|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Coast Guard Discussions Coast Guard Auxiliary CAP Flying For USCG In Florida|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
Member |
A purely personal opinion on your part that has no basis in fact -- at least I've seen none from you here that could be evaluated logically. It consists only of "we have airplane that should be used instead of your airplanes".
It would be interesting to know the true definition of your use of the term "manage". True decision making, or mastering the operation of a staple remover? So, you really do have a personal dog in the fight -- and a bias for your support of the ill-thought suggestion of out-sourcing to the CAP and lack of support of your fellow Auxiliarists.
No, I admit that the USCG has provided the opportunity for me to utilize an asset and skill set that I have been blessed to posses in volunteer service to the USCG, DHS, and the USA. Our mission tasking consists of no "joy rides" or "$100 hamburger jaunts". My observers and air crew pull their weight as well -- no seats available for sight seeing. My service would be considered no more a hobby than your volunteer activities (whatever they really consist of). The aircraft is subsidized no more than if it sat unused as a hangar queen. They reimburse for what they use -- no more.
uh, no air ops -- little to no boat ops....doesn't sound like you're a (direct) ops guy to me. Oh wait, I guess there is always watch-standing -- maybe that's your gig.
Oh, I've dealt with your arguments. They have no basis in fact and are purely a biased opinion due to some loyalty to the CAP (I suspect because they DO let you sight-see in an airplane occassionally). |
|||
|
|
Basic Training |
flyandscuba...Thanks for the many hours of overdue searches that you do for us. There have been so many times when I would ask the sector commander if he needed us to launch on an overdue and he would say..."not now....we have an Auxiliary aircraft checking it out".
|
|||
|
Member |
Which is the total absolute bottom line. The program here in south Florida never used to scramble, all missions were pre-ordained There was talk of B-0 but I never saw it happen. One of the problems that I saw was that the average observer didn't know an Egg Harbor from a Chris Craft, which made them kind of useless on a missing boat search. On the other hand, having someone out there does cover your butt, whether he knows what he is looking at or not. |
|||
|
Basic Training |
Seems to me that it would be in the Coast Guard's best interest to have a very good AUXAIR program AND the ability to utilize (and train with) CAP. The decision as to what asset to use would then be based on the needs of the situation, the available assets in the AOR, and the strengths of each program locally. This turf battle stuff looks really silly when no one can launch on the SAR.
|
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Hmm, the CG is paying the same per-hour cost for AuxAir as they would if they were reimbursing CAP? I don't think so.
CG rates are based on horsepower rather than on typical maintenance expenditures associated with the model as CAP's rates are figured. Major engine costs which are more directly linked to horsepower aren't "charged" to CAP customers and are covered by CAP's major maintenance program. Example 1: A 180hp Cessna 172 flown by CAP would result in a charge of $30/hour. A 180hp Cessna 172 flown by AuxAir would get $43/hour ($41/hour maintenance + $2/hour for lube oil). In other words AuxAir costs 43% more. Example 2: A Cessna 182T with 230hp engine would be charged at $41/hour by CAP and $45.50/hour by AuxAir. Obviously, these are a lot closer, but AuxAir is still 11% higher than CAP. Example 3: A Cessna 206H with 300hp engine would be charged at $47/hour by CAP and $71/hour by AuxAir -- 51% higher. References: CAPR 173-3 Feb 2007 Attachment 1: COMDT 16798 March 2007 here I actually was surprised that there was such a difference since AuxAir rates are supposed to be based on CAP rates, but they sure don't look that way to me. I could be wrong -- check it. Now factor in all costs with non-mission related AuxAir training and you'll see that AuxAir does cost more than CAP would. |
|||
|
|
Basic Training |
Send them up here for a few days of training with AMTCM Beckwith: CGAS Savannah 1297 North Lightning Road Savannah, GA. 31409 (912) 652-4646 |
|||
|
|
Member |
They are airplane people. They will expect to get paid. |
|||
|
|
Member |
TybeeBM1,
Thank you sir for the kind words. It is truly is an honor and pleasure to be of service. My squadron-mates and I are always impressed by the support you and the rest of the Gold-side team mates provide to the AUXAIR program. Not only have I enjoyed the relationships developed with the air station personnel, but also those established with the Sector personnel who spend 4-5 hours per week with me flying in the cockpit. I've learned a great deal from those Petty Officers over the years and always end a mission with having learned something new from them. I expect they have learned a little about flying from me. Hopefully, you see a positive difference in the level of professionalism displayed by the AUXAIR crews as compared to other personnel and agencies. We look forward to providing continued service as you complete the requirements of your duties. River, I see you are back...thought you were "out". Your CAP rates do not include the cost of lubricants (a consumable otherwise known as aviation oil), the AUXAIR rates do -- see section 4 of attachment one that you provided. This is an additional hourly charge that would be added to your listed hourly rates. You are also attempting to support your argument based soley upon accounting cost -- rather than economic cost. Read up on the definition of opportunity cost -- and how it factors into economic cost or total cost. Opportunity costs in this case that would be attributed the total cost of the action you propose include the CAP's inability to fly off-shore, the lack of relationships and combined training between the customer (the AIRSTA & Sector) and the crews, the loss of direct operational USCG control, the loss of rapid response, etc. Place a cost on all of these factors and you'll soon see (well, doubtful that YOU will see) that the total economic cost for using the CAP over the AUXAIR program is actually much greater -- rather than providing any economic savings. The AIRSTA would rate the loss of relationships, direct operational control, and rapid response as extremely high and unacceptable opportunity costs. Here, this may help: The consideration of opportunity costs is one of the key differences between the concepts of economic cost and accounting cost. Assessing opportunity costs is fundamental to assessing the true cost of any course of action. In the case where there is no explicit accounting or monetary cost (price) attached to a course of action, ignoring opportunity costs may produce the illusion that its benefits cost nothing at all. The unseen opportunity costs then become the implicit hidden costs of that course of action. Want to learn more -- try here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost or, take an advanced course in economics... So, the "smoking gun" you though you stumbled upon just misfired. Face it, you're not in the aviation program -- you're not in an Auxiliary decision making position (thankfully) -- those who are see through your argument and understand the true total and unacceptable costs involved in such a proposal. Your position has fatal flaws that go beyond the dollars and cents printed in a table or on a piece of paper. So, to continue your present course goes back to the definition of insanity I stated in an earlier post. Carry on if you like...it's becoming amusing. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
I'm "out" in terms of answering personal attacks against my motivations.
Lubricant costs woud only be "charged" to the customer (or reimbursed to a member flying a member-owned plane on a CAP mission) if they were actually added for that flight and then the actual costs would be charged rather than an hourly cost. So, most of the time, the rates would be as given. I'm not up to date on a/c oil costs so don't know how realistic the hourly oil cost rate is used by the CGAux. Even if we take out the oil surcharge used by the CG Aux, the hourly rate charged by AuxAir is still significantly higher for 2 of the 3 examples I gave. You keep bringing up offshore flights, and I'll keep saying that it is obvious that CAP could not take up some of those missions without changing our regs to allow for easier use of member-owned aircraft to fly them. By the way, you've got a major misconception about CAP rules for overwater flights. CAP unit commanders can authorize flights up to 25 nm from land (AK, HI, PR can authorize farther flights for flights between islands). The only "restriction" is that such overwater flights is that crew must be wearing a PFD and life raft(s) must be on board. Rapid response? CAP is constantly being tasked to do rapid response SAR missions. In coastal areas these are primarily searches for EPIRBs. Skyray will probably back me up on this that such EPIRB missions are constantly bounced back and forth between CAP and CG, slowing down actual response. For example, an EPIRB goes off near shore and the CG uses its assets (maybe even AuxAir) to try to locate it and when they can't confirm it is offshore, then they call in CAP who eventually finds it in a marina. Having CAP involved at the start for these "iffy" missions would dramatically improve actual time to mission completion. This message has been edited. Last edited by: RiverAux, |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
More info on the quote posted by FL at the start of this thread:
According to a reliable source on CAPTALK, the Florida Wing CAP is buying liferafts for their aircraft and developing an "Offshore Aircrew" qualification. So, there must be something going on there. |
|||
|
|
Member |
You continue to look solely at accounting cost -- rather than true economic cost. True economic cost results in CAP use as being more costly (with deal breaking effects) to the USCG for the various facts stated.
