Civil Air Patrol

[Doug R]

Well I'm sitting here going through my accountants summary of my personal and business taxes. First of all I would like to meet the family of six that I have been supporting all these years. Then I would like to meet the family of four that the family of six is supporting based upon my support of the family of six etc etc bla bla bla...

This got me to thinking about all the government programs that our tax dollars support.
I'm not a memeber of the Civil Air Patrol and have no association with the group,but I'm curious:

Are we as tax payers getting our money worth when it comes to the Civil Air Patrol program and services it is providing or supposed to provide? Could that money be spent somewere else within the aviation system to provide a better return on tax dollars?

 

[infotango]

First of all I would like to meet the family of six that I have been supporting all these years. Then I would like to meet the family of four that the family of six is supporting based upon my support of the family of six etc etc bla bla bla...

You could meet them, but you wouldn't understand them because they speak arabic.

I think you appreciate CAP most when you get tired of eating the food in your survival kit.

Just being a smart @$$.

 

[Maverick]

The Civil Air Patrol is largely supported by it's own members. When I was a unit Commender I never received any form of funding from any branch of government to support our unit or activities. The only time we received governent money was in reimbursement for fuel used during Emergency Services or SAR missions.

There may be some level of tax dollars spent at higher levels but I don't believe it's a lot. Many members of the Civil Air Patrol put out a whole lot of money from there own pockets to fund various activities. I know I did.

I would have been much better off financialy had I focused my efforts on activities that could have made money for me rather than cost me money. I did enjoy the time I spent in the Civil Air Patrol though.

The Civil Air Patrol is a very good recruiting tool for the US Air Force as well. A great many of the really good cadets end up joining the Air Force. I have a former cadet flying F-15s somewhere in the world.

Jeannie

 

[alaskaflyer]

In many parts of the country they are the only resource available to fly searches for downed aircraft or other needy souls.

You would be hard pressed to find a more cost effective use of military resources stateside, IMHO.

If they ever went away they would, by necessity, be replaced by active duty or reserve military resources costing (by a factor of, oh, say, 3) much more what the CAP costs us as taxpayers.

 

[alaskaflyer]

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1974/sep-oct/thompson.html

There are several reasons for this, but the key factor is cost. The costs of maintaining an active duty search force are many and varied. They start with acquisition, operations, and maintenance costs for the large fleet of small aircraft that would be necessary for this type of work. Range and speed constraints would make it impractical to deploy these aircraft from central points in time of need. In any SAR mission, fast response is critical. Case histories indicate that the life expectancy of injured survivors decreases as much as 80 percent the first 24 hours following an accident. 7 This establishes the requirement for a large number of dispersed operating locations, preferably in remote areas, where aircraft crashes are not immediately seen. The costs of supporting such a network on a full-time basis are obvious and prohibitive. Replacing the thousands of CAP pilots with an equal number of active duty second lieutenants would cost millions of dollars a year in salaries alone. And such a permanent SAR force would be economically unsound. Because of the low SAR incident rate in many states each year, long periods of inactivity are certain. In 1973, for example, no missions occurred in three states.8

 

[alaskaflyer]

"Yet 1973 statistics also reflect the large total effort expended on the SAR task by CAP, whose aircrews flew 27,284 hours in 13,992 sorties. A total of 154 objectives were located during the 429 missions. The Air Force credited these efforts with directly saving 48 human lives.9

 

[alaskaflyer]

The reliance on CAP to accomplish this mission is one of the best bargains in Air Force history—a small investment that produces consistently large dividends. A search in January 1971 provided the opportunity to verify the advantages of the arrangement. The loss of an F-111D resulted in a gigantic joint search effort—2300 hours flown by CAP, 1200 hours by USAF. The cost of Air Force participation was $400 per flying hour. This figure includes personnel costs plus fuel and maintenance for an array of aircraft ranging from the O-2 to F-4, C-47 to HC-130.10 By contrast, cost to the Air Force for SAR participation by CAP averages about $10 per flying hour, covering only reimbursement for certain expenses accrued during the missions: fuel and lubricants for corporate and member-owned aircraft and vehicles, communications, etc. In the four-year period 1970-1973, CAP flew 105,400 hours in direct support of the SAR mission. At $400 per hour this would have cost the Air Force more than $42 million. Instead, reimbursement to CAP amounted to slightly over $1 million, a savings to the Air Force of about $41 million.

 

[alaskaflyer]

The above posts are quoted from that website.

By contrast, when the National Park Service launches an airborne SAR mission with our aviation resources, you can count on an avg. hourly cost of about $1500-$2000.

You would be better off eliminating the NPS.

Or not