[Civil Air Patrol] Re: UTM Funding
- From: <danhollins@xxxxxxx>
- To: cap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:21:27 -0600
Hi Tim,
Thanks for the feedback. Let's keep the discussion going. I'll throw out some
opposing thoughts in an effort to cover all bases.
The only problem I'm aware of is money. Not an uncommon problem - do doubt.
Here's the thing, the pilots will likely be scanner qualified, observer
qualified, and pilot qualified. More than likely they will be doing the
training for the benefit of the other guys - so they can get qualified. So I'm
not excited about telling them they'll have to pay more when they're already
doing a favor to the guys in the plane and to the squadron generally. This
won't always be the case as some of the guys will be mission pilot trainees,
but for the cases when they're qualified I think charging more is unfair.
I relate to your point about having limited funds - speaking for myself only,
the same is true. So what can we do to compensate for the guys as reflected in
my scenario? What division do we come up with for qualified pilots flying with
non qual crew. And to make it even more complex, what if a qual pilot flies
with a qual scanner, but nonqual observer? How fancy are we going to get, and
moreover, who will do the accounting? Again, not trying to squelch your point.
In fact, let me encourage you to keep up the discussion. I really would like
to see a system put in place that is equitable for everyone. Please put
something together and we'll keep modifying it until we have something that
will work. And, and, keep in mind that we'll have to find someone willing to
keep track of the accounting as well. I sure don't want to do it - are you
willing? Keep in mind that the billing will be sent from wing to the pilot
directly. One thing we must avoid is leaving the pilots stuck with a bill
without any funding from anyone involved (whether because they're confused
about what to pay or because they don't agree with the system of division).
Thanks again Tim. I'll look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Cheers,
Dan
---- Tim Griffith <tgriffith@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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:
