[Civil Air Patrol] Re: UTM Funding
- From: "Tim Griffith" <tgriffith@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <cap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 10:17:59 -0600
I'm going to have to say that Daniel has a good point, merely because I
won't be sitting in the left seat anytime soon. If everyone were to get
equal left seat time, then I'm all for splitting equally amongst the
flight crews. The money used for UTM's will becoming from the same fund
I am/will be using towards my Private. So splitting the costs in 1/4's
or even 1/3's (PIC 2/3, Observer and Scanner spilt other 1/3) would
benefit those who won't sit left seat. I'm would like Omaha Composite to
be the top Mission Ready unit, but I also have to watch out for my
wallet.
Other than the complexity of "who owes what", what are the other flaws
with this method of funding?
Tim
>>> "Daniel O'Mara" <daniel_o_mara@xxxxxxxxxxx> 11/9/2006 8:50 PM >>>
On splitting flight costs -
I was thinking that maybe it would be best if the person who logs PIC,
is
counted as two persons.
Scanner - 1/4 of cost
Observer - 1/4 of cost
PIC - 2/4
or with two scanners 1/5, 1/5, 1/5 and 2/5s.
just a quick thought
Daniel O'Mara
>From: Dan <DanHollins@xxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: cap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: cap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [Civil Air Patrol] Re: UTM Funding
>Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 19:13:14 -0600
>
>Background:
>1 Splitting costs are potentially very complex. 2 All ideas are
welcome,
>but we'll need someone willing to do the accounting if we get fancy.
>3 The easiest concept is air crews split flight costs ($85/hour wet -
>divide by 3, or 4 with 2 scanners). Ground teams split ground costs
>(vehicle fuel).
> [2 scanners is tough due to weight and balance issues - would most
>likely be divided by 3]
>4 Let us know your thoughts pro and con.
>
>Scott Voichoskie wrote:
>>ALCON,
>>
>>Captain Hollins and I discussed, in minor detail, the conversation
>>regarding
>>paying for UTM's, specifically the flight time, out of our own
pockets.
>>We
>>thought that the most equitable way would be to split the entire cost
>>evenly
>>among all members involved. This would eliminate a lot of confusion
and
>>all
>>of us will be benefiting from the training to get qualified. Please
let
>>us
>>know your thoughts. Be advised, having a different solution will
>>self-charge yourself with the task of implementation of that
solution.
>>Please don't let that scare you if you indeed have a better
solution.
>>
>>Scott M. Voichoskie
>>City Administrator
>>City of Ashland
>>2304 Silver Street
>>Ashland, NE 68003-1500
>>
>>Voice: (402) 944-3387
>>FAX: (402) 944-3386
>>
>>http://www.ashland-ne.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get today's hot entertainment gossip
http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001
Other related posts:
