Mission Observer: Whats in a name

[flyguy06]

This may have been brought up or discussed before. i am not sure.

Today I participated in a SAREX for the first time as a MP trainee. It was great. The Instructor said something that made sense to me that I had never thought of before and I wanted to get your thoughts.

The position of Mission Observer he believs is a misnomer. The phrase "observer" implies that al the individual is there for is to ride and "observe" when in reality the MO probably has thehardest job of all. He is "supposed" to be the one planning themission, telling the pilot when to enter and exit the grid. How to get to the grid. call mission base with times and keep them abreast of the situation. A more appropriate title for this individual should be mission coordinator. I know thats what we used to call the head guy years ago before the term IC came about.  But in all honesty thats what the MO is. He coordinates and basically in e mission commander of that that flight. But I know if we called him mission commander that could get confusing witht he pilot who is the pilot in command. it could get confusing.

Usually what happens in the MP usually takes up the slack and does all of the above named duties. Bit again, on paper his job is to merely to fly the airplane. The MO tells him where to go how to fly and when to leave, The pilot makes sure things are done safely.

So, how can we suggest to the hireup a name change to the current title mission observer. This in fact does not reflect his true duties.

[Eclipse]

Mission Commander would be a much more appropriate term.

The mo keeps the logs, plans the search route(s), and works the df gear.  The MP isn't even supposed to be involved in the search, per se.  The scanner is supposed to be the left-seat eyes.

The argument I hear constantly from pilots is that ">I'm< in command of >my< aircraft", however other than the tasks and duties that are specific to driving the airplane, the MO is >supposed< to be in charge of everything else.

How we got to observer from the above has always been a mystery to me, but I've never heard anyone assert the guy in the right seat is just there to watch things.

[Short Field]

Non-pilot aerial observers have a long history in military aviaiton.   As lifted from another web site:  Reconnaissance airplanes held two people--the pilot and the aerial observer. The observer would often sketch the scene of the ground below. Soon, some English observers thought it would be easier and more accurate to use their cameras to photograph the enemy lines.

IMHO the Mission Observer title comes from the aerial observer position title. 

As to being the Mission Commander - that would really be based on the experience of the MO.  I absolutely agree that most of the MOs are not fully utilized and place the blame on the MPs who believe they command the mission just because they are pilots.  I had one old MP tell me that the job of the MO was to look out the right side of the airplane and the job of the MS was to look out the left side of the airplane, and they were to keep their mouths shut unless they saw something.

We have finally gotten discussion going on this subject in our area.  However, the next challenge is to get the MOs qualified to the level where they can command a mission.  Some of our MOs don't even talk on the radio...

[Frenchie]

The argument I hear constantly from pilots is that ">I'm< in command of >my< aircraft", however other than the tasks and duties that are specific to driving the airplane, the MO is >supposed< to be in charge of everything else.

Any pilot who says that is correct.  The "C" in PIC stands for Command.  As PIC he/she is responsible for the safety of the flight and certainly should take ownership of that responsibility.  As far as the mission goes, the MO should take ownership of that responsibility.

[thefischNX01]

The argument I hear constantly from pilots is that ">I'm< in command of >my< aircraft", however other than the tasks and duties that are specific to driving the airplane, the MO is >supposed< to be in charge of everything else.

Any pilot who says that is correct.  The "C" in PIC stands for Command.  As PIC he/she is responsible for the safety of the flight and certainly should take ownership of that responsibility.  As far as the mission goes, the MO should take ownership of that responsibility.

Naturally, this is where Crew Resource Management comes in, as the two have the potential to butt heads. 

[FW]

Naturally, this is where Crew Resource Management comes in, as the two have the potential to butt heads. 

Why am I not surprised by this thread?  The MP, MO and, Scanner are all part of the aircrew.  All have a job to do while flying the sortie.  Yes, the MP is "PIC" however, there is a big difference between commanding the aircraft and commanding the aircrew and sortie.  

The sortie is given to the aircrew by the IC (the mission commander).  Part of the preflight is to figure logistics of the sortie with help of the aircrew and mission staff.  After preflight brief, the sortie is flown.  MP flies, MO makes sure pilot is going in right direction and looks to right and, scanner looks to left.  MO also mans VHF and keeps notes with scanners assistance.  CRM is essential for the sortie's success.  

What is the issue with "butting heads".  All "discussion" is for the ground before engine is on.  If there is conflict,  sortie should be reassigned.  Does the term "Mission Observer" really matter in the scheme of things?

Oh, BTW: Happy Father's Day.

[RiverAux]

I agree that "Mission Observer" isn't really very descriptive of the actual duties that they perform.  But, I'm not sure there is a better alternative.

Any sort of variation of "commander" (Mission Commander, Sortie Commander, Flight Commander) just doesn't square with CAP ES doctrine and Mission Commander in particular just has the potential to cause too much confusion.