Continue on the path of insanity... Your arguments are flawed and position is invalid when the facts are considered. Things will continue as they are -- no matter how much it bugs you. Sorry. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
So, you admit that in purely economic terms, it would be cheaper to use CAP where appopriate? Okay, we can set that argument aside now.
How much "friction" would there be in requesting CAP to do AuxAir missions? Not much, really. Fpr regular patrols AirSta would fax a request to the CAP National Operations Center, which would run it by CAP-USAF (assuming it would be done as an Air Force assigned mission). They would approve. Call the CAP Wing who would round up the pilots who would contact the AirSta for specifics. For regularly scheduled patrols there would be essentially 0 difference from the CG's point of view. They would make 1 call each month (lets say a monthly patrol schedule is used) and CAP would let them know who was assigned pretty quickly. For urgent but non-emergency requests ("I need someone to fly a patrol tomorrow") I would estimate 1-3 hours for approval and contact by the pilot to the AirSta under normal conditions. However, I strongly suspect that a monthly AF mission number could be generated and approved to handle these non-scheduled patrols for each CAP Wing to cut that time down to an hour or so just to find a pilot. For SAR cases nearshore using existing CAP planes, I don't see any problem at all since all the CG RCC would have to do there is call the AF Rescue Coordination Center and request CAP help. Such handoffs are done all the time when the CG eventually figures an EPIRB isn't on the ocean. Unless the CG is going to use on-call CG aircrews in the choppers, C-130s, or jets, it wouldn't take much more time (if any) to get CAP to go after the EPIRB than rounding up an AuxAir pilot. SAR requests tend to get approved very fast and even under the existing system I don't see a major problem here and it could probably even be speeded up some if the elimination of AuxAir resuled in a real need to streamline these procedures even more. Using CAP would also reduce the actual workload on the CG involved in putting this stuff together. Instead of the AirSta making lots of calls to find pilots & planes, they just need to make one call and let the AF & CAP make all those calls. Also, with CAP having more planes and more pilots (even in many coastal states)(and maybe even a few more if AuxAir folks transferred over  ), there is a good chance that a CAP plane and crew are just as close and probably closer than an AuxAir plane, so actual time to scene may be faster as well.And I wonder just how much more patrol time the CG would pay for in inland areas if they had easy access to more folks? Right now AuxAir is very few and far between off the coasts, but the CG still has lots and lots of rivers and lakes they have some responsibility for. This message has been edited. Last edited by: RiverAux, |
|||
|
|
Member |
No, if you read my posts (obviosuly you have difficulty comprehending the subject of opportunity costs and how it factors in to total economic cost -- I really didn't expect that you would understand).
As far as economic cost goes -- accounting costs plus the opportunity costs -- use of the CAP would be MORE costly to the air station. Remember, the Air Station and Sector Commands are the ones who request air support. In order for them to have a reason to look elsewhere (in your case the CAP), mission tasking would have to be going unserved. Should that happen within an air station's AOR, the first place they will look is in-house at their own AUXAIR program. If the need exists for more facilities and pilots, the attempt will be made to add more. Every time there has been a need (like when my aircraft was brought on-line) it have been filled. At present, I am unaware of any mission tasking that is going unanswered -- especially in my air station's AOR. A few facilities were lost with the TBO policy enaction (some only temporarily until they returned to compliance), but additional aircraft and pilots have been added since that time. Staffing is adequate and mission tasking is being completed appropriately. The AIRSTA is quite pleased. So, they've got no need to look elsewhere (to be honest no desire either as the CAP doesn't have the best reputation in many minds). Is any other AUXAIR squadron in dire straights? I've not heard of any. The only place I've even caught wind of "issues" is on this forum -- where a few regular people relish in "the sky is falling" mentality for EVERY subject relative to the Auxiliary, not just AUXAIR. My AUXAIR squadron has a meeting and training event schedule in a couple of weeks at the air station. I'll make some inquiries regarding any desire to seek assistance from the CAP (the last time the organization was mentioned, something about the "goob" patrol was referenced...) By the way, the air station here doesn't make lots of calls to find an aircraft and crew -- they make only one call, to the ADSO-AV-AAC (AUXULO). Keep pressing your case though -- at least is it is keeping you occupied. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Who said that about my statements about economic costs? Yep, that was fly. Don't you realize that you are now making unprovable statements about some sort of ethereal advantage to the CG of using AuxAir over CAP? When you called me on my economic argument, I went out and got the facts to back up my statements. Where are yours? Here are the items that you said would be part of the opportunity costs associated in using CAP instead of Aux Air:
Lets go through them: 1. (offshore missions) Already described how CAP as it now exists can do all AuxAir missions within 25 nm of shore. If my entire proposal were implemented and CAP eased restrictions on use of member-owned planes, CAP would be able to perform the far off-shore missions as well. So, this opportunity cost can be neutralized. 2 (lack of relationships and training). Sure, of course there are few relationships now. However, the story I posted earlier shows that they are developing. Discussed a while back are some joint CAP-CG Aux training being done already. Relationships can be built, training can be conducted. There would obviously be a transition period as AuxAir was phased out and CAP phased in were some work would have to go into these issues. Absolutely nothing keeping this from being done if the willingness to do it was there on both sides. 3. (loss of direct operational control). Very little difference here. Once a CAP plane was assigned a patrol, they could be operationally directed by the CG. Happens all the time with other agencies that aren't "in charge" of CAP, but are working with CAP on a specific mission. Example, if CAP was doing a patrol for the CG and the CG called and said that there was a sinking boat they wanted checked out, there would not be a problem rerouting the CAP flight to do that. Yes, the CAP pilot in the plane has ultimate actual control over what the CAP plane does, but that is no different than an AuxAir pilot -- if the CG wants a CAP or CGAux pilot to do a task that they don't feel can safely be done, they both could refuse to do it. You've got to recall that CAP is very different from the CGAux in that CAP does a very significant amount of its flying for other agencies. We're used to doing it and its no big deal. 4. (loss of rapid response). Already explained above. No real issue for distress situations. |
|||
|
|
Basic Training |
The only other agency that seems willing to help us is The Georgia DNR. I have never had any experience with CAP aircraft. |
|||
|
|
Member |
River -- you're not going to accept my logic and I'm not going to accept yours. I've given you the facts from the perspective of a member of the USCG aviation team. The Coast Guard does place a significant value in the use of assets and resources within its own organizational family. If you want me to place a dollar amount to that value, then you clearly do not understand the concept of the true cost of your proposed course of action.
There is no winner to this thread, if that is what you are looking for. I'm dedicated to the organization and program that I serve and you are a man with divided loyalties, who obviously is bent on pushing an agenda. I'm "plugged in" to an air station and you're not. Since you refuse to accept the information provided regarding the disadvantages of out-sourcing, then how about contacting the AUXLO at the nearest USCG Air Station to you and pitch your plan. See how he/she responds -- and if any procedural or operational changes occur. I can anticipate what the answer will be -- but push ahead until your heart is content. I'm sure you will make your Flotilla leadership and fellow Auxiliarists proud. You never did respond to the challenge of how you would design and run a program -- or if the basis of your strong opinion was because mission tasking was going unserved in your area. Quite the contrary. You simply seek to have the mission tasking removed from your fellow Auxiliarists and given to another organization. Only you know your true motivations, but I doubt that it is based upon your concern for costs. Regretfully, I'm at the point where the low level of respect I've developed for you through this diatribe makes me say that I'm glad that you are not part of my Flotilla, Division, or District (at least hopefully not the same District). And yes -- that is a personal opinion. |
|||
|
Highly Experienced Member |
 I'm glad that's settled. . .  ...gjd |
|||
|
|
Member |
Yes, insanity -- isn't it?
|
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
fly, I never was trying to change your mind about the AuxAir program, just responding to your demand here that I defend a statement that you copied from another board (CAPTalk) and inserted into this discussion.
My white-hot hate for AuxAir was obviously on the fritz as I had missed the easy chance to bring it up here myself in order to push my masterplan to dismantle AuxAir after FL started a topic that offered the perfect opportunity. |
|||
|
