Pros/Cons of Joining the Civil Air Patrol?
- Thread starter HighFlyingA380
- Start date
Yet all of these events are part of maintaining the capability to execute the organizations mission. There should simply not be something like a 'non-funded training mission'. It should be as simple as the training officer approving you for a training flight and you go out and fly.
bflynn
Final Approach
If you have few pilots or many more dollars than we have, it is that simple. The truth is, there isn't enough money for every pilot to fly enough to stay current by using CAP money. If we say 10 hours/month is currency, then 120 hours/year x $150/hour * #of pilots in CAP is a lot of money - 18k/pilot/year. There's about 15 pilots in my squadron, so that's over a quarter million a year to finance a single squadron's flying time. And we're not even the biggest in the state.
Mike Smith
En-Route
- Joined
- May 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,627
- Location
- Prattville, Alabama
- Display Name
Display name:
Fresh Prince of PrattVegas
What exact is the “mission”?
I got it second hand from a friend still flying for CAP; if I recall, it was a couple (husband and wife?) in Florida, or GA, maybe?
Eric Gleason
Pre-takeoff checklist
Exactly. Do you really think the taxpayer should be funding CAP pilots practicing approaches, airwork, landings, etc.? There's usually funding to go out and practice search skills, but we're talking about general pilot proficiency tasks.
Sure, it does benefit CAP to have pilots current and proficient, it also benefits the individual members. I've always been happy with the the arrangement that I got (relatively) cheap flying time to keep current.
airdale
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,840
- Display Name
Display name:
airdale
As I said above, I am done with CAP. I'll point out, though, that worrying about the internals of attracting and motivating members is not where the taxpayer's interest lies. The SAR mission is now pretty much gone away, but a decade or three ago the CAP was a hugely cost-effective means for lost airplane SAR. The alternative would have been for military assets to be used, like the C130s they use in Canada. A dozen spam cans full of volunteers, working for a week, probably wouldn't even approach the cost of a single C130 or Blackhawk working for a day. So that is the historical cost equation. It may even hold today, when extensive searches are much less common, but the point is that the taxpayer is not concerned with the nuts and bolts of how the spam cans and air crews are managed; the taxpayer's equation is simply to compare the annual cost of CAP with the estimated cost of the alternatives.
Overlaying this, of course, is that CAP has been fairly successful in developing a political base. At some point, maybe even before now, their political effectiveness in milking the government cows (state and federal) may mask the fact that CAP is no longer cost-effective for the taxpayer.
Stearman
Pre-takeoff checklist
CAP is the aviation equivalent of mall cops. It exists because someone higher up doesn't have the heart to shut down what is an ineffective throwback. Many (not all!) of the folks in it are there just to stroke their egos with an important-looking uniform and to wield authority they don't usually have. That's why the org is getting so hamstrung: nobody there has any other way to make themselves feel important. If they had an actual mission they'd be too busy getting real work done to worry about regulations, rules, and other BS.
airdale
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,840
- Display Name
Display name:
airdale
Yes. This is actually quite common in volunteer organizations. It's one reason why most have elaborate reward systems of titles and bling. I tell people that CAP is like Boy Scouts for adults, with airplanes. Merit badges, rank, uniforms, sashes, etc. It's all the same.
The problem though is that people who don't have prestige and power in their non-CAP lives are especially attracted to the rewards and eventually end up in many of the CAP management jobs. They do a disproportionate amount of the organization's work while chasing the synthetic prestige, so you can't live without them. There is generally a reason, though, that they don't have prestige and power in their real life jobs, so they are usually abysmal managers. So you can't live with them, either.
Another aspect also complicates things: Any organization that does not produce measurable outputs (like profits) inevitably becomes political. Since there are no outputs, the only way to judge people is by whether they are liked, who they know, who they stroke, etc. It's as inevitable as sunrise.
bflynn
Final Approach
This is a pretty uninformed and ugly opinion.
CAP does have more than SAR missions, they also work with emergency management. CAP photographed virtually every inch of the New Jersey shoreline during Hurricane Sandy to aid in damage mapping. They did it again for Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico, but photographed the entire island. In fact, in nearly every major flood, tornado or hurricane, CAP will be there assisting emergency management with figuring out where the damage is. CAP will also help emergency management with emergency supplies distribution, distributing, food, blankets, water and tarps. The first aerial photographs of 9-11 were taken by CAP.
Not that SAR has gone away. At this second in North Carolina, there are dozens of volunteers searching for a missing person in Warren County using both air and ground teams. There was an aviation ELT beacon search this weekend in NC as well, which was located and fortunately was a non-distress situation. Go ahead and denigrate CAP if you like. They will still come find you if your airplane ever goes down and they will still hand you supplies in an emergency.
