM
Our MD500E's that we have at work cost us about $300 per hour to operate with maintenance, fuel...
You know what we're billing hourly for Cessnas? Now multiply that times two & see which number is bigger.
You want to factor in training, purchase cost, etc... go ahead & figure out how much the AF has invested in our air fleet, annual O&M/training, etc. It's a big number. That's why when we bill other than the federal govt for hours the rate is closer to $300/hr.
Paid aircrew are always going to cost more than volunteers, but there's an argument that better trained/experienced in the field makes them more efficient, which means fewer sorties. And helos are always going to be more expensive to operate than light fixed-wing. That said, the difference is not so insanely dramatic that they don't need to be used on fairly regular basis. It's just not something the CAP volunteer based system, or our financial/logistical operating parameters could support.
QuoteThat's why when we bill other than the federal govt for hours the rate is closer to $300/hr.
Maybe TX is padding the bills, but our wing charges the rate in the regs + actual gas cost which is roughly $90/hour the last time I looked.
You hadn't looked in a long time then. That's also the rate charged to AF per mission hour. That rate is based on AF subsidizing everything else about the overall fleet operation. The rate charged to non-federal customers is very different. It passes on those additional operating costs. Which is as it should be. AF shouldn't be expected to eat part of the cost for flying they don't have control of, and may actually disapprove of.
Fact remains I have to overfly a grid 3-4-5 times to get POD to take it off my map. I can accomplish the same thing with usually one helo sortie.
I'm really not saying light helos are cheaper. They aren't in the big picture, but in terms of hourly operating cost they are pretty reasonable. CAP is a good & versatile option, but it isn't such an amazingly cheap deal that helos shouldn't be used when available. Certainly when you have high value targets & you can get a helo from the state, by all means send them out there. Hell, put a couple CAP members in the helo & send them out. We did that, as I guess yall remember, and it worked out great.
Well, my unit spent the last 16 hours searching an area in the Sierras for a lost hunter. And I can guarantee an airplane would have never been able to do what we did. tree top level, at about 50 knots. Like Ive said before, Ive had CAP IC's tell me helicopters have no place in SAR.
Quote from: Flying Pig on October 14, 2008, 01:03:01 AM
Well, my unit spent the last 16 hours searching an area in the Sierras for a lost hunter. And I can guarantee an airplane would have never been able to do what we did. tree top level, at about 50 knots. Like Ive said before, Ive had CAP IC's tell me helicopters have no place in SAR.
Probably because we've had some bad experiences with helicopters in CAWG. Most specifically San Bernardino County SO.
QuoteYou hadn't looked in a long time then. That's also the rate charged to AF per mission hour. That rate is based on AF subsidizing everything else about the overall fleet operation. The rate charged to non-federal customers is very different. It passes on those additional operating costs. Which is as it should be. AF shouldn't be expected to eat part of the cost for flying they don't have control of, and may actually disapprove of.
Oh, I don't know about that. I've
personally arranged for at least 3 flights for other agencies in 2008 and the reimbursement rate was as I stated -- approximately $90-100/hour depending on the cost of gas that day and the model of plane. And I am aware of several other flights for other agencies that were done in the same manner.
You might want to review 173-3 Attachment 1. Perhaps you meant to say charges for ARCHER flights, which cost an additional $235/hour on top of the regular reimbursement rate for the aircraft if not being funded by our congressional appropriation.
Of course, you are also allowed to come up with different rates per an MOU with the agency, so maybe TX Wing has better negotiators than we do.
Quote from: PHall on October 14, 2008, 02:00:19 AM
Quote from: Flying Pig on October 14, 2008, 01:03:01 AM
Well, my unit spent the last 16 hours searching an area in the Sierras for a lost hunter. And I can guarantee an airplane would have never been able to do what we did. tree top level, at about 50 knots. Like Ive said before, Ive had CAP IC's tell me helicopters have no place in SAR.
Probably because we've had some bad experiences with helicopters in CAWG. Most specifically San Bernardino County SO.
SBSO has probably the best air unit in the country. Having worked with them, I can vouch first hand. What was the experience? Did they not let CAP play, or what?
Quote from: RiverAux on October 14, 2008, 03:28:39 AM
QuoteYou hadn't looked in a long time then. That's also the rate charged to AF per mission hour. That rate is based on AF subsidizing everything else about the overall fleet operation. The rate charged to non-federal customers is very different. It passes on those additional operating costs. Which is as it should be. AF shouldn't be expected to eat part of the cost for flying they don't have control of, and may actually disapprove of.
Oh, I don't know about that. I've personally arranged for at least 3 flights for other agencies in 2008 and the reimbursement rate was as I stated -- approximately $90-100/hour depending on the cost of gas that day and the model of plane. And I am aware of several other flights for other agencies that were done in the same manner.
You might want to review 173-3 Attachment 1. Perhaps you meant to say charges for ARCHER flights, which cost an additional $235/hour on top of the regular reimbursement rate for the aircraft if not being funded by our congressional appropriation.
Of course, you are also allowed to come up with different rates per an MOU with the agency, so maybe TX Wing has better negotiators than we do.
What you're citing is the minor maint number (which a member would pay wing as the "dry" rate for non-funded prof flying). That number paid to wing in addition to fuel to the member for mission hours, because wings pay minor maint (like oil changes). It does not include major maint, which is funded by NHQ under AF appropriation. It doesn't include fleet mgmt costs, training, or anything related to having the resource available. The actual cost of operating a CAP aircraft, if averaged out & billed to customer hours, would be rather more than fuel & oil.
Even if you wanted to use those rate though... 4-5 sorties at that rate versus 1 sortie at 300/hr... CAP would actually cost more. Now, for practicality, CAP can put a bunch of planes out there fast & relatively safe. But if you really want to find something, light helos would be better & close to the same total costs. Once you start stepping up to mid-size or larger helos, that disappears real fast. Mid-size fixed wing will win out over mid-helos every time.
QuoteThe actual cost of operating a CAP aircraft, if averaged out & billed to customer hours, would be rather more than fuel & oil.
Of course it wouldn't. I was just refuting your statement that we actually charged non-federal customers for that stuff, when in fact, we don't. Why? Because then we would have trouble maintaining our FAA exemptions...
Quote from: Flying Pig on October 14, 2008, 02:29:49 PM
Quote from: PHall on October 14, 2008, 02:00:19 AM
Quote from: Flying Pig on October 14, 2008, 01:03:01 AM
Well, my unit spent the last 16 hours searching an area in the Sierras for a lost hunter. And I can guarantee an airplane would have never been able to do what we did. tree top level, at about 50 knots. Like Ive said before, Ive had CAP IC's tell me helicopters have no place in SAR.
Probably because we've had some bad experiences with helicopters in CAWG. Most specifically San Bernardino County SO.
SBSO has probably the best air unit in the country. Having worked with them, I can vouch first hand. What was the experience? Did they not let CAP play, or what?
A previous Commander of the Sheriff's Air Unit would not work with CAP at all.
After a couple of near miss midairs during some searches, CAP was "thrown out" of San Bernardino County by the Sheriff.
The near misses were from the sheriff's department aircraft straying from their grid assignments.
After a new sheriff was elected and a new Aero Bureau Commander was assigned things got much better.
But for almost 10 years, CAP was not allowed to work in the largest county in the lower 48 states!
Quote from: RiverAux on October 14, 2008, 08:48:14 PM
QuoteThe actual cost of operating a CAP aircraft, if averaged out & billed to customer hours, would be rather more than fuel & oil.
Of course it wouldn't. I was just refuting your statement that we actually charged non-federal customers for that stuff, when in fact, we don't. Why? Because then we would have trouble maintaining our FAA exemptions...
We do actually, those are actual costs, not pay for service. The difference is AF subsidizes those costs for their missions, to include non-mission flying. You MOUs should include reasonable costs above minor maint to contribute to percentage of major maint avg'd over flight hours, etc. Otherwise, you have AF paying indirectly for missions they can't &/or don't want to be involved in & no say over if it happens or not.
Again, in my personal experience we have not done so. As I mentioned, the regs do allow for MOUs with other agencies to pay for above the established rates, but it doesn't require them or provide any guidance on what that should be. So, there is no evidence that CAP or the AF wants or requires us to charge more than the established rates out there. If so, I'd ask to see it. Remember, we get reimbursed by other agencies, not paid by them. Start asking for more than actual costs and we lose our FAA exemptions.
Keep in mind that wings don't even keep minor maintenance costs anymore if they're on consolidated maintenance. All that money goes to the Air Force and the Wing just gets paid for actual fuel and oil.
Seeing as how actual real-world direct hands-on writing the ops plan experience in these situations doesn't seem to be enough, I'll bow out....
Quote from: RiverAux on October 15, 2008, 02:37:43 AM
Again, in my personal experience we have not done so. As I mentioned, the regs do allow for MOUs with other agencies to pay for above the established rates, but it doesn't require them or provide any guidance on what that should be. So, there is no evidence that CAP or the AF wants or requires us to charge more than the established rates out there. If so, I'd ask to see it. Remember, we get reimbursed by other agencies, not paid by them. Start asking for more than actual costs and we lose our FAA exemptions.
Keep in mind that wings don't even keep minor maintenance costs anymore if they're on consolidated maintenance. All that money goes to the Air Force and the Wing just gets paid for actual fuel and oil.
Seeing as how actual real-world direct hands-on writing the ops plan experience in these situations doesn't seem to be enough...
It's certainly different from one situation/agency to another.
Again though, it's NOT greater than actual costs. You didn't do an oil change on THAT sortie. You are averaging the costs out over each flight hour. Why would major maint, fleet mgmt, or even readiness/sustainment (training) all avg'd out over each flight hour be any different?
Plus, you wanna make this complicated... On those same mission numbers we bill all kinds of relo sorties. Cross-level those back on the flight hours & see what you get.
Like I said though, this is all playing with numbers to skew a result. Helos do cost more per hour, no question of that. However, they also do such a better job that you need 4-5 CAP sorties to reach the same POD, and that's for relatively open flat terrains where fixed wing can get decent results. By the time you avg those out against each other on a grid/POD for grid/POD basis it's going to be quite competitive or even the helo winning out (depending quite a bit on airframe).
The issue is NOT NOT NOT money. Again, I'm not saying CAP sucks & we should just go home. CAP plays a vital role, but isn't always the best tool for the job. It also isn't SO SO SO cheap that nothing else can possibly be considered.
Personally, I see that in two lights. First is operationally, I'm going to ask for & use helos in situations best suited to their capabilities. I'm not scared in the slightest of CAP losing out on handful of sorties if I can locate a target more effectively/faster by using the right tool for the job. Second, I understand that we have legitimate competition out there, and that in the big picture makes me believe CAP needs to stay on the ball & continue growing our capabilities to stay competitive or even relevant.
So is this a compromise on tilt rotors?
^ Oh I freakin volunteer
Quote from: afgeo4 on October 16, 2008, 03:54:35 AM
So is this a compromise on tilt rotors?
Watch for the bell maneuvering down the runway in a rahter unique way ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3nGKUI5QVw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3nGKUI5QVw)
OK....question. Is an MV22 Pilot a helicopter or fixed wing pilot?
Quote from: Flying Pig on October 17, 2008, 03:32:12 PM
OK....question. Is an MV22 Pilot a helicopter or fixed wing pilot?
Neither. He's a Tilt-rotor Pilot.
Ah HAA!!! I found it. "Powered Lift Pilot" A rating developed for Tilt Rotor technology.
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1997/news_release_970821a.html
Quote from: Ned on October 10, 2008, 05:40:18 PM
So in all seriousness, would an airship be a worthwhile CAP platform?
They would seem to offer advantages in low airspeed and virtually unlimited loiter time for things like grid searches, border, and CN type missions.
I suspect they probably don't do well in windy places like the mountains, however.
There are a number of old Navy blimp and airship hangers still around in California.
Whaddya think?
Just crazy enough to be worth looking into. There's a company at Moffett Field/NASA Ames Research Center that just started running tours at $300/hr. I have no idea what the operating cost, purchase cost, FAA rules, training, etc are. I don't think they'd be good in the mountains though, or in moderate to heavy wind. They are really really big though, longer then a 747.
http://www.lcsun-news.com/ci_10784072
There are two types of pilots in this world...
Those that fly helicopters and those that wish they could!
>:D
If we are talking airships why not powered parachutes? Speed range is about the same 2 seats a lot cheaper and easier to deal with. They takeoff and land in 100 feet or so. ???
Quote from: Climbnsink on October 30, 2008, 12:28:50 AM
If we are talking airships why not powered parachutes? Speed range is about the same 2 seats a lot cheaper and easier to deal with. They takeoff and land in 100 feet or so. ???
Umm, no! My airframe flies 145kias very comfortably. What's that parachute do? You want to be able to transit to the search area at legit speeds, then operate low & slow - in the case of a helo that's specialized for lower & slower in more difficult enviros than you can put a Cessna into. Air Ship is worthless specifically cause it can't transit to the area quickly. And, also because it can't easily operate in varied conditions.
How about ultralights?
QuoteUmm, no! My airframe flies 145kias very comfortably. What's that parachute do? You want to be able to transit to the search area at legit speeds, then operate low & slow - in the case of a helo that's specialized for lower & slower in more difficult enviros than you can put a Cessna into. Air Ship is worthless specifically cause it can't transit to the area quickly. And, also because it can't easily operate in varied conditions.
Transit to the area on a trailer behind a car at 65 mph. Fly out of a field. I know it isn't very practical and would never be adopted regardless, but it seems to have more promise than airships. I've flown in a powered parachute once and the visibility is as good as a helicopter.
Okay kids... none of those things can possibly have the versatility necessary to do a legit job at SaR.
Even in a helo you need turbine powered cause piston isn't capable enough. That's somewhat about payload, but more then that it's altitude, weather, & working around rough terrain.
Tell me you can fly an ultralight/powered parachute/airship thru a rain storm transiting to do detail work around a mountain face at 8-10k in 20kts wind.
You MIGHT MIGHT MIGHT be able to fly in slow/close enough with a Cessna under those conditions, but you'll be so busy trying not to die that you aren't going to see anything.
You put a good helo crew in a good airframe to cover those kinds of assignments. You generally don't put a helo on a grid when you can cover that easy stuff with simple airframes at little risk to lesser qualified crews.
Quote from: DNall on November 01, 2008, 12:51:31 AM
Okay kids... none of those things can possibly have the versatility necessary to do a legit job at SaR.
Even in a helo you need turbine powered cause piston isn't capable enough. That's somewhat about payload, but more then that it's altitude, weather, & working around rough terrain.
Tell me you can fly an ultralight/powered parachute/airship thru a rain storm transiting to do detail work around a mountain face at 8-10k in 20kts wind.
Dennis,
I guess it just depends on how you frame the question. Nobody here was suggesting that airships or the other alternatives could perform in your hypothetical.
Looking back at the thread, I think we kind of pointed that out already all on our own.
But if we framed the question in terms of loiter time for high desert searches or, say, a California - type border mission then I guess a turbine helicopter would look just as silly as an airship trying to thread a windy canyon.
And of course the primary reason we don't use turbine rotary wing platforms for searches is resources. If we could figure out how to support the airframes and related training, they obviously would be useful and could save lives.
I wish we had 20-30 million extra a year to support helo operations.
But if wishes were fishes . . . .
Ned Lee
We established at the beginning of the thread why CAP cannot have helos. This is exactly because of the cost to maintain the airframes, and enough of them to allow geographic distribution necessary for them to be useful, and the crew training/currency costs & time commitments... all equates to more than a volunteer force drawn from general aviation can handle.
CAP does very effectively use light fixed wing, expressly because the logistics of it do fit a volunteer force structure. This does not in any way mean that light fixed wing is the best or most efficient tool to accomplish any mission of CAP.
This was stated in the thread, because many members believe CAP is so inexpensive that no other alternative can be entertained, are closed minded to other resources, and then don't understand why we don't have 100 times more missions than we do.
The fact is, light to mid-size turbine helos are a much better search tool, and in most cases the hourly operating costs are competitive against the multiple sorties necessary with light fixed-wing to accomplish the same POD.
Hence, when those resources are offered by the state/county, CAP should be open to utilizing them, and know when/where/how to do so.
An ultralight, powered parachute, hang glider, model rocket, RC &/or paper airplane are all toys that are not much use to anyone in a SaR.
There is some merit to unmanned airships for long-term station keeping assignments in good weather. That generally equates to comm support and surveillance. However, they come with some serious logistics problems that keep them from being either responsive or efficient. If I were border patrol, certainly I would be looking at options when the technology gets where it needs to be. As a SaR agency, I would not. There is not enough practical use for any of those types of platforms for CAP to consider their use.
What CAP should consider in the future is a limited number of airframes with a greater payload.
Hello All,
I'm a newbie to CAP talk and relatively new to CAP. As a owner/pilot of helicopters this topic is close to my heart and I am hoping to breath some life back into the thread.
With out going into the actual numbers I have watched the number of missions my wings decline on an annual basis. Now that is certainly a good thing if it means that fewer people are at risk. However the truth of the matter is that CAP is competing against a ever growing number of agencies all looking to justify their existence.
These agencies may or may not have flight crews more capable or better trained than the CAP crews but I think it would be hard to argue that they are better equipped to handle SAR missions. That is to say they operate helicopters.
I'm sure that at this point keyboards will start heating up as folks try to defend the use of c172s and c182s as SAR platforms. Okay lets face reality here, our mission is not SAR its search. How many of you have been involved in a mission where CAP corporate aircraft have actually transported the victim? Myself I have been involved in one but this was only possible because an aircraft from another agency transported the victim to an airport in the area. I'd call that a search mission turned transport.
Like many things in aviation the choice of the best aircraft is a compromise. The geographic area as well as the specific mission the best aircraft for a given mission.
I think we need to ask how long will CAP ES functions be supported if we don't have missions to fly and would we have more missions available if we added rotary wing assets?
This is a long winded post so I will close it out with this thought. If we agree that a c172 or c182 is primarily a search platform and that cost is the deterrent for rotary wing aircraft then lets replace the fleet with UAV's. If we agree that risk to CAP crews is the major factor then let's replace the fleet with UAV's. UAV's can perform the search missions at a lower cost with no risk to CAP flight crews.
More on this in another post.
Back in 1984-1985 or thereabouts, NJW was working a REDCAP (I think together with PA Wing) in late summer/early autumn.
ELTs were still relatively new (at least to CAP); the mission dragged on for several days, and aircrews were able to narrow down the search area considerably -- to a heavily forested section of the state bordering PA.
Someone -- I think it was the missing pilot's family -- arranged the use of the Fuji blimp, complete with flight crew. We filled it with a bunch of experienced observers and a couple of our best SAR pilots (to coach the blimp's pilots through an unfamiliar process)...[robably 10-12 CAP members all told.
Bottom line, as I recall, after a few hours our folks spotted the wreckage, talked sheriff's officers or state police into the site.
I could see a lighter than air craft being quite useful in some limited SAR scenarios (perhaps people lost in the woods?), photo missions, damage assessment flights....but the cost of maintenance and operation would be prohibitive, not to mention getting qualified pilots.
Instead, I suggest CAP look into forming partnerships with companies that already fly lighter than air craft -- it would be terrific PR, not to mention a possible tax write off for the firms involved.
There are helicopters in CAP...at least according to the Vanguard front page...
http://www.vanguardmil.com/
;D
If we had helos, this would be my choice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_EC_135
However, there are two aircraft I think would suit CAP a lot better than rotary wing.
OV-10 Broncos with weapons removed, though I have reservations about the bang seats:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OV-10
O-2 Skymaster push-pull:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-2_Skymaster
Cessna also produces a civil version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_Skymaster
Loiter time, STOL capability and a limited medevac function would be good for us, at least I think so...
Quote from: CyBorgIf we had helos, this would be my choice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_EC_135 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_EC_135)
Who's going to pay for it/them? Unit cost ~US$4.2M. That will buy a bunch of Cessnas.
QuoteHowever, there are two aircraft I think would suit CAP a lot better than rotary wing.
OV-10 Broncos with weapons removed, though I have reservations about the bang seats:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OV-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OV-10)
Seats are the least of the problems. CalFire just put in regular seats that work just fine. Otherwise, they are too expensive and too fast. Initial cost in the '60s was $480,000. The production line has been closed for many years, and all that's currently available are some tired airframes. Parts are scarce, too.
QuoteO-2 Skymaster push-pull:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-2_Skymaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-2_Skymaster)
Cessna also produces a civil version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_Skymaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_Skymaster)
Production ended in 1982. Need I say more?
This would work: ;)
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/01/uav-tarmac.jpg
Seriously, with all this talk about rotary vs. fixed, I'd be happy just to see a CAP airplane. We airline pilots have a saying, "Helicopter time in your logbook is about as useful as VD in your medical records." :D
Aircrews for helidopters wouldn't be that hard to find. There are lots of former Army chopper pilots that might be interested in joining CAP to fly. IF CAP had surplus military helicopters the bain drawback is maintenance, and operating costs. CAP helicopters would be of value, if limited to lets say two per region with crews available for several days operations. Initial search should be by C-172/182/GA-8 platforms with the helicopters as backup. But until funding is available, chances of CAP ever operating their own helicopters is remote. Add to this the training requirements for crews, and the costs skyrocket.
Quote from: Thrash on April 09, 2010, 12:31:45 PM
This would work: ;)
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/01/uav-tarmac.jpg
Seriously, with all this talk about rotary vs. fixed, I'd be happy just to see a CAP airplane. We airline pilots have a saying, "Helicopter time in your logbook is about as useful as VD in your medical records." :D
Blasphemer!!!
For most of the country, a fixed wing search platform and a ground-based rescue platform is all you need for effective SAR.
I would think a good solid liason with the National Guard and the local Blackhawk unit would suffice to cover the rotary wing need. They have to fly to maintain currency anway. Experience is plentiful too. IIRC some of the Blackhawk pilots log 1000 hours in the course of one deployment. CAP can search and find and call the National Guard if ground EVAC isn't feasible and rotary wing is needed.
Quote from: Thrash on April 09, 2010, 12:31:45 PM
We airline pilots have a saying, "Helicopter time in your logbook is about as useful as VD in your medical records." :D
At least VD is medical proof someone was willing to touch you!
CAP could never maintain the level of training and experience needed to fly helicopters in SAR missions nor could we ever maintain the equipment needed. Minimum we would need Jet Rangers or MD500's. (Please dont talk to me about pistons)
I would say local LE or Guard would be the best place to keep the helo assets.
Quote from: blackrain on April 09, 2010, 02:18:38 PM
I would think a good solid liason with the National Guard and the local Blackhawk unit would suffice to cover the rotary wing need. They have to fly to maintain currency anway. Experience is plentiful too. IIRC some of the Blackhawk pilots log 1000 hours in the course of one deployment. CAP can search and find and call the National Guard if ground EVAC isn't feasible and rotary wing is needed.
BlackRain:
We just had such a scenario last month during the flooding in South Dakota. We were dispatched by the state to take photos of a breach in a sewer lagoon as part of our first flooding sortie of the day. We orbited and I took several photos (closeups and wide shots) and we landed about a half hour later and I emailed the photos to the emergency services leader. They then dispatched a SDNG Blackhawk to loiter over the area to try and determine the cause of the breach and moved up the waterway that was suddenly draining into the lagoon.
We quickly and cheaply did our job and then the state brought in a better suited resource to follow up from the information we had provided.
Hand and glove, fellow babies. Our state coordinated several resources effectively to serve the public interest.
Believe me, I love flying in helicopters and think they would be an asset to many of our missions. But money doesn't grow on trees for our governments or for us taxpayers. The incident command system we are all learning gives a structure for these major incidents and a way to leverage diverse assets.
Quote from: blackrain on April 09, 2010, 02:18:38 PM
I would think a good solid liason with the National Guard and the local Blackhawk unit would suffice to cover the rotary wing need. They have to fly to maintain currency anway. Experience is plentiful too. IIRC some of the Blackhawk pilots log 1000 hours in the course of one deployment. CAP can search and find and call the National Guard if ground EVAC isn't feasible and rotary wing is needed.
Yep. National Guard helos, Coast Guard, LifeFlight, LE helicopters.... All resources that
if needed can be arranged by the CAP IC with a call through AFRCC. And ground teams are supposed to be trained to establish a place on the ground for them to land.
Quote from: Flying Pig on April 09, 2010, 12:56:05 PM
Quote from: Thrash on April 09, 2010, 12:31:45 PM
This would work: ;)
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/01/uav-tarmac.jpg (http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/01/uav-tarmac.jpg)
Seriously, with all this talk about rotary vs. fixed, I'd be happy just to see a CAP airplane. We airline pilots have a saying, "Helicopter time in your logbook is about as useful as VD in your medical records." :D
Blasphemer!!!
I did this just for you, Robert. Please enjoy. >:D BWAHHAHAHAHH !!!!!!
(http://captalk.net/MGalleryItem.php?id=156)
^^As a new Mission Scanner and someone who loves to fly and fly on our CAP missions (and joined CAP, in part, for the opportunities to fly), should I feel threatened if we use UAVs for our missions? Absolutely not. We're also not flying bi-planes any more either. If UAVs are cost effective and help us get the job done and Congress and USAF want us to fly them from the comfort of mission base, I'm all for it. Sounds like a new SQTR. But I'm guessing the Cessnas will be around for the foreseeable future because of the costs involved. And there might be some backlash from citizens who think the drones are going to be used for domestic spying. We'll see.
Quote from: tdepp on April 09, 2010, 06:14:30 PM
If UAVs are cost effective and help us get the job done and Congress and USAF want us to fly them from the comfort of mission base, I'm all for it. Sounds like a new SQTR.
CAP doesn't teach Senior Members to fly airplanes so why would they teach Senior Members to fly UAVs?
Quote from: Short Field on April 09, 2010, 09:00:15 PM
Quote from: tdepp on April 09, 2010, 06:14:30 PM
If UAVs are cost effective and help us get the job done and Congress and USAF want us to fly them from the comfort of mission base, I'm all for it. Sounds like a new SQTR.
CAP doesn't teach Senior Members to fly airplanes so why would they teach Senior Members to fly UAVs?
That's inside the box thinking Short. Don't you think if CAP were going to fly UAV's they'd probably have the USAF train or assist in the training of our MPs and or other pilots to fly UAVs? And from what I understand, they are manned by two or three crew, so you might still have the need for MOs and MSs or the UAV equivalent thereto.
I'm guessing we are YEARS away from having to address such an issue. In the meantime, take good care of the Cessnas, et al. But technological changes will only continue to accelerate. We can either hang on to our buggy whips and steam gauges or we can adapt to what the next generations of aviation advancement will bring.
CAP and helos and UAV's??
Can CAP master the G1000 and SBT / FITS scenarios yet?
Before CAP can EVEN dream of UAV's....can we MASTER what we have at present?
I know, I know...I'm a fun sucker
But CAP could not even fetch the funding for this ...Again how about that HR 1178 project, huh? where we supposed to get Congress to do study on how "cheap" we are... huh?
CAP andhelos and UAV's? Who is going to VOLUNTEER their time in this economy for flying an maintaining these ships?
CAP's consolidated MX program?? BWHAHAHAHHA!
Quote from: tdepp on April 09, 2010, 09:58:30 PM
Quote from: Short Field on April 09, 2010, 09:00:15 PM
Quote from: tdepp on April 09, 2010, 06:14:30 PM
If UAVs are cost effective and help us get the job done and Congress and USAF want us to fly them from the comfort of mission base, I'm all for it. Sounds like a new SQTR.
CAP doesn't teach Senior Members to fly airplanes so why would they teach Senior Members to fly UAVs?
I'm guessing we are YEARS away from having to address such an issue. In the meantime, take good care of the Cessnas, et al. But technological changes will only continue to accelerate. We can either hang on to our buggy whips and steam gauges or we can adapt to what the next generations of aviation advancement will bring.
Although I cannot go into details at this time, there is at least one CAP wing that is considering the UAV potential for SAR work. I personally think it can be a very good technology that can be easily deployed, even when ceiling are too low for normal cessna aircraft to fly.
RM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on April 09, 2010, 10:38:53 PM
Although I cannot go into details at this time, there is at least one CAP wing that is considering the UAV potential for SAR work. I personally think it can be a very good technology that can be easily deployed, even when ceiling are too low for normal cessna aircraft to fly.
RM
Which UAVs are you talking about? Predator? Reaper? Some guy's RC model airplane with a camera? "its secret so I can mention it on a public web site but not tell you anything about it...." duh.
The USAF is going to give us UAVs instead of the cheap to operate Cessnas we now fly and then try our MPs to fly it? Do a cost/benefit comparison between our current cost of operations ($135 to $175 an hour) to the cost of a UAV or helicopter.
This tracks with what I think about "thinking outside the box": http://lateralaction.com/articles/thinking-outside-the-box/
Hey RM
Those UAV's aren't CAP's yet, are they? Didn't think so. Reaper and Predator?
OR are they the RC types UAV's. Is this more CAP secret squirrel stuff? ooooohhh.
Either way, consideration is different than operating, maintaining, and funding.
USAF or the Army giving keys to the CAP? Really doubtful. Considering UAV potential in CAP? Who is giving that away at an hourly rate?
Anyway, "interesting" that one Wing is considering potential....
Thanks all for contributing to this thread. As I stated in my first post rotary wing is a area near and dear to me. That said the more important point and the point I couldn't recall the numbers for is the diminishing demand for CAP services. Today I located the Wing mission summaries. Five years ago we were flying 200 missions a year roughly. Last year we logged 4. I don't believe that number is correct but the trend is undeniable in our wing. Now you can slice and dice the number anyway you want, Cost/Benefit, $$$/Hr. what ever you like. Fact is that with those kind of numbers somebody is going to be looking to cut the program. At least if money is the driving factor.
I find it hard to buy into the argument that money is the factor. It's not a case of no missions available. RCC is passing these missions along to ANG, USAF, USA, and LE. When you read the logs of these missions they in most cases respond with a C/HC-130 and a UH/HH 60. Certainly nobody counting pennies there. On one mission CAP responded and located a non-distress ELT. They were unable to land so RCC dispatched a UH-60 and crew to silence the ELT. Tell me that a CAP crew in a light single engine helo couldnt have performed that mission at a lower cost. A different mission a uh-60 was tasked to search for a ELT in a semi-populated area. The non-distress ELT was located at the community airport. CAP ground crews silenced the ELT.
As for LE response, there is only one LE in our Wing AO that has airborne assets. There are many instances of AST responding with their helicopter to recover a ambulatory victim. Flying Pig I know you wont like this, but they fly the R-44 and they are getting the job done and at a lower DOC than the DHC-2 we fly. Personally I can think of few things I would rather fly less than piston helicopter, but the fact is that the R-44 is doing the job and its taking missions from the CAP fixed wing assets.
As for the air search/ ground rescue methodology, sure it works in most places. However our wing AO is 663,268 mi^2 and we have 1 mile of road for every 42mi^2 of land area. If ground crews are going to be utilized they are likely inserted by, oh yeah, a helicopter.
Yeah helicopters might not be for every unit. But in units where it makes sense why not?
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on April 09, 2010, 10:38:53 PM
Quote from: tdepp on April 09, 2010, 09:58:30 PM
Quote from: Short Field on April 09, 2010, 09:00:15 PM
Quote from: tdepp on April 09, 2010, 06:14:30 PM
If UAVs are cost effective and help us get the job done and Congress and USAF want us to fly them from the comfort of mission base, I'm all for it. Sounds like a new SQTR.
CAP doesn't teach Senior Members to fly airplanes so why would they teach Senior Members to fly UAVs?
I'm guessing we are YEARS away from having to address such an issue. In the meantime, take good care of the Cessnas, et al. But technological changes will only continue to accelerate. We can either hang on to our buggy whips and steam gauges or we can adapt to what the next generations of aviation advancement will bring.
Although I cannot go into details at this time, there is at least one CAP wing that is considering the UAV potential for SAR work. I personally think it can be a very good technology that can be easily deployed, even when ceiling are too low for normal cessna aircraft to fly.
RM
They're gonna have fun dealing with the FAA on that.
If you want to see what the Air Force is doing with UAV's, read this:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/usaf/usaf-uas-flight-plan_2009-2047.pdf
Look at page 71, second to last paragraph.
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on April 09, 2010, 05:26:38 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on April 09, 2010, 12:56:05 PM
Quote from: Thrash on April 09, 2010, 12:31:45 PM
This would work: ;)
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/01/uav-tarmac.jpg (http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/01/uav-tarmac.jpg)
Seriously, with all this talk about rotary vs. fixed, I'd be happy just to see a CAP airplane. We airline pilots have a saying, "Helicopter time in your logbook is about as useful as VD in your medical records." :D
Blasphemer!!!
I did this just for you, Robert. Please enjoy. >:D BWAHHAHAHAHH !!!!!!
(http://captalk.net/MGalleryItem.php?id=156)
UAV/s would be great for CAP. Cadets would be more experienced in controlling them due to computer games. No need for senior members in SAR operations
Quote from: BillB on April 10, 2010, 11:25:34 AM
UAV/s would be great for CAP. Cadets would be more experienced in controlling them due to computer games. No need for senior members in SAR operations
Again, the FAA does not seem likely to allow UAVs for domestic missions.
JB 407.
Sure there are areas where the R44 would work. It just wouldnt work where I am. And in the areas where it would work, you might as well just stick with a 182. Which agency is operating the R44? I know of a few running around out there. Merced Sheriff in CA has one, but they only use it for flat land patrol.
Quote from: Flying Pig on April 10, 2010, 02:58:01 PM
JB 407.
Sure there are areas where the R44 would work. It just wouldnt work where I am. And in the areas where it would work, you might as well just stick with a 182. Which agency is operating the R44? I know of a few running around out there. Merced Sheriff in CA has one, but they only use it for flat land patrol.
I wouldn't like to fly the Robinsons for SAR here in Colorado, where the cities are at 5000'+ MSL and planes go missing in the mountains at 12,000+ MSL.
Then again, I don't like Robinsons all that much in the first place.
After we get the helicopters and UAVs I think we'll then get the CAP unicorns dressed not in the corporate dress uniforms but in the USAF-style uniforms ;D.
Quote from: LBCAP150 on October 09, 2008, 05:37:19 PM
Just curious, with the except of $$$$, Why aren't there Helicopters used in CAP? :)
I don't think Cadets could fly it. Too challenging.
Quote from: C/SSgt Lunsford on April 11, 2010, 12:34:11 AM
Quote from: LBCAP150 on October 09, 2008, 05:37:19 PM
Just curious, with the except of $$$$, Why aren't there Helicopters used in CAP? :)
I don't think Cadets could fly it. Too challenging.
Yes, it seems that CAP tries to get the most "bang for its buck," 172s and 182s lend them self to ES and CP. Even the Airvans serve dual and tertiary functions hauling personel and archer platforms. Helicopters and autogyros might have a future if their function could be expanded.
Quote from: tdepp on April 10, 2010, 11:48:10 PM
After we get the helicopters and UAVs I think we'll then get the CAP unicorns dressed not in the corporate dress uniforms but in the USAF-style uniforms ;D.
Im already in line for my Form 5 in the space shuttle.
^^^
How long is that line presently, Rob? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Flying Pig on April 11, 2010, 02:08:44 AM
Quote from: tdepp on April 10, 2010, 11:48:10 PM
After we get the helicopters and UAVs I think we'll then get the CAP unicorns dressed not in the corporate dress uniforms but in the USAF-style uniforms ;D.
Im already in line for my Form 5 in the space shuttle.
Better hurry. Or is CAP gonna pick those up once NASA retires them? >:D
I can see, at least in theory, some UAV use for CAP, but I'm thinking of something akin to a Raven-B, Wasp, or other RC scale, definitely not a Reaper. As of right now they can't legally be operated outside of specific military airspace though, except under AMA RC rules.
A CAP space shuttle, I can just imagine the field day the ORM and Safety Officers would have with that.
NASA has plenty of safety officers that do ORM for every mission. Guess what? They still managed to put some people on the moon, build a space station, and have many shuttle launches.
Yeah, but their safety officers have a little bit higher threshold for acceptable risk... strapping people to a seat with liquid nitrogenhydrogen/oxygen and setting it ablaze.