There isn't anything that I'm aware of that says that the Observer is actually in charge of the sortie.  Sure, they often do give direction to the pilot on where to fly, etc..  But, for that matter, it is pretty common for the Scanner to be giving directions to the pilot as well.  In fact, the evidence is that that it is the Mission Pilot that is in charge as they're the ones that actually sign off on the 104, not the Observer. 

[RiverAux]

Other existing titles similar to our Observer:
Civil Air Search and Rescue (Canadian version of CAP): Navigator (Spotter is their Scanner)

CG Aux: Their non-pilots start out as Observers and they don't really have an equivalent for Scanner.  Their Observers do comm, nav, etc.  If they get some extra training and pass a physical then they become "Aircrew".  Seems a little backwards to me, but thats what they've got. 

Incidentally, if we're going to change names, I like the CASARA "Spotter" instead of "Scanner".  Scanner just doesn't make sense right off the bat like "Spotter" does.  It just sounds more technical.

[flyguy06]

Whats wrong withthe title Mission Coordinator. In all honesty, its the MO that plans the mission. Heck, the MP and MS really dont even need to go to the briefings. The MOP gets the briefingm makes the plan and HE briefs the MP and the MS.

As a pilot myself I understand the dilema of the term "command" In the CAP world, the MO is truly the main guy, but in the "real" world of the FAA if somethinghappens in flight they will be after the pilot only. The FAA doesnt give a bean about anyone else onboard. So for that fact the MP has to retain command of the flight, but not neccessarily command of the mission.  But just to avoid confusion I dont think the term mission commander for the MO is appropriate.

And you are correct that a lot of MO arent trained to the level they should be. i think that goeas back tothe fct that MP believe they are in ful charge and dont take the time to train MO's properly. Pilots bneed to let go and train their MO's. From whaty I have seen, MP's are pilots and MO's are either their wives that they want to ride along or others that want to tirde but arent fully trained.

I dont feel fully trained, thats why eventhough I did this exercise, I am planning on attending the NESA MP school this summer so I can get engulfed inthis stuff.

Man, I wish There was a paying job I could do like this. This MP  stuff is da bomb

[thefischNX01]

Naturally, this is where Crew Resource Management comes in, as the two have the potential to butt heads. 

Why am I not surprised by this thread?  The MP, MO and, Scanner are all part of the aircrew.  All have a job to do while flying the sortie.  Yes, the MP is "PIC" however, there is a big difference between commanding the aircraft and commanding the aircrew and sortie. 

The sortie is given to the aircrew by the IC (the mission commander).  Part of the preflight is to figure logistics of the sortie with help of the aircrew and mission staff.  After preflight brief, the sortie is flown.  MP flies, MO makes sure pilot is going in right direction and looks to right and, scanner looks to left.  MO also mans VHF and keeps notes with scanners assistance.  CRM is essential for the sortie's success. 

What is the issue with "butting heads".  All "discussion" is for the ground before engine is on.  If there is conflict,  sortie should be reassigned.  Does the term "Mission Observer" really matter in the scheme of things?

Oh, BTW: Happy Father's Day.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply they would.  Good, professional, aircrew wouldn't have a problem.  And I've never had one with pilots when flying as Observer

[mikeylikey]

How about we just use the terms...."Pilot, Scanner, and Aerial Observer".  

I like "Aerial Observer".  

Or we can use "Aerial Coordinator".  Or how about "Third member in plane"  

Seriously, I can see where terminology can factor into confusion with groups outside of CAP, but internally, we all know what the MO, Scanner and PIC do.  However, I am all for updating titles if it means we fall more closely in line with the military units and State agencies we support and work with.  If that is the reason for clarification, I am all for that.

Anyone really know where the CAP titles came from or when?  As a history buff, I am sort of interested.  (Like anyone have some old CAP Regs that had different titles in use??)

[RiverAux]

In all honesty, its the MO that plans the mission. Heck, the MP and MS really dont even need to go to the briefings. The MOP gets the briefingm makes the plan and HE briefs the MP and the MS.

Sure isn't the way I've ever seen it done.

[RiverAux]

You know, CAP has confused the issue quite a bit themselves.  Take a look at the aircrew task guide https://ntc.cap.af.mil/ops/es/TrainingMaterials/ACFLTG-11Apr05.pdf tasks P-2001 and P-2007. 
P-2001 Mission Pilot Responsibilities has:

Obtain complete briefings and plan the sortie. A good mission pilot always includes the observer during these activities. [Remember, you may be the aircraft commander but you are not always the mission commander; an experienced observer should serve as mission commander whenever possible.]

P-2007 Mission Observer Responsibilities has:

b. Assist in planning the mission. The observer may act as mission commander for the sortie.

