Civil Air Patrol Helicopter

[Ned]

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

[DNall]

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.

[JB_407]

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.

[ZigZag911]

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.

[Major Carrales]

There are helicopters in CAP...at least according to the Vanguard front page...

http://www.vanguardmil.com/

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

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...

[SarDragon]

If we had helos, this would be my choice:

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.

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

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.

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

Production ended in 1982. Need I say more?

[Thrashed]

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." 

[BillB]

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.

[Flying Pig]

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." 

Blasphemer!!!

[N Harmon]

For most of the country, a fixed wing search platform and a ground-based rescue platform is all you need for effective SAR.

[blackrain]

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.

[Eclipse]

We airline pilots have a saying, "Helicopter time in your logbook is about as useful as VD in your medical records." 

At least VD is medical proof someone was willing to touch you!

[Flying Pig]

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.

[tdepp]

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. 

[N Harmon]

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.

[High Speed Low Drag]

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." 

Blasphemer!!!

I did this just for you, Robert.   Please enjoy.      BWAHHAHAHAHH  !!!!!!

[tdepp]

^^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.

[Short Field]

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? 

[tdepp]

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.