Should CAP go back to mostly using member-owned aircraft?

[RiverAux]

It has now been many years since CAP changed from mostly using member-owned aircraft to a system in which it is almost impossible to use a member-owned aircraft on a mission. 

What are the pros and cons of each system and would it be better for CAP if we went back to the old system?

Member-owned aircraft pros
1.  Would almost certainly attract more pilots to the organization if there was a possibility of them flying their own aircraft for missions.
2.  Would give cadets the opportunity to experience o-rides in something other than a C172/182.  Probably a big plus from an AE perspective.
3.  Depending on the mix of member aircraft offered for use it could provide increased transportation capabilities and allow for increased off-shore flights. 

Member-owned aircraft cons
1.  For ES usefulness, the members would need to buy a CAP radio and this cost alone might be enough to keep most others out.
2.  I imagine we would probably want them on the same sort of maintenance schedule as CAP aircraft to ensure safety.  Again, a high cost. 
3.  Yes, it would reduce the use of corporate aircraft, especially for o-rides.  While the 200 hour per year requirement is something we impose on ourselves, it could eventually lead to a reduction in corporate aircraft.  But, I'm not sure that is always a bad thing.  For example, it might allow us to focus on acquiring a smaller number of really high capability aircraft for specialized missions and doing the milk runs with member aircraft. 

CAP senior member pilot membership is more or less stagnant, and unfortunately it has stabilized at a level where we really have trouble standing up major missions in some parts of the country due to lack of personnel.  It wouldn't take a lot of additional pilots to be sucked into the program by the prospect of doing some flying in their own planes to help in this area. 

[umpirecali]

Fuel prices over the last thirty years has sky rocketed, preventing more and more people from becoming pilots, let alone own aircraft.  If we switch to member owned aircraft, and I spend roughly $12000 to get my private, then work my way up to up to mission pilot (probably another $20,000), then what?  I can't fly missions because Capt. Bob doesn't want anyone else to use his plane? I am in the largest squadron in VA we have a membership role of 111, 38 of which are seniors, about 4 of whom are Mission Pilots.   I think  owns their own plane.  What would the other 3 do?  What if the owner is using it when a mission comes up?  What if he is out of town or unreachable?  I just don't see this as a viable solution in today's world. 

Right now we have a plane in our hangar fueled and ready to go, and equipped for our specific missions.  We had a missing person mission this morning, all the members would have to do is get to the hanger, brief, pre-flight, and go.

[PHall]

Riveraux, you're starting to sound like RM here.   A "solution" looking for a problem.

[wuzafuzz]

Who wants to pay to put a photo window and encryption capable radio (>$10k) in their private plane?  That's assuming we will ever have a means for managing encryption keys on member owned radios.

[Eclipse]

We have no use for member-owned aircraft.

[starshippe]

   the number of missions we're flying on the georgia coast is ***way*** down, and not likely to increase, so i can't say that theres a burning need to allow the use of private aircraft for air force assigned missions.

   what would be nice, though, would be to allow the flight released, fuel reimbursed, and possibly partial maintenance reimbursed, use, for private aircraft to transport folks to/from af assigned missions, as well as other activities. the flight release might require a pilot to be qualified as a current mission transport pilot, with a current form 5 in his aircraft. fema/fica coverage could also be allowed for transports associated with air force assigned missions, and not allowed for c missions.

   in many cases, for those of us in fairly remote areas, this would allow for increased participation in cap activities.

   these form 5 procedures have been in place for decades. in the mid 80's, i added df and comms antennas to the old be35, and had it added to the list of equivalent aircraft in the 60-1. the df'ing worked fine, i just plugged the antennas into a hand held elper. we added an audio board above the intercom so that we could plug a cable directly from it into a hand held vhf fm. the form 5 i took in it, for many years, kept my other group 1 and group 2 aircraft current.

bill

[Flying Pig]

How many members want to foot the bill to have Technisonic radios installed in their planes?

[SARDOC]

I think the Civil Air Patrol should keep with the Corporate Owned Aircraft just for liability and maintenance reasons.  In looking at some of the operations post hurricane Sandy, I think the ability for flight crews to just change shifts and keep the airplane moving is awesome.  I don't think we would see that with a privately owned plane.  I also think that we should have more GA-8's in the fleet, it would have been a little easier to move multiple mission support crews from wing to wing or be able to support more logistics missions.

[RiverAux]

Riveraux, you're starting to sound like RM here.   A "solution" looking for a problem.

