My Photo

About This Site

  • CAPblog is an unofficial journal of the Civil Air Patrol, the United States Air Force Auxiliary.

    The opinions published here are those of the individual authors and visitors to this site. They are not the views of the Civil Air Patrol, or the United States Air Force.

    About "DATA"

Search CAPblog

Blogs I Read


« Talking About Testinggate | Main | Little Six will be Sierra Hotel this Halloween »

October 11, 2007



This is great news!!

Does anyone have any insight into how many CAP expects to purchase per year going forward?

I also would be interested in hearing from the units that already have one of these platforms. How are your pilots making out getting up to speed in the 182 / G1000. Is it helping to attract new pilots or are we losing pilots because of the training requirements and costs??


My squadron is not excited about this and I think it will be a detriment to CAP. Right now, almost everyone has some time in the 172. This makes it easy for pilots to get involved. The low expense encourages pilots to stay proficient. The cost to upgrade to the new 182 and the almost double price per flight hour will reduce our proficiency. As of a year ago (the last time I checked) ALL of the fatals in CAP aircraft were in 182s. I also have been told that the Wing CCs are not excited about these new planes, again because of the costs. One of CAPs chief selling points to other agencies is our low cost.
On a personal note, why should someone put up with all the CAP paperwork and excessive regulations (otherwise known as the Volunteer Harassment Program) when they can go to the FBO across the airport and for about the same cost, take their family/friends flying?


Though the Garmin G1000 is a fantastic piece of equipment, I disagree with your statement, "the NAV III 182 is the most capable CAP airframe ever to come into service".

Like many adults, the C-182 has suffered from weight gain as it has aged, to the point where the turbocharged variant of the Nav III C-182 as equipped for CAP has a full-fuel payload of less than 500 lbs. That's only two average-sized senior members with survival gear. Even with fuel reduced to the bottom of the filler neck, payload capacity is still less than 600 lbs.

In seriously mountainous states where turbocharged aircraft are a necessity, not a luxury, CAP's Nav III C-182s are woefully inadequate for our mission.


All of our fatals have been in 182s? I very much doubt that this is true over our entire history. Check the NTSB database and you will find that we lost a 172S in NC in 2004 during a CD flight.


Heck, its not even worthy of doubt. I proved its wrong.


My bad-- it was 2002 when the accident happened. The report came out in 2004.

I would have condensed these into 1 post but don't see how to edit.


Regardless of the one 172 that was lost a few years ago, the data is too small to make any assumptions.

If you lose three planes out of 550 and they all happen to be 182's, it's not enough data to create the conclusion that it is the fault of the 182.

Other factors come into play as well. The 182's are mostly assigned to the units that have higher risk areas of operation (mountains). That in itself could be the cause of more accidents.


Up here in Alaska, we cannot use the "glass cockpits" as they have a tendency to go blank at temperatures of -30F or so. Also, there aren't any avionics shops that currently service those devices.


Great-- tell me why I'm learning to fly in a 30 year old CAP plane... A former Floatplane, Glider Plane, and god-knows-what...


"the most capable CAP airframe ever to come into service."

With all due respect, I think it is a stupid choice of airplane for CAP.

Start with carrying capacity: With fuel at minimum tabs (64 gallons) and three crew members you are near the 3100# gross weight limit and well over an hour of flight away from the landing limit of 2950#. I carry a calibrated dip stick so I can safely run with the tanks below tabs and, consequently, get some utility out of the airplane.

Then there's currency. If I am out of that airplane for more than about three weeks, I am back in Easter-egg-hunt mode -- trying to figure out where to find information on the panels. This is not a system for occasional users.

And the KAP-140 autopilot? Don't get me started on that scabbed-on human factors train wreck.

Then there is the dual audio panel setup ....

Background: I have a bit over 600 hours in a total of 19 types of aircraft, Commercial and IA ratings. Radios from none (De Havilland Tiger Moth!) through 25 hours in the G1000. As an MP, if I were offered the choice of a 172/180 or the 182 Nav III, I wouldn't even hesitate before taking the safer, more capable, and less glamorous airplane.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter


    CAP News Online

    Air Force Link

    Tip Jar

    Come And Pay?

    Tip Jar