Should the taxpayers pay for pilots to maintain currency? No, I don't think so and that's what I was pointing out earlier...it's way too expensive. At the same time, we DO want pilots to maintain not just legal currency, but also to be current enough to be safe, which probably means flying nearly every weekend. I don't have an answer.
There's definitely a goodly amount of bureaucratic BS from above. I try not to get too wrapped around the axle about it, however. One thing I've noticed is that I find it rewarding to learn new skills, and to share what I have learned with others.
In Colorado, CAP is part of the State Firewatch program as well as SAR (without the R). It's cheaper to send out a C182 with 2 aboard for 2-3 hours looking for smoke and fires and people and vehicles than sending out the Pilatus (for many $thousands an hour). Right now, CAP is flying multiple missions a day during the fire season on both sides of the Rockies. Unfortunately, the crews flying are the ones that fly most of the missions because 1) they all know each other and 2) most are retired and have the time. Altho there are plenty of pilots, it appears the same core group does all the real missions, and the rest are relegated to the practice missions.
In 2013, CAP did almost 10K photos of the floods in Colorado and Wyoming for FEMA and other organizations. Dirt cheap, too.
It may be that CAP in other parts of the country are not used much, for various reasons, but in the Rockies, it's heavily used during the 6 months of fire season.
I flew some pretty good "real" missions, but the truth is the need is greatly diminished now. . .not completly gone, but far, far less: CAP is groping for relevance, with margnally competent national management, choking bureacracy, and major churn in membership. It's just a badly managed organization, and the total ROI isn't there.
denverpilot
Tied Down
denverpilot
Tied Down
The fire mission is part of Colorado Wing's "Dual-Hatted" nature, and is being paid for by the State, not Federal. Technically the aircraft are "rented" by the State at a fixed cost that National sets. Firewatch here is ultimately done at the request of Sheriffs under the Governor's Office, with day to day management by the top brass of the Colorado National Guard. Usually the requesting Sheriff's county pays part of it, and the State pays part of it, and National offers the aircraft and aircrews up for an extremely discounted (slightly below operating cost, and no amortization costs of the aircraft rolled in) rate.
Not all States have a dual-charter. And National CAP still has very few real missions...
The Sheriffs here could use private contractors for the firewatch mission, but it's the "rental at below costs" and not having to cover purchasing the aircraft or major maintenance of the aircraft in the per-hour cost that they pay, that makes private competition with CAP impossible.
As I recall, the aircrew are also hanging their butts out a bit when flying under the State hatted side in Colorado, because the insurance benefits for a mishap are a worse setup than the configuration of National's self-insurance program. But I could be remembering that backward. I recall that neither was particularly good for anyone with any real assets.
Great straw-man argument. 10/hrs/month would put 1800hrs/year on your plane and keep it in the air 5 hrs/day.
I am not proposing that all of the flying done by member pilots should be funded. I am proposing that any mission related training is paid for by the organization. And training dollars should be allocated in a way that they are consistently available rather than the feast&famine created by the current management.
Maybe CAP shouldn't be a flying club that also does some SAR on fairweather days. Sure, you won't have funding to keep 15 pilots per squadron current, it may make more sense to limit the roster to 3 or 4 funded pilots who then have duty-shifts during which they have to provide a guaranteed response (60minutes to wheels up).
denverpilot
Tied Down
You need at least two aircrew per aircraft to do most of their missions when they have a real mission to fly, and usually multiple aircraft.
The country doesn’t want to pay what it would actually cost to do what CAP does CORRECTLY even if they paid to do it with volunteers through CAP.
Paying for the flight time would be WAY cheaper than paying any other agency where you’d also pay salary, benefits, etc.
Essentially the country is extremely cheap when it comes to the inland SAR mission. Compare the effectiveness and the price tag with USGC handling the sea SAR mission.
I’m not defending CAP in effectiveness. They’re equipped and trained about as well as most volunteer fire departments. But they’re awfully cheap if you start wanting real SAR done right. Even IF they paid for all the training flight time and real mission time.
As an organization they mostly serve to keep Cessna 182 production alive, through the KA Senator who made sure of that.
Everybody that complains they’re a flying club forgets that it’s really USAFs mission to do inland SAR, delegates to CAP, and politics keeps it there. USAF would love nothing more than to take it back and charge billions for it. I’m sure they’d do it right, too. But you’d not like their bill.
Not that anybody cares what it would really cost in a debt-driven government and society.
It’s not just aircraft search that the country is cheap on, either. Around here there’s roughly 100 registered volunteer ground SAR organizations in the State’s SAR Board meetings. State doesn’t pay for any of them to do anything other than an occasional grant for specialized equipment when they beg hard enough.
They’re all funded by locals. Even to go rescue the tourists. We all know they’re a lot cheaper than anything the State would hire to work in the field.
Yes, flights under a 'C' mission number are treated differently liability/insurance wise. They are normal part 91 flights and the pilot is not covered under the federal tort claims act provisions. If a mission requested by a state or local entity receives an 'A' mission number, they are considered official air-force business and those protections apply.
bflynn
Final Approach
It's not a straw-man argument at all. I was merely giving the example of why CAP doesn't fund member currency. On top of everything else, you'd have to at least double the number of airplanes. Most mission related training is already paid for by the organization, but not all of it.
Maybe CAP isn't a flying club at all. I'm sorry if you view it that way, but it IS an organization that serves the community. The members aren't really a reflection of the community, it is weighted toward those who are inclined to help and a much larger sampling of veterans.
"Duty shifts" for volunteers...well, if you want to turn this into something like the volunteer fire department, then we'll also need to up the training and the means to motivate the volunteers. 3-4 pilots aren't nearly enough. The professional pilots run at a ratio of roughly 10 pilots for every airplane, which puts us back to a whole bunch of hours on the airframe every year and a 5 digit training budget per year for each airplane. Simulators could be used to help mitigate that. But you're talking about something that is a very different model.
airdale
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,840
- Display Name
Display name:
airdale
Oh, they have a whole staff. The guy who is overall responsible for Operations, hence for those silly "codes," has never functioned in the real world. He began in CAP as a cadet and just stayed in; 30 years so far. The COO is a former AF pilot who started with CAP in 1995/23 years and no real world experience. So quite incestuous and change-proof.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Lord. That explains so much about my short time on a National committee.
We finished the report, turned it in, and it was completely re-written, published, and largely ignored, after half a year of work on it.
I still keep in touch with the other person dumb enough to volunteer for it in AZ via email. He knows I’m not a member anymore and that our lovely conference calls and that report are probably a good part of why.
Once in a while he still sends me interesting (read: sad) stuff from “on the inside” about the Comm stuff whenever National has a bowel movement and produces some new document about how radios and ES Comm work or how training people to do it, goes in their minds. Or colons. Or wherever those documents come from
LOL.
I have people constantly asking me when I’m coming back now that I have the CFI. I get within inches of being convinced and then someone reminds me why I had to stop showing up for my monthly “punishment” as a volunteer. Ha.
It’s like the people who care have to also exhibit severe signs of being in an abusive co-dependent relationship to even survive it. Ha. And yes, the people asking me are amongst “the good guys and gals”. One has soloed more cadets in the last decade than I’ll probably ever have total flight students in the rest of my life.
How they put up with it, I haven’t figured out yet.
I haven't been to a meeting in almost 3 years. Trying for a new record. I stay for CyberPatriot program with the high schools (aerospace education).
bflynn
Final Approach
Isn't it ironic to define a volunteer as "overpaid"?
No....it's a paid, professional staff at HQ, just as there's a paid staffer at each of the regional offices and possibly each state. Aint gonna get rich working for CAP, tho.
I'm nearing retirement and a CAP friend asked me if I'd consider coming back; just not gonna consider it - too much interesting other stuff to do, and much better ways to contribute via aviation, if I'm of a mind. Started thinking about pursuing CFI just recently, as a mini-second career. And knowing the goat rope required to use that in CAP? No way. CAP just doesn't have much relevance or real value anymore - maybe in some niche spots, sure, but taken as a whole, time and tech have eroded most of its value.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Yeah. As Murphy said, the junk on the website mostly comes from paid staff at NHQ.
There were a couple people there I had to deal with who I trusted. I heard both were tossed in the layoffs they had a while back.
Stearman
Pre-takeoff checklist
So it sounds like CAP helped in a few areas, mostly disasters. Yay. State Police and the feds couldn't/didn't do it faster?
Maybe we keep CAP in those areas but otherwise recognize it for what it is and move on? Not sure what a couple stories from hurricane season do to change the underlying truth of what I said.
Bottom line...I stand by my opinion.
Stearman
Pre-takeoff checklist
Bingo. That's exactly it.
bflynn
Final Approach
Not sure that a couple hundred stories would change your recognition of "truth". But it isn't necessary and CAP will still come find you if your ELT goes off.
airdale
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,840
- Display Name
Display name:
airdale
Actually, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data." There is no question that the need for CAP in SAR is diminishing. The only argument might be about how fast it is diminishing. In aerial photography, CAP has accelerated its irrelevance through incompetence at National, but aerial photo technology has long passed the day of carry-back still images that arrive hours or even days after the event. Emergency managers will increasingly be satisfying the bulk of their own needs with live-tv drone technology supplemented with immediately-available law enforcement aerial assets.
For a long time into the future there will continue to be "stories" of CAP SAR and CAP aerial imagery successes, but the cost-effectiveness of the organization will continue to decline.