Problem -- tremendous decrease in the membership number of pilots over the long term despite overall senior membership being more or less stable over a period of decades.  Low number of pilots available to fly the corporate planes we have right now.


And by the way, I am including O-rides as a mission.  Keep in mind that this is one of the major uses of our airplanes now.  So, having member aircraft available to do o-rides that might not be usable for ES isn't a problem. 

BTW, my own vote in the poll is "No, but I would like to see more use of member-owned aircraft". 

[usafcap1]

Our corporate aircraft look way more professional than member owned, BUT I would like to see one of the few member owned aircraft.

[Private Investigator]

We have no use for member-owned aircraft.

O-rides

[coudano]

Yeh  I came from one of those --RURAL-- squadrons where no CAP airplane was assigned, and none was ever rotated (not even once, as I recall).  We were kept airborne entirely by member owned aircraft.  One of those even had df equipment installed at the pilot's own expense.  Lots of hours on route searches as well.

I think the corp planes should be 'primary' but I think the option should be retained where not available.

[SARDOC]

I think the real problem impacting our recruiting of new pilots is getting them qualified once they get in the door.  The C182 requires them to have the High Performance endorsement and I know where we are getting a new pilot into a C172 is a difficulty...when they find out they can't fly at all they tend to go away because of the cost of getting the endorsement.  I think we as an organization should rethink the training of new pilots.  Get people to sign an agreement or pay back the cost of the training. We have a very dedicated group of people that would be willing to fly for the organization long term.

[Eclipse]

We have no use for member-owned aircraft.

O-rides

Disagree.

Few wings are even spending their full O-Ride appropriation, let alone exhibiting a need for O-rides that would justify allowing the
use of POAs.

[SarDragon]

We have no use for member-owned aircraft.

O-rides

Disagree.

Few wings are even spending their full O-Ride appropriation, let alone exhibiting a need for O-rides that would justify allowing the
use of POAs.

Well, CAWG uses all of their O-ride money every year, and some years, gets left-over funds from other wings. We also use POA as needed to fill out out O-ride capabilities.

[Eclipse]

Well, CAWG uses all of their O-ride money every year, and some years, gets left-over funds from other wings. We also use POA as needed to fill out out O-ride capabilities.

CAWG is not exactly typical for a lot of reasons.

But it does bring up the point that we already have the ability to authorize POAs when there is justification to do so, and most wings just don't have the justification.

The problem is that POAs cannot be counted on as a ready-asset for readiness planning.  When you don't control the aircraft, you don't have any idea where it is, or if its even serviceable, and it's not likely too many POA owners are going to allow other aircrews to use their "precious", especially if it isn't
wholly-theirs.

[PHall]

Another point against member owned aircraft is that many GA aircraft don't have just one owner. Many are owned by partnerships of 2, 3 or 4 "owners".
I've seen more then one case where a member owned aircraft became unavailable because one of the partners had first dibs on it or just didn't want CAP to use it.

[Huey Driver]

I feel that member owned aircraft should be used more, and specifically for O-Flights at the very least. My squadron is at an airport and we used to have a Maule at our disposal, but it was taken away for glider ops. So for a whole two years, our squadron went two years without any O-Flight opportunities, and all of our pilots' CAP quals expired. Never saw any aircraft rotate to us. So some of our pilots just started flying cadets outside of CAP in their own personally owned aircraft.

To sum it up, utilizing member owned aircraft would be advantageous. Aircraft can't be everywhere at once, so some squadrons get left out on the corporate aircraft. Without having easily accessible corporate aircraft it's a lot harder for our pilots to stay up to date and qualified, along with having cadets missing out on O-Flights.

Yes, I see the cons, but I think they're outweighed by the pros in this case. There's your cadet perspective.

[Eclipse]

Your pilots were incapable of arranging for aircraft to come to them, or going to the planes?

Transport fuel is authorized when justified for o-rides, and anyone creative can find a way to access the corporate aircraft.
Like, I don't know, fly their POA to an airport with a COA?

[Huey Driver]

Your pilots were incapable of arranging for aircraft to come to them, or going to the planes?

Transport fuel is authorized when justified for o-rides, and anyone creative can find a way to access the corporate aircraft.
Like, I don't know, fly their POA to an airport with a COA?

Apparently they were incapable.... They aren't the most proactive when it comes to going through with solutions like you said. Still think POAs should be utilized.