Wrong element.
ORM is not about "acceptable" risk. It is about evaluating and defining the risk, determing what can be done to mitigate the risk, and then deciding if the expected gain outweights the mitigated risk.
Flying Pig,
The only LE up here with any aviations assets are the State Troopers.
JB
Rotorhead,
Well we seem to be in agreement on one thing, I think Flying Pig as well. None of us likes Robinsons.
So is it only my wing that seems to be losing business? The rest of you folks getting missions?
JB
Quote from: JB_407 on April 13, 2010, 04:07:31 AM
Rotorhead,
Well we seem to be in agreement on one thing, I think Flying Pig as well. None of us likes Robinsons.
So is it only my wing that seems to be losing business? The rest of you folks getting missions?
JB
According to AFRCC, everybody has had a drop off in business.
I guess it is signs of the times.
I think CAP could find a use for a UH-1D sized bird, maybe medical organ transport.
I know if NJWG got an S-76 it would be perfect for HS since that aircraft is by far the most numerous in our skies
as an aside...I know CAP will get choppers the day Flying Pig trades his Little Bird for an Apache Longbow lol
And who's going to pay for these flying mechanical nightmares? You? :D
With respect to the R22 / R44 One can read SFAR No 73 to Part 61 about training requirements to those particular aircraft
Now to the thread about CAPers desiring helicopters...
Where is the money going to come from?...this has been argued so many times before on CAPtalk that some of these folks really DO NOT understand the depth and breadth of maintaining a training, continuing education program, and the ever present "roughly" 7-10 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight time. One on CAPTalk will soon learn.......
Coupled with the fuel burn rates of both piston and turbine equipment for different demands of every flight regime of helicopter operations
Now fuel burn rates on piston helicopter vs piston airplane can continue to have its arguments of nearly being equal, the maintenance of even R22 and R 44 helicopters are different than many CAP consolidated maintenance operations. Basic tooling to support helicopter maintenance MAY cost as much as selling a USED CAP C172 for 60 to 70K. Where do you suppose CAP is going to buy all that support infrastructure to support helicopter maintenance.
To think CAP could support any helicopter with 100 LL at approx 3.00 to 5.75 / gal and Jet A hovering around 5.77 to 7.00 + per gallon is a pretty good dream on anyone's part. This would may exclude folks who are buying fuel on bulk basis to reduce fuel costs
CAPtalkers refer to Rotor and Wing magazine and Googling other helicopter sites. Learn about those costs when you peruse these different sites, ask your favorite helicopter service center attached to or near and FBO... the 75 to 200 per hour labor rates MAY be the cheapest thing on that invoice after buying parts for helos and then come talk to us folks who maintain, maintained, flew, and who are currently flying...
We could sit down and reason near every argument point for point, to any CApers what is up in the real world not the CAP world
CAPTalkers will soon get the idea(s) that CAP with its budget, the PAID LE, EMS, and military are the sure route to go for helo SAR
CAP need just stick with the fixed wing operations and keep dreamin of the days of a CAP "SAR ;D ;D ;D ::) ::) helicopter." ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: JB_407 on April 15, 2010, 03:03:00 AM
I guess it is signs of the times.
The only constant is change. My wing and squadron recognize this change in business and is reaching out to other organizations and governments to see if we can assist with their aerial needs--of course, all within the restrictions per our regulations. We plan to be busy flying.
If you're running a search and you need a helo just call AFRCC and they will try and find you one. I listened to a good briefing from one of their SARDOs at the ES conference a few weeks back and he said if there is a chance of saving a life with it they'd call in just about anything in the DOD inventory.
Quote from: davidsinn on April 15, 2010, 04:14:27 PM
If you're running a search and you need a helo just call AFRCC and they will try and find you one. I listened to a good briefing from one of their SARDOs at the ES conference a few weeks back and he said if there is a chance of saving a life with it they'd call in just about anything in the DOD inventory.
The only thing better than saving a life is riding the PR wave that comes with it!! >:D
QuoteIf you're running a search and you need a helo just call AFRCC and they will try and find you one. I listened to a good briefing from one of their SARDOs at the ES conference a few weeks back and he said if there is a chance of saving a life with it they'd call in just about anything in the DOD inventory.
You mean like this?
10/25/2007 - KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE, N.M. (AFPN) -- A CV-22 Osprey assigned to the 58th Special Operations Wing here participated in the aircraft's first search and recovery mission, responding to the fatal crash of a medical aircraft in the mountains of southern Colorado.
At about 9:15 a.m. Oct. 5, the Air Force Rescue Center contacted Kirtland Air Force Base with a call to help at the request of civil authorities. Initially, the mission was considered search and rescue because the condition of those aboard the downed aircraft was unknown. The response team quickly prepared to take off. Aircraft included the CV-22, a pair of HH-60G Pave Hawk helicopters, and an MC-130P Combat Shadow to provide aerial refueling and serve as air mission control for the operation.
QuoteThe only thing better than saving a life is riding the PR wave that comes with it!!
This wasn't a save, but it was a PR event for the Air Force.
Mike
Quote from: JB_407 on April 10, 2010, 06:25:45 AMOn one mission CAP responded and located a non-distress ELT. They were unable to land so RCC dispatched a UH-60 and crew to silence the ELT. Tell me that a CAP crew in a light single engine helo couldnt have performed that mission at a lower cost.
Why in the world didn't CAP send a ground team out to take care of it after it was located by a CAP plane? Nobody should have sent a helicopter in this situation.
Quote from: RiverAux on April 17, 2010, 12:06:15 AM
Quote from: JB_407 on April 10, 2010, 06:25:45 AMOn one mission CAP responded and located a non-distress ELT. They were unable to land so RCC dispatched a UH-60 and crew to silence the ELT. Tell me that a CAP crew in a light single engine helo couldnt have performed that mission at a lower cost.
Why in the world didn't CAP send a ground team out to take care of it after it was located by a CAP plane? Nobody should have sent a helicopter in this situation.
The long and the short of it is because its easy. As I have said before in this thread and will continue to repeat its not about money at least not entirely or even mostly. In this case short of parachuting a ground team in they were going by helicopter or taking a several day hike.
Quote from: sardak on April 16, 2010, 08:35:06 PM
QuoteIf you're running a search and you need a helo just call AFRCC and they will try and find you one. I listened to a good briefing from one of their SARDOs at the ES conference a few weeks back and he said if there is a chance of saving a life with it they'd call in just about anything in the DOD inventory.
You mean like this?
10/25/2007 - KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE, N.M. (AFPN) -- A CV-22 Osprey assigned to the 58th Special Operations Wing here participated in the aircraft's first search and recovery mission, responding to the fatal crash of a medical aircraft in the mountains of southern Colorado.
At about 9:15 a.m. Oct. 5, the Air Force Rescue Center contacted Kirtland Air Force Base with a call to help at the request of civil authorities. Initially, the mission was considered search and rescue because the condition of those aboard the downed aircraft was unknown. The response team quickly prepared to take off. Aircraft included the CV-22, a pair of HH-60G Pave Hawk helicopters, and an MC-130P Combat Shadow to provide aerial refueling and serve as air mission control for the operation.
QuoteThe only thing better than saving a life is riding the PR wave that comes with it!!
This wasn't a save, but it was a PR event for the Air Force.
Mike
This just reinforces my argument that its not about money. Lets face it guys at the end of the day CAP is a red line at the bottom of the ledger sheet. Doesnt matter if we fly 172s or space shuttles.
Quote from: JB_407 on April 17, 2010, 03:27:51 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on April 17, 2010, 12:06:15 AM
Quote from: JB_407 on April 10, 2010, 06:25:45 AMOn one mission CAP responded and located a non-distress ELT. They were unable to land so RCC dispatched a UH-60 and crew to silence the ELT. Tell me that a CAP crew in a light single engine helo couldnt have performed that mission at a lower cost.
Why in the world didn't CAP send a ground team out to take care of it after it was located by a CAP plane? Nobody should have sent a helicopter in this situation.
The long and the short of it is because its easy. As I have said before in this thread and will continue to repeat its not about money at least not entirely or even mostly. In this case short of parachuting a ground team in they were going by helicopter or taking a several day hike.
How does a non-distress ELT end up being a 2 day hike from anywhere?
Quote from: davidsinn on April 15, 2010, 04:14:27 PM
If you're running a search and you need a helo just call AFRCC and they will try and find you one. I listened to a good briefing from one of their SARDOs at the ES conference a few weeks back and he said if there is a chance of saving a life with it they'd call in just about anything in the DOD inventory.
True enough and more proof that it isnt an economic decision
It was a super cub on skis sitting on a glacier. I wasn't a part of this mission so I am short on details but I am familiar with the area and I would think twice about going in there with wheel skis.
Quote from: tdepp on April 15, 2010, 03:46:49 PM
Quote from: JB_407 on April 15, 2010, 03:03:00 AM
I guess it is signs of the times.
The only constant is change. My wing and squadron recognize this change in business and is reaching out to other organizations and governments to see if we can assist with their aerial needs--of course, all within the restrictions per our regulations. We plan to be busy flying.
Thats good to hear and I wish you luck. Our squadron has had a similar effort and we did pick up a couple of missions from the NWS. It darn near took an act of congress to free up the funds. Remains to be seen if we get tasked with it again this year. Whats your marketing strategy for a 172 towing miles of red tape?
Quote from: heliodoc on April 15, 2010, 02:25:49 PM
With respect to the R22 / R44 One can read SFAR No 73 to Part 61 about training requirements to those particular aircraft
Now to the thread about CAPers desiring helicopters...
Where is the money going to come from?...this has been argued so many times before on CAPtalk that some of these folks really DO NOT understand the depth and breadth of maintaining a training, continuing education program, and the ever present "roughly" 7-10 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight time. One on CAPTalk will soon learn.......
Coupled with the fuel burn rates of both piston and turbine equipment for different demands of every flight regime of helicopter operations
Now fuel burn rates on piston helicopter vs piston airplane can continue to have its arguments of nearly being equal, the maintenance of even R22 and R 44 helicopters are different than many CAP consolidated maintenance operations. Basic tooling to support helicopter maintenance MAY cost as much as selling a USED CAP C172 for 60 to 70K. Where do you suppose CAP is going to buy all that support infrastructure to support helicopter maintenance.
To think CAP could support any helicopter with 100 LL at approx 3.00 to 5.75 / gal and Jet A hovering around 5.77 to 7.00 + per gallon is a pretty good dream on anyone's part. This would may exclude folks who are buying fuel on bulk basis to reduce fuel costs
CAPtalkers refer to Rotor and Wing magazine and Googling other helicopter sites. Learn about those costs when you peruse these different sites, ask your favorite helicopter service center attached to or near and FBO... the 75 to 200 per hour labor rates MAY be the cheapest thing on that invoice after buying parts for helos and then come talk to us folks who maintain, maintained, flew, and who are currently flying...
We could sit down and reason near every argument point for point, to any CApers what is up in the real world not the CAP world
CAPTalkers will soon get the idea(s) that CAP with its budget, the PAID LE, EMS, and military are the sure route to go for helo SAR
CAP need just stick with the fixed wing operations and keep dreamin of the days of a CAP "SAR ;D ;D ;D ::) ::) helicopter." ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
R-22's nobody is talking R-22's here, as the SFAR goes whats your point? A few minutes during a form 91 and that requirement met.
As far as funding goes let me answer that question with a question. If we have LE, EMS, Military handle these missions where does the funding come from? My point it that really all we are talking about is reapportioning monies that are already spent. While possibly at a lower cost. As far a 7-10 hours of maintenance time per flight hour. I fully agree with you that there are aircraft that might be that maintenance intensive but for the types of ships that CAP might field it is highly inflated.
Speaking of highly inflated, so is your figure of $200/hr. Assuming a labor multiplier of 2.0 find me a CAP mechanic who has a wage of $100/hr. Of course you chose the worst cast shop rates there so if we go with those figures then we have to throw out your argument about infrastructure and tooling costs.
Can't support the cost of fuel? You just said in the previous paragraph that the argument could be made that a piston plane and piston helo have similar fuel burns. My squadron flies Beavers, do you think a Beaver can beat the 14 gph published for an R-44?
Quote
As far as funding goes let me answer that question with a question. If we have LE, EMS, Military handle these missions where does the funding come from? My point it that really all we are talking about is reapportioning monies that are already spent. While possibly at a lower cost. As far a 7-10 hours of maintenance time per flight hour. I fully agree with you that there are aircraft that might be that maintenance intensive but for the types of ships that CAP might field it is highly inflated.
Speaking of highly inflated, so is your figure of $200/hr. Assuming a labor multiplier of 2.0 find me a CAP mechanic who has a wage of $100/hr. Of course you chose the worst cast shop rates there so if we go with those figures then we have to throw out your argument about infrastructure and tooling costs.
Can't support the cost of fuel? You just said in the previous paragraph that the argument could be made that a piston plane and piston helo have similar fuel burns. My squadron flies Beavers, do you think a Beaver can beat the 14 gph published for an R-44?
You can provide the 'service' at lower cost airframe wise, but can you also provide the same aviability? The same staffing requirement? Can you provide law enforcement officers, Flight Paramedics and Nurse's? Training?
Law Enforcement funding for air units comes from that specific departments budget. In my case, the Sheriff gets $101 million per year. She chooses to spend $600K of that supporting an air unit of 2 MD500Es and a Cessna 206. So it comes from the County tax base. EMS is a private company that bills insurance companies. Military, well, the military.
None of those funding sources will be redirected to CAP. I cant see the local Sheriff (and I say Sheriff because they are responsible for SAR) giving up part of their budget to support CAP. For the local Police Department Air Unit, is the city council and city manager going to redirect their air unit funds to the local CAP squadron? If they give it to CAP, you will have the Red Cross and every other humanitarian non-profit in line with their hands out also.
Is the local PRIVATE air ambulance provider going to be required by the government to carry CAP on their backs? And again, it comes down to cheaper is not always better. In my air unit, we train approx 30 hours per month on skills related to SAR. Yes, thats roughly 3 full work days per month dedicated completely to training. The other 6 days of the week, we are actually performing the mission or the individual crews will go out and train for a couple of hours during their shift if they can squeeze it in. In addition, we are a one stop shop. Search, Rescue, law enforcement authority and everything in between. We are only limited by our equipment.
I know the State Troopers in AK now fly an R-44, however, they used to fly a AS350B3. Their capabilities are now NOTHING compared to what they once were. With the budget issues, it was either an R44 or nothing for them. They didnt get rid of the AStar because the R44 was better.
Maintenance. When you start talking about helicopters. You in a whole different boat. The maintenance facility where I am, the shop rate is $95 p/h. Our Department mechanic does part time work and charges $90. Your not going to find many good hearted maintenance shops willing to give CAP a discount rate on helicopter maintenance.
With the Squadrons in AK flying Beavers, you cant compare that. That is a very, very small part of flying for CAP. I dont think anyone ever suggested a Beaver was better on gas than an R44. I am pretty sure the comparison was made for the other 99% of CAP who fly 182's and 206's.
Believe me. If CAP ever got helicopters, Id be in line. But it wouldnt be practical or even affordable.
CAPCopter One, reporting heavy traffic!
Quote from: JThemann on April 17, 2010, 03:05:24 PM
Quote
As far as funding goes let me answer that question with a question. If we have LE, EMS, Military handle these missions where does the funding come from? My point it that really all we are talking about is reapportioning monies that are already spent. While possibly at a lower cost. As far a 7-10 hours of maintenance time per flight hour. I fully agree with you that there are aircraft that might be that maintenance intensive but for the types of ships that CAP might field it is highly inflated.
Speaking of highly inflated, so is your figure of $200/hr. Assuming a labor multiplier of 2.0 find me a CAP mechanic who has a wage of $100/hr. Of course you chose the worst cast shop rates there so if we go with those figures then we have to throw out your argument about infrastructure and tooling costs.
Can't support the cost of fuel? You just said in the previous paragraph that the argument could be made that a piston plane and piston helo have similar fuel burns. My squadron flies Beavers, do you think a Beaver can beat the 14 gph published for an R-44?
You can provide the 'service' at lower cost airframe wise, but can you also provide the same aviability? The same staffing requirement? Can you provide law enforcement officers, Flight Paramedics and Nurse's? Training?
We are talking CAP missions here, can CAP provide any of the above? All I am looking for is an increase in CAP capability. More to the point of your question and keeping in mind that my response might be different if I was in a different area. You have to remember that here we have limited availability of resources of any sort. So yes I believe we could provide the same availability, our trooper helo is an unstaffed asset, yeah we can match that. LEO's no but we are not flying law enforcement missions so who cares? Paramedics and nurses, yes. My squadron has already been down this road, these questions have been answered. The only difficulty here is selling the idea.
Quote from: JB_407 on April 18, 2010, 03:04:13 AM
Quote from: JThemann on April 17, 2010, 03:05:24 PM
Quote
As far as funding goes let me answer that question with a question. If we have LE, EMS, Military handle these missions where does the funding come from? My point it that really all we are talking about is reapportioning monies that are already spent. While possibly at a lower cost. As far a 7-10 hours of maintenance time per flight hour. I fully agree with you that there are aircraft that might be that maintenance intensive but for the types of ships that CAP might field it is highly inflated.
Speaking of highly inflated, so is your figure of $200/hr. Assuming a labor multiplier of 2.0 find me a CAP mechanic who has a wage of $100/hr. Of course you chose the worst cast shop rates there so if we go with those figures then we have to throw out your argument about infrastructure and tooling costs.
Can't support the cost of fuel? You just said in the previous paragraph that the argument could be made that a piston plane and piston helo have similar fuel burns. My squadron flies Beavers, do you think a Beaver can beat the 14 gph published for an R-44?
You can provide the 'service' at lower cost airframe wise, but can you also provide the same availability? The same staffing requirement? Can you provide law enforcement officers, Flight Paramedics and Nurse's? Training?
We are talking CAP missions here, can CAP provide any of the above? All I am looking for is an increase in CAP capability. More to the point of your question and keeping in mind that my response might be different if I was in a different area. You have to remember that here we have limited availability of resources of any sort. So yes I believe we could provide the same availability, our trooper helo is an unstaffed asset, yeah we can match that. LEO's no but we are not flying law enforcement missions so who cares? Paramedics and nurses, yes. My squadron has already been down this road, these questions have been answered. The only difficulty here is selling the idea.
So you're squadron can supply trained and equipped FP-C's and CCRN's with ventilators, EKG monitors, drugs, who have their own insurance, on a platform that an insurance company will pay for?
There was a mention of R22 / R44 series helos earlier and I was merely mentioning the SFAR due to handling an training issues
Thinks CAP pilots could handle the additional training costs? Then the questioning of infrastructure costs...you are questioning folks who have seen and worked with 20,000 to 40,000 dollar Olympus borescopes for borescoping turbine engines. So throwing out my infrastructure costs is pretty productive, eh?
Take a look at the special tools that helicopter support ( jigs and fixtures, etc,) requires and you WILL soon realize " my infrastructure costs" will be pretty to closely aligned with 60 to 70 K at a bare minimum.
CAP SIMPLY could not afford the costs....oh wait yes they could.....eliminate the cadet program, eliminate some of the ES training and funding...
Oh yeah...they money has to come from some where JB 407 and some others who say they are in the helo biz 'cuz its close to their hearts
That is fine.... CAPers AGAIN will again see the costs double, triple increase, if one is carrying hospital equipment on board for life support.
The dream of of CAP helos is somewhat far off .......very far off. Nice to dream, nice dream to have. But CAP is simply not very well set up for helicopter support unless you call 1 task in a SQTR series set up for "helo operations."
We folks in the maintenance field are not too far off in the 75 to 200 hr shop rate ...do not where CAPers can come here and say we are wrong in our assessments of true costs. What are the "ship that CAP could field that are cheaper?" Look at parts costs...some are more expensive than "CAP preferred pricing" by any stretch!!!
Keep arguing about CAP helicopters....There is a few of us here that have pretty well explained to the CAP audience about helo costs
Heliodoc
You pose the question "What are the "ship that CAP could field that are cheaper?" <sic>. Well since you didn't specify a ship but instead suggested a virtual ship with a per hour maintenance cost of $2000. Even at the low end of your argument at $750/ hr. the choices are many.
Certainly an R-44 is well below that number as would be a B206.
Pick it apart anyway you want, JB
Did not mention anything about 2000 per hour for maintenance.
Surely an R44 and a Bell 206...still maintenance costs will be higher than a C182 or 206. How about that reliable Allison 250 turbine that might run well into 50K for an overhaul depending on severity to a complete or quite possibly 500K for an engine replacement. Not saying these are a and fast numbers, but I am willing to see you pull that one apart also. Still not a cost for the CAP consolidated MX program. Think CAP will be able to absorb those costs. Some helicopter engine and parts replacements can cost as much as ONE C 182 NAVIII
But you have your own facts JB, run it up the flag to NHQ CAP. We will see how long CAP takes to even establish the program.
Helicopters in CAP...still not going to happen in the immediate future for CAP unless it has a major infusion of cash in the current economy.
Further the fact, CAP NHQ could not even come up with reliable training standards NOR anybody willing to VOLUNTEER their time in that arena unless there was major training and Form 5 /91 support to such an operation..
There may be some operators willing to donate their time, but not on a very long term basis
Ask around...cash is what drives the helicopter program and Flying Pig has demonstrated at a local level, some decisions of operators, who I am sure its a cash driven proposition
Keep hopin for that CAP SAR helicopter......
JB, Helidoc is not offering an alternative because there isnt one. All an R44 is good for is an observation platform. You talked about exploring the medical side. You are not going to do any type of EMS anything with an R-44. All it has in the back it two tiny seats. My agency is getting a UH-1 here soon (hopefully). We are looking into the equipping it for BLS capabilities. You cant do any of that in a piston because you would have to leave the flight officer (observer/EMT) behind because of weight. And if you did squeeze in, the patient would be sitting in your lap. This isnt something CAP can or even should be doing.
When I talked earlier about the training time my unit conducts, I would say at least half of that training is related directly to SAR. The things CAP would be (trying) doing. Minimum, you would need an MD500 or a Jet Ranger. Beyond that, CAP would be buying helicopters to do what we do with 182's. Fly around low and slow looking at things. Anyway...its a fairly silly discussion. The pistons wont do the job and the turbines are to expensive.
Initially, I saw your screen name with the "407" in it and I thought maybe you were a helicopter pilot. Maybe you are. But I will throw this out. Until you have been involved in the helicopter industry, its very hard to understand how expensive they are to operate over airplanes and how the flying is different. Its a totally different skill set. The helicopter I fly, an MD500E has 5 main rotor blades. Each one is $12,000. I see how careful we fly that thing and everyday there are maintenance issues that need to be addressed. We bought new pitch links for the tail rotor. They were $2400.
With the CAP, I would see over torques and over temps being more common than usual if we had turbines. You hot start a C20B and your looking at about minimum $200K. And thats if they can repair it.
As far as pistons, I did my PPL-Comm Helo in a Schweizer 300C and also did my initial mountain training in it as well. You start heading through 5500-6000 ft even on a cold day and you are sucking wind. Now you decide to throw in all the CAP gear and radios? Not a chance.
The other issue we run into is that many CAP pilots have a PPL and possibly an instrument. Few have a Commercial. In airplanes, you can gain several thousand hours and a decent amount of experience with a PPL. In a helicopter, it doesnt work that way. So lets face it, the majority of people looking to fly the CAP helos will be very low time student types looking to build time. And the guys with the time and experience we need to make it successful aren't looking to fly pistons because they have already moved on to their turbine jobs.
So now what. Why dont we in CAP push for something as simple as turbo charged airplanes? I fly a Turbo 206 at work and I have no issues in the Sierras at 11K+ doing basically CAP type work. I can climb out of canyons. After I fly a canyon I can easily climb back to altitude and do it again. It doesnt take me forever to get back to the top. Flying into and out of Bishop CA on a hot day in August where the DA can been 8000'....no problem. How about some multi-engine planes for transportation flights or other missions where speed is the issue. CAP could easily justify that. Now that doesnt mean there is money to pay for it, but it can sure be justified.
Helidoc...you WAAAAY low-balled that Turbine overhaul at $50K. We just had an engine done for about $70K. And youll remember, there is the compressor section AND the turbine section. That was just the turbine section! And it wasnt even broken! :o
Thanks all for your responses. A truly spirited debate, eh? I have lost 6 long missives to this thread so I am frustrated and not going to duplicate my efforts.
Quote from: Flying Pig on April 18, 2010, 04:11:32 PM
JB, Helidoc is not offering an alternative because there isnt one. All an R44 is good for is an observation platform.
Easy solution. CAP blimps as observation platforms--and advertising platforms. ;)
So why not!
The powers that be up above are always talking about force multipliers. I wonder what a helicopter with an EMT or two, or GT members, would do for our missions?
I'm a product of the Pennsylvania Wing when the Ranger program was really strong and there was limited use of helicopters...and of course, you should check out the old C.B. Colby book, "This is Your Civil Air Patrol," to see the ground team that was standing by an Air Force helicopter, ready for transport.
Havnt you read any of the above posts?
flyboy...
That is right...CAP STANDING by the AF helicopter and you mentioned limited use of helicopters...Today's risk averse CAP and someof its unclear regulations would NOT be a good contender for helicopter operations until they MONEY, intestinal fortitude, and a willingness to stand up and MAINTAIN a program of this nature. CAP maybe on the leading edge of technology....just not with helicopters
Force multiplier for helicopters....good 'ol CASH, dinero, bucks, sawbucks, Kugerand (sp), Deutchmarks (sp), anything on Wall Street that is NOT fake money, is the true force multiplier
Anything with some substantial "force multiplier" cash backing can be in this game. CAP just ought to stick with fixed wing
OK. Lets take this a step further. Can you find me ANY volunteer organization that is regularly flying helicopters?
Quote from: flyboy1 on April 19, 2010, 11:26:45 AM
The powers that be up above are always talking about force multipliers. I wonder what a helicopter with an EMT or two, or GT members, would do for our missions?
Great idea.
WIWAC, we toured the USS Valley Forge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Valley_Forge_(CV-45)), an Essex class carrier that was being decommissioned. Even as a cadet I could see that CAWG should have screened her at DRMO and acquired her for CAP SAR use. A mobile search base like that would be ideal in California, with a fairly narrow state and a long coast line.
Since she could hit 33 knots, we could use our current aircraft fleet without modification. By just heading the ship into the wind, our little 172's could have essentially just VTOL'd. No need for arrester gear and all that training.
We could have used the flight deck for the cadet competitions. No need to have markers and flagmen for "out of bounds" violations - the cadets would simply disappear to be recovered shortly thereafter by the safety boats. (Hopefully)
It would have been a wicked addition to CAP. Talk about your force mulitpliers!
OK. Lets take this a step further. Can you find me ANY volunteer organization that is regularly flying helicopters?
The coast guard auxiliary has 3 helicopters. As you may or may not know the aircraft are owned by the members.
Quote from: clarkarc on April 19, 2010, 04:40:49 PM
OK. Lets take this a step further. Can you find me ANY volunteer organization that is regularly flying helicopters?
The coast guard auxiliary has 3 helicopters. As you may or may not know the aircraft are owned by the members.
aircraft and boats members are reimbursed for flight at flat rate. check out their minimum requirements for a mission pilot.
Flying Pig
A special thanks to you and Heliodoc. The two of you have clearly put a lot of thought into this.
Perhaps I haven't been clear in my postings here, I thought I had indicated in the beginning of this thread that I both owned and piloted both FW and Helos. I am well aware of the costs and training.
I think doc took it personally when I called his figures inflated and he became a bit defensive when I suggested that he had stated a $2000/hr. maintenace cost. Doc, those numbers came from the high end of your estimate of 10 hrs of maintenance at a shope rate of $200/hr. I take no responsibility for the math that goes with that. I could provide a list of helicopters that will better that cost however there is really no point.
The bottom line is that the cost matters not if the funding is there. In fact almost every objection put forth by posters on this thread could be handled if the funding was made available.
To sa
Seem to have an issue with long replies, sorry.
Anyhow. It is fine to offer up the opinion that CAP would not fund helo ops. You could even argue that they would not, thats simply a matter of probability. To say they "can't" is like saying man can't fly.
FP back to your issue of pilot ratings I would point out the formmer requirements for the GA-8. CPL, Instrument, 500 pic. I understand those have been relaxed some. You stated that we would have a problem finding qualified pilots. Perhaps in some areas that would be a problem, however for the squadrons here, there is a long list of Blackhawk Pilots that would love to join CAP. They show up at meetings all the time. My objections to comments about the SFARs re:robbies is based on the fact that for a 200hr. pilot they don't really add any training requirements beyond a slight tweak in the form rid.
I dont believe that I suggested medivac ops at all. Certainly not in an R-44. I was asked if I thought we could field these types of folks. Because the military has decided to curtail M.A.S.T. ops in the interior of Alaska, it has been explored at state and federal levels to have CAP take over these ops as one option. My comment was based on the fact that many of the military PJ's, Medics, Docs have expressed an interest in this. It has also been suggested that some funds could be divereted from the M.A.S.T. funding.
I think the more likely role would be recovery of lost hunters, boater, snowmachiners. I think there would also be some value in putting GC members on the ground to render first aid, morale support, and bear protection until proper resources could be gathered. Remember resource here are limited, fire/EMS services are largley provided by volunteers. This is a state with a village fire department funded by high school girls.
And last thing I want to mention. AST didn't stop flying the Astar, didn't stop flying the 206 either. They supplemented that fleet with R-44s. They do usefull missions with R-44s, and they free up the other airframes for more urgent/demanding missions.
On a lighter note maybe V-22's?
JB
After 22years as a USARNG with with 10 years as a Aircraft Technical Inspector for UH1, UH60, OH58, CH47, and C12 series aircraft and 20 year in the wildland fire arena with helicopter operations and working with operator in the field in less than than desirable conditions (read NO hangaring) I do come to know the costs of both in field and out of field maintenance and tracking parts and projecting costs for either no shelving of parts, shelving and inventory of parts, AOG issues, and cost for infrastructure...............
I do not take anything here on CAPTalk personally. Because CAP trains so little and has plenty of folks thinking they can preach helos to the masses, it takes a FEW of us here to wrangle in the misinformed. Not that you are misinformed. The general ideas that CAP could use a helicopter or two isn't a new idea. It is just an idea that would not float whether CAP had an R44 or a Chinook. It is a world that CAP, for lack of better terms, does not possess a full understanding of the REAL operational world when it comes to supporting a mission like this.
If CAPTAlkers spent as much time chirping about uniforms as they do as they COULD informing themselves about the helo world......they would come to the true and cold hard reality that CAP best keep its head in fixed wing operations and leave the helicopters to us kids who have toiled in and out, round and around a helicopter.
CAP taking over MAST operations in AK? Better leave it to many of the operators such as, ERA helicopters, Air Methods, and Sheriffs Office /LE
CAP is just waiting to take on a liability and EMS issue that is beyond there BLS/ALS skills and that maybe a CAP Cessna 206 MIGHT be able to an ambulatory......
But I would put better bets on the PAID and contract pros that do this EVERYDAY
Quote from: heliodoc on April 19, 2010, 01:12:31 PM
flyboy...
That is right...CAP STANDING by the AF helicopter and you mentioned limited use of helicopters...Today's risk averse CAP and someof its unclear regulations would NOT be a good contender for helicopter operations until they MONEY, intestinal fortitude, and a willingness to stand up and MAINTAIN a program of this nature. CAP maybe on the leading edge of technology....just not with helicopters
Force multiplier for helicopters....good 'ol CASH, dinero, bucks, sawbucks, Kugerand (sp), Deutchmarks (sp), anything on Wall Street that is NOT fake money, is the true force multiplier
Anything with some substantial "force multiplier" cash backing can be in this game. CAP just ought to stick with fixed wing
I know, you're correct. I can dream, though...can't I...he,he
Quote from: heliodoc on April 20, 2010, 01:46:42 AM
JB
After 22years as a USARNG with with 10 years as a Aircraft Technical Inspector for UH1, UH60, OH58, CH47, and C12 series aircraft and 20 year in the wildland fire arena with helicopter operations and working with operator in the field in less than than desirable conditions (read NO hangaring) I do come to know the costs of both in field and out of field maintenance and tracking parts and projecting costs for either no shelving of parts, shelving and inventory of parts, AOG issues, and cost for infrastructure...............
I do not take anything here on CAPTalk personally. Because CAP trains so little and has plenty of folks thinking they can preach helos to the masses, it takes a FEW of us here to wrangle in the misinformed. Not that you are misinformed. The general ideas that CAP could use a helicopter or two isn't a new idea. It is just an idea that would not float whether CAP had an R44 or a Chinook. It is a world that CAP, for lack of better terms, does not possess a full understanding of the REAL operational world when it comes to supporting a mission like this.
If CAPTAlkers spent as much time chirping about uniforms as they do as they COULD informing themselves about the helo world......they would come to the true and cold hard reality that CAP best keep its head in fixed wing operations and leave the helicopters to us kids who have toiled in and out, round and around a helicopter.
CAP taking over MAST operations in AK? Better leave it to many of the operators such as, ERA helicopters, Air Methods, and Sheriffs Office /LE
CAP is just waiting to take on a liability and EMS issue that is beyond there BLS/ALS skills and that maybe a CAP Cessna 206 MIGHT be able to an ambulatory......
But I would put better bets on the PAID and contract pros that do this EVERYDAY
I understand and even agree with you. I think where you and I depart is that I see no problem with CAP changing, getting a clue, etc.. I guess thats in part because I have no military background and don't understand how the HQ people think. As a commercial operator I when I move into a new arena where I am lacking understanding I simply purchase the knowledge by hiring consultants or staff with that knowledge. One thing I am fairly certain of. How ever it is handled in the long run its not likely to be by a for profit organization. My true sense of it is that we will continue to get support of the Army, Air Force and CG.
Flying Pig
You have me wondering what your SAR training looks like? I guess what I am really wondering is are all of the the officer/pilots in your unit able to perform any mission or only missions for which they have recieved specific training.
Kind of think of it in terms of the AMD green card.
Its sort of a complicated process. We all start off as Flight Officers (Observers) where we are trained as Rescue Techs, Swift Water Rescue Techs. We do not start as pilots. Even if you already happen to be a pilot, EVERYONE starts as a TFO. If you want to become a pilot, you are required to obtain your PPL Helo on your own. When I did it, you had to pay for ALL of your own training. Either way, after you get your ratings, you stay a Flight Officer, and over the course of your time in the unit, you steadily work on all of your pilot skills as time permits while still performing your Flight Officer duties. There are only 4 unit pilots. So someone could be a Commercial rated Pilot, but may wait 10-12 years to actually become a unit PIC. You have to wait for one of those 4 pilots to die, retire or move on.
We have an in-house 500 hour training program that needs to be completed to become a Unit PIC. That training involves all aspects of SAR Ops at all altitudes and at night on NVG's, mountain flying, Emergency Procedures, water rescue techniques, etc etc. By the time a TFO becomes a unit PIC, typically they will have about 500-800hrs turbine time. That doesnt sound like a lot until you remember that that is all turbine time, and it is all skill building. We dont have pilots with 1000hrs sitting right seat in an R-22 instructing. There isnt a whole lot of straight and level stuff. Now, there are skills, such as long line, and certain other high altitude SAR ops that you may have restrictions placed on you, and when you demonstrate proficiency you are free to execute missions. But for the most part, you are pretty much good to go.
I primarily fly our plane full time for surveillance and SAR. as I have said on other threads, When it comes to our units fixed wing SAR ops, I basically plagerized CAPs FOrm 5's and Form 91's and search techniques as they apply to fixed wing ops.
We usually use the plane for High Bird to communicate with ground guys and to coordinate with the two helicopters as the search, but if it happens to be IFR at the airport, I will head out first and depart IFR and head up to the mountains where it is usually clear and start looking and after it clears, the helo's will come up. Not a bad gig. hats a brief run-down anyway.
Some photos of our ops
http://www.alea.org/PhotoGallery/gallery.asp?rid=45&gid=89
FP
Thanks for the information. Does indeed sound like a good gig.
JB