Eric Gleason
Pre-takeoff checklist
Depends on what it is. In many cases, the state and feds don't have resources to "do it" and rely on other agencies and volunteers. In many cases they use CAP because it's less expensive than using a state/federal resource.
bflynn
Final Approach
If drones can be flown legally and less expensively than a piloted airplane, then they should replace CAP. However, that is not the case today. We're not talking about a little $300 quad copter that can only legally be flown within sight the operator. The drones that can replace CAP are more like a Predator, although obviously not militarized. The cost of operating them is significant.
BTW, CAP is also getting into live video feeds. But it's unlikely that live video will actually replace still camera shots since the two have different uses.
airdale
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,840
- Display Name
Display name:
airdale
It's a straw-man argument because you used ficticious numbers and your particular squadron to demonstrate that it is entirely impossible to do this. Most of the pilots at the two squadrons I have been a member of have a career outside of the organization and few would be able to put in 10hrs of flying every month year around.
My point is that if a member wants to do any training that is mission related, it should be fully funded without a 7 step approval process. It should be as simple as:
Lt Weilke: Hi captain Trainingofficer. Looks like tomorrow morning is going to be decent weather to shoot some approaches. Capt. Flysalot agreed to be my safety pilot. I put a sortie in WMIRS from 8-11 am, I think we'll be up for about 90min on the hobbs.
Capt. Trainingofficer: Let me see, yup there is the sortie *mouse-click*. I approved it as requested. I am sure you know about the squawk with the dilithium crystals on the conbobulator. Be safe, have fun. Put in a brief blurb of what you did when you are back. Just have the jet-center fuel up to 27 gallons when you are done.
Lt Weilke: Thank You sir.
I did not suggest that it should be a flying club. Some people were bemoaning that it is NOT a flying club.
As to who CAP serves at this point, I am not quite sure anymore.
My understanding is that CAP serves the air-force to assist with some functions where having access to a gaggle of little airplanes can be helpful. Assisting the community at large, e.g. through non-aviation related SAR is more of a side activity. If the organization wants to serve the community (rather than the needs of a small circle of insiders), its structures need to be fixed.
How many do you need ? It's not like CAP would ever have to be able to launch a crew of 3 within a 4 minute window like we do at the FD. With a 1 hr launch window for SAR missions, you dont need people to sit around in a ready-room at the airport. You just need them on their pager and within a reasonable driving distance of the airport. If you put in the time to train and are on the roster as the on-call pilot, any mission that pops up in your 'first due' area should be yours regardless of how good you are at sucking up to the wing commander. The way its run right now is highly dysfunctional and contributes to the churn of qualified pilot members.
airdale
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,840
- Display Name
Display name:
airdale
Quite funny, actually. Apparently you are not actually familiar with the flight release process. It used to be silly, now it is ridiculous.
Here is the two-page FRO checklist that must be completed before releasing a flight: https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/static/media/cms/FRO_Checklist_16DD945CB82CD.pdf It is the major reason that I am done with CAP. One of the real treats is that it asks the FRO whether the airplane is legal to fly with any reported discrepancies. To comply with this literally, the FRO must have a copy of the FARS plus a copy of the POH for the particular airplane being flown. Another is this knee-slapper: "What does the pilot consider to be the highest risk for this flight?" Well, how about "Pilot and airplane may become unable to maintain enough lift to overcome the force of gravity." That should pretty much do it.
No, @weilke, it is not a "yup" and a mouse click. It is an extended PITA that involves treating every pilot like an impetuous and ignorant child.
I am familiar with the 'as built' process. I am expressing my opinion of how it SHOULD work.
bflynn
Final Approach
Yes, thank you for illustrating that. It would have been interesting to have seen the UA show. The pictures didn't look crowded, but maybe it will come around again next year. Regardless, regulations still require that the drone be in sight of the operator.
And the xdrone. With a 5lb payload, it has a total mission time of 34 minutes, so 15 minutes out and 15 minutes back. You will have to be careful though because at 40mph, you are in danger of running it outside the 2km LOS radio range. This is something you can grab some quick PR video with. Maybe you could monitor a local operation with 2 or 3 of them.
Again - CAP and drones are performing different tasks.
bflynn
Final Approach
How many? I don't know, but it's more than 3 or 4. These are volunteers who have lives outside of CAP. They aren't available like a fire department is. If I get a text at 8:30 in the morning, I may or may not...probably not...be available to go fly. CAP is not in the same category as fire fighting. Maybe it should be.
Does anybody know if CAP provides indemnification to the FRO for the level of liability implicit in all that?
Good question. On the flying side, you are for all intents and purposes indemnified on all missions that have an air-force provided 'A' mission number. On those flights you are considered an agent of the US government the same as a doc working at a VA hospital or a border patrol officer. Whether that protection extends to someone like a FRO while acting in an 'official' capacity, I dont know.