However, every other statement in both tasks makes it clear that the Observer is there to assist the pilot.  They never define this "mission commander" role for the Observer.  Just what does that mean in a situation where the Observer isn't even required to be at briefings (the pilot is encouraged to try to bring other aircrew members with them, but they don't have to). 

[flyguy06]

Everybody does things differently. I am not saying it HAS to be that way, but thats getting off the point I am making.

[flyguy06]

Ok, didnt mean to go off on a tangent about ther briefing thein. This is a thread about renaming the MO.

but I sdaid in the case of the exercise that I participated in , the MO got the brief and briefed us. i amnot saying it has to be done that way, I am just sying what I saw. I am a cadet programs guy, the whole ES thing is new to me anyway.

Irregardless, back to the topic.........I think (and this is JUST my opinion) that the MO plans the mission. he determines the route, the search pattern, the altitude and he reports to mmission base. The pilot flies the aircraft safely.

Let me use an analogy. I used to be an Infatry LT. I rode in a Bradley. I was the bradley commander (or BC) I had a driver ( A SPC or SGT) his job was simply to drive the vehcle. My job was to plan and execute the mission. I couldnt plan and drive atthe sametime which is why they gave me a driver. Same is true for SAR missions. Its overtasking for a piot to fly the plane and plan the mission. (although many do that anyway)

[arajca]

The thread may about renaming the MO position, but it is nearly impossible to come up with an appropriate name without discussing the functions and responsibilities or the job. That includes briefings.

You analogy is a good one, however, most pilots will never accept that their job is simply to drive the plane. The very concept of the pilot not commanding the sortie directly states implies they are not all-knowing and all-powerful.

Unfortunately, too many pilots are in too many high places to make a meaningful change.

[SJFedor]

Whats wrong withthe title Mission Coordinator. In all honesty, its the MO that plans the mission. Heck, the MP and MS really dont even need to go to the briefings. The MOP gets the briefingm makes the plan and HE briefs the MP and the MS.

As a pilot myself I understand the dilema of the term "command" In the CAP world, the MO is truly the main guy, but in the "real" world of the FAA if somethinghappens in flight they will be after the pilot only. The FAA doesnt give a bean about anyone else onboard. So for that fact the MP has to retain command of the flight, but not neccessarily command of the mission.  But just to avoid confusion I dont think the term mission commander for the MO is appropriate.

And you are correct that a lot of MO arent trained to the level they should be. i think that goeas back tothe fct that MP believe they are in ful charge and dont take the time to train MO's properly. Pilots bneed to let go and train their MO's. From whaty I have seen, MP's are pilots and MO's are either their wives that they want to ride along or others that want to tirde but arent fully trained.

I dont feel fully trained, thats why eventhough I did this exercise, I am planning on attending the NESA MP school this summer so I can get engulfed inthis stuff.

Man, I wish There was a paying job I could do like this. This MP  stuff is da bomb

When you get to NESA, you're gonna see that it's all about the MO as far as the "sortie commander" goes. You and your MO will jointly do mission planning, etc, but your MO will be doing the briefings and all, you just get to sit there and answer any flight related questions (ingress/egress altitudes, etc).

But, as an MP, you're also required to know, and be able to perform, every job the MO would have to handle. This is because you, as an MP, will be charged with the training and instruction of other aircrew members. So, to teach, you must know.

Look forward to working with you at NESA!

[Short Field]

Whats wrong withthe title Mission Coordinator. In all honesty, its the MO that plans the mission. Heck, the MP and MS really don't even need to go to the briefings. The MOP gets the briefingm makes the plan and HE briefs the MP and the MS.

Never seen that happen.  An except for the MOs who are also pilots, I know of no MOs capable of doing that under our existing training program.

[Short Field]

Whats wrong withthe title Mission Coordinator.

Because they are not "coordinating" the mission.  They are helping plan and execute the mission that was tasked to them by mission base.   And what happens when you get two Mission Coordinators on board the aircraft?? 

Silly question but that is way we don't have a "Pilot In Command" achievement and CAP Wings.  PIC and MC (commander or coordinator) are specific to one crew and one mission.   And "observer" is a time-honored position on military aircraft. 

[Short Field]

But, as an MP, you're also required to know, and be able to perform, every job the MO would have to handle.

Review the SQTR advanced training tasks for MP and MO:  The MO must "assist in planning and performing" while the MP must "demonstrate planning and performing".

I personally want the non-pilot MO trained where they can operate all the equipment and perform all the functions needed for a mission.  That includes being able to plan a course for when we get diverted to a second area on a mission.  PLEASE - take as much workload off of me as the MP so I can concentrate on the granite clouds we tend to fly around here in the West.

Ok, I'll confess - I am only a MP(T) now but Fedor will take care of that next month or die trying.