Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 24, 2019, 03:19:27 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Aviation & Flying Activities  |  Topic: What plane should be the CAP standard?
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] 2 3  All Send this topic Print
Author Topic: What plane should be the CAP standard?  (Read 12572 times)
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« on: June 12, 2007, 05:25:28 PM »

Okay, the vast majority of CAP's planes are Cessna 172s and Cessna 182s and CAP seems to be moving towards making the entire fleet Cessna 182s with glass cockpits.

Regardless of the glass cockpit issue, is the 182 the right plane for CAP? 

(yes the idea for this thread came from a complain in a uniform thread).
Report to moderator   Logged
jimmydeanno
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,155
Unit: ǝnƃoɹ

« Reply #1 on: June 12, 2007, 05:55:43 PM »

It depends on the function.  IME, the standard aircraft is good as a 182.  With the additional HP etc, it actually enables us to have 3 person aircrews instead of leaving the scanner on the ground because the W&B doesn't pan out.
Report to moderator   Logged
If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. - Winston Churchill
Al Sayre
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,514
Unit: SER-MS-001

Mississippi Wing
« Reply #2 on: June 12, 2007, 06:03:04 PM »

Although we still have a need for the 206's, Beavers, and GA-8's in some areas/applications
Report to moderator   Logged
Lt Col Al Sayre
MS Wing Staff Dude
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
GRW #2787
jimmydeanno
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,155
Unit: ǝnƃoɹ

« Reply #3 on: June 12, 2007, 06:14:54 PM »

Okay, the vast majority of CAP's planes are Cessna 172s and Cessna 182s and CAP seems to be moving towards making the entire fleet Cessna 182s with glass cockpits.

Regardless of the glass cockpit issue, is the 182 the right plane for CAP? 

(yes the idea for this thread came from a complain in a uniform thread).

Another note, I don't believe they are trying to make the entire fleet a single type of aircraft, but phase out the 172s and replace them with 182s...
Report to moderator   Logged
If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. - Winston Churchill
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,596
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #4 on: June 12, 2007, 06:20:08 PM »

It depends on the function.  IME, the standard aircraft is good as a 182.  With the additional HP etc, it actually enables us to have 3 person aircrews instead of leaving the scanner on the ground because the W&B doesn't pan out.

Not always. I missed out on a scanner ride the other day when the front seats were "well packed", and I only weigh 190 with all my gear.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
flyerthom
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 665

« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2007, 06:43:31 PM »

There is a need to define the mission the aircraft is to fulfill.  A Beaver may not be needed in New Hampshire but is sure is in Alaska. A 182 is a minimum in Nevada.
Pacific Region has a 60 horsepower per person supplement for safe mountain flying.
While the Poconos in Pennsylvania are hardly the Sierras the extra safety margin is not a bad thing.  It makes sense from a risk management point of view.

Standardization of most aircraft also offer cost savings. That money can be used to fly more missions. It makes sense from an economic point of view.

Standardization makes it easier to use air crews from other areas. If the air crews are using the same aircraft they can get into action in a Katrina like situation quickly allowing for better crew rest and utilization. It makes sense from an operations point of view.

The C-182 is not Archer capable. It is bested for hard long range winter ops in Alaska.

So while standardization makes sense on the wide scale, there also needs to be flexibility. Using the C 182 as the main airframe while retaining specialty planes seems to be the best path.
Report to moderator   Logged
TC
c172drv
Forum Regular

Posts: 117

PWCS Home Page
« Reply #6 on: June 12, 2007, 06:53:56 PM »

It depends on the function.  IME, the standard aircraft is good as a 182.  With the additional HP etc, it actually enables us to have 3 person aircrews instead of leaving the scanner on the ground because the W&B doesn't pan out.

Not always. I missed out on a scanner ride the other day when the front seats were "well packed", and I only weigh 190 with all my gear.
What kind of fuel load were you carrying.  I can't imagine leaving someone behind with a normal fuel load, not full tanks.

