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.

[RiverAux]

I know of no MOs capable of doing that under our existing training program.

There isn't very little CAP-specific knowledge that is different between a Mission Pilot and Observer and a properly trained Observer should be able to do all mission planning, though the "pilot stuff" (fuel, flight time, etc.) should be left to the pilot.  However, the fact is that most of the time, the Pilot is much more experienced than the Observer and takes the lead on the SAR planning aspects.  Why is the pilot more experienced in this -- well, they tend to fly a lot more sorties than Observers.  

But, if you put a relatively new Observer together with a relatively new Mission Pilot together to plan the same sortie, I'd say the Observer would probably have as much of a chance of knowing what they're doing as the pilot.  

[Eclipse]

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.

Then unfortunately either the MO's you've met were pencil-whipped into their quals, or really whipped by the pilots who they have flown with, in either case its not as it should be.

NESA pretty much teaches to the curriculum, and the above description is how its supposed to be.

And in my personal experience, MO's who are also pilots many times cause a lot of issues by flying from the right-seat instead of doing the MO job.

[Short Field]

Then unfortunately either the MO's you've met were pencil-whipped into their quals, or really whipped by the pilots who they have flown with, in either case its not as it should be.

No argument from me on that.  We are starting to change it - but it is not an overnight process.  That is one reason I am going to NESA this summer so I can get "ground truth" on the level we are suppose to train to as well as have some credibility when arguing with 30+ year CAPers.  Trying hard to avoid the "Young Turks" syndrome. 

[flyguy06]

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.

Then unfortunately either the MO's you've met were pencil-whipped into their quals, or really whipped by the pilots who they have flown with, in either case its not as it should be.

NESA pretty much teaches to the curriculum, and the above description is how its supposed to be.

And in my personal experience, MO's who are also pilots many times cause a lot of issues by flying from the right-seat instead of doing the MO job.

Thats because the pilot allows them to do that and thats that crews issue. Not supposed to be that way and the MP shoudnt let that happen. I was a pilot when I went through MO training but I dont  want to fly if its not part of my job.

[Mustang]

The most appropriate title for the observer is MP's Assistant ("Sortie Secretary" is just too cruel!).  Most of the sortie planning SQTR tasks call for the observer to assist the MP.   This "mission commander" nonsense is simply a movement started by a bunch of MOs with fragile egos. 

As an MP, I will not delegate ANYTHING to a non-pilot MO that may affect the safe outcome of the flight.  That includes the navigation, fuel planning, aircraft preflight inspection, and aircraft radio communications. Why? Because as far as the FAA is concerned, I am the sole party responsible for that aircraft; the MO is nothing more than a passenger in their eyes, and as long as my certificate is on the line, that's the way it will stay. Any task that could earn me a violation from the FAA if not done correctly remains on my plate, period.  I've had observers/scanners who felt they needed to conduct their own preflight of the aircraft after I did mine, which just forced me to re-check the things they touched (fuel caps, oil dipstick, etc) to ensure all was correct. 

Now, if I've got an MO who is (or was) a pilot, or an MO who has demonstrated to me they are competent at a task (like programming and running the GPS), and whom I've developed a degree of trust in, I'll let them