Civil Air Patrol Helicopter

[Flying Pig]

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?

[DNall]

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.

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.

[RiverAux]

The 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...

[PHall]

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!

[DNall]

The 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.

[RiverAux]

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....

[DNall]

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.

[afgeo4]

So is this a compromise on tilt rotors?

[DNall]

^ Oh I freakin volunteer

[flyerthom]

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

[Flying Pig]

OK....question.  Is an MV22 Pilot a helicopter or fixed wing pilot?

[davidsinn]

OK....question.  Is an MV22 Pilot a helicopter or fixed wing pilot?

Neither. He's a Tilt-rotor Pilot.

[Flying Pig]

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

[MikeD]

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

[california IC]

There are two types of pilots in this world...
Those that fly helicopters and those that wish they could!

[Climbnsink]

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.   

[DNall]

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.

[Eclipse]

How about ultralights?

[Climbnsink]

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.

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.   

[DNall]

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.