John
Report to moderator   Logged
John Jester
VAWG

SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,596
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #7 on: June 12, 2007, 07:05:48 PM »

Not sure on the fuel load. Probably close to a full bag. These guys were pretty hefty. It  wasn't a real mission, so geting left behind wasn't a big deal.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,657

« Reply #8 on: June 12, 2007, 07:20:53 PM »


The C-182 is not Archer capable. It is bested for hard long range winter ops in Alaska.

Why?
Report to moderator   Logged


Jolt
Forum Regular

Posts: 159

« Reply #9 on: June 12, 2007, 08:41:49 PM »

If they begin phasing out the 172s, I really hope they start allowing primary flight training to be accomplished in the 182s.
Report to moderator   Logged
wyocop
Newbie

Posts: 3

« Reply #10 on: June 12, 2007, 08:49:13 PM »

The C-182 is one of the best choices. However I would prefer a C-206. It my understanding that the  Glass panel plane is the only one Cessna produces. If one wants a dial gaged plane it cost more, I wonder why?
Report to moderator   Logged
JohnB
"The Truth Is Out There"
RogueLeader
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,621
Unit: NM-823

« Reply #11 on: June 12, 2007, 09:30:47 PM »

/\/\/\ Programing is alot more expensive than mechanical.
Report to moderator   Logged
<redacted>

GRW 3340
sparks
Seasoned Member

Posts: 269

« Reply #12 on: June 12, 2007, 09:46:38 PM »

Two issues pop up before a decision can be made. One has already been mentioned, what's the mission. Next is who's paying for the aircraft and flight time. Standardization is also an important consideration both for safety and flexibility. If pilots are trained in a 172 they can't fly a 182. Also a CAPF 5 in a 182 doesn't count in a 182T NAV III (glass. Of course the GA8 is another issue. 

The current mix of 172 and 182 airframes works East of the Rockies. Turbo 182's and 206s come into the picture West of the divide and Alaska is it's own on going experiment. The Air Force needs many airframes to accomplish their missions and so does CAP. My wing knows the new 172 and 182 models are three passenger aircraft is the tanks are full. The only option for a full crew is to burn off the fuel or off load it. Some FBO's have the capability of reversing the fuel pump and taking fuel out (yes there is a credit).
 
Last but not least is the $$$$. The cost to fly a new 182 is close to $100/hour. If members pays the bill there is going to be less flying than in  a 172. If Cooperate or the Air Force pays, flight times won't suffer.

I like the 172 for modest crew loads and mission lengths. It's cheaper to run and more pilots are qualified to fly them.

The 182 is for long leg missions and heavier crews.

So, I choose a mix of what we have. The percentage depends on what the mission is. We can all hope that will be clearly stated someday.

Report to moderator   Logged
Mustang
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 694

« Reply #13 on: June 13, 2007, 08:47:16 AM »

My wing recently received its first glass cockpit bird, and with the turbocharger, O2 system and all the CAP goodies, its full-fuel payload capacity is under 500 lbs, rendering it effectively a two-person airplane, unless you've got exceptionally skinny and/or small people aboard.  Keeping the fuel at the tabs helps a bit, but not much.  We're hoping CAP will buy some turbo 206s for the mountainous wings to restore some of this lost lift capacity.
Report to moderator   Logged
"Amateurs train until they get it right; Professionals train until they cannot get it wrong. "

flyguy06
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,195

« Reply #14 on: June 13, 2007, 12:05:16 PM »

Can you do O-rides and cadet flight training in a 182? Thats not advisable to me. I think they should keep the 172s.
Report to moderator   Logged
RogueLeader
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,621
Unit: NM-823

« Reply #15 on: June 13, 2007, 12:31:49 PM »

Can you do O-rides and cadet flight training in a 182? Thats not advisable to me. I think they should keep the 172s.

Why couldn't you?  I don't know, and wish I did.
Report to moderator   Logged
<redacted>

GRW 3340
jimmydeanno
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,155
Unit: ǝnƃoɹ

« Reply #16 on: June 13, 2007, 12:55:17 PM »

Can you do O-rides and cadet flight training in a 182? Thats not advisable to me. I think they should keep the 172s.

Was this for the 'standard CAP plane thread'?
Report to moderator   Logged
If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. - Winston Churchill
Al Sayre
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,514
Unit: SER-MS-001

Mississippi Wing
« Reply #17 on: June 13, 2007, 02:23:43 PM »

Can you do O-rides and cadet flight training in a 182? Thats not advisable to me. I think they should keep the 172s.

O-rides? Absolutely!  Flight training is debatable, but I don't see why not.  If someone learns with a constant speed prop and cowl flaps, they will see it as natural.  The only real problem I see is that the elevator force on the 182 is considerably heavier than the 172, and some cadets of small stature might have trouble keeping it in the correct position while taxiing.  YMMV 
Report to moderator   Logged
Lt Col Al Sayre
MS Wing Staff Dude
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
GRW #2787
Jolt
Forum Regular

Posts: 159

« Reply #18 on: June 13, 2007, 03:51:02 PM »

As I understand it, the reason that flight training isn't done in the 182s is because it's prohibited in the regulations.

I'll look around a little bit later.
Report to moderator   Logged
SJFedor
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,689

« Reply #19 on: June 13, 2007, 05:05:53 PM »

Can you do O-rides and cadet flight training in a 182? Thats not advisable to me. I think they should keep the 172s.


Yes you can do O-rides in a 182. Not sure about the G1000 system, but once one gets assigned near me, I plan on finding out. Can't imagine why not, though. You're not really using the G1000 system to do o-flights, it's all visual maneuvers.

If they begin phasing out the 172s, I really hope they start allowing primary flight training to be accomplished in the 182s.

Please review CAPR 60-1.


Chapter 2, Section 4, Prohibited Use of CAP Aircraft

i. Instruction of cadet student pilots in float, ski, or complex aircraft for the purpose of obtaining a private pilot certificate. For instruction of cadet student pilots in high performance aircraft, see paragraph 3-3a(4)

Paragraph 3-3a:

(3) For high performance (per FAR Part 61), fixed landing gear aircraft, the pilot must have a minimum of 100 hours flight experience as a pilot and meet the requirements of paragraphs 3-3a(3)(a) (c) below. Pilots who meet the 100 hours flight experience minimum and have a high performance aircraft endorsement or previous CAP qualification in high performance aircraft are not required to meet these requirements.
CAPR 60-1 (C1) 23 JANUARY 2007 21
(a) Successfully complete a CAP transition flight training program which will consist of:
1 A minimum of 25 takeoffs and landings which must include 10 takeoffs and landings in a crosswind of 5 knots or greater.
2 Five no-flap landings.
3 A minimum of 5 short field/soft field takeoffs and landing.
4 A minimum of 5 simulated engine failures to a full stop landing at an airport runway.
(b) Satisfactory completion of a CAPF 5 proficiency check administered by a CAP check pilot who has not conducted the transition training.
(c) The pilot must meet all FAA pilot requirements and have a pilot log book endorsement for PIC privileges as PIC for high performance aircraft.
(4) For a CAP cadet to fly high performance, fixed gear, aircraft in CAP, the cadet must meet the following requirements:
(a) Meet all FAA requirements for student flight instruction in a high performance aircraft.
(b) Cadet student pilots who have not received flight training in a high performance aircraft in a CAP structured training program must complete the transition training specified in paragraph 3-3a(3) and also meet all the requirements in paragraph 3-2b (CAP Solo Pilot).


Long and short, cadets may now do primary training in a high performance aircraft. C182, C206, MT7, all high performance, and, by reg at least, may be used for primary training of cadets.


Personally, if we were going to go to 1 standard, I'd vote for the 206 across the board. Better weight carrying ability, long station time,  and generally more fun to fly  ;D especially when you're light on passengers and that 300hp engine kicks in.


Report to moderator   Logged
Steven Fedor, NREMT-P
Master Ambulance Driver
Former Capt, MP, MCPE, MO, MS, GTL, and various other 3-and-4 letter combinations
NESA MAS Instructor, 2008-2010 (#479)
Pages: [1] 2 3  All Send this topic Print 
CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Aviation & Flying Activities  |  Topic: What plane should be the CAP standard?
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.057 seconds with 26 queries.
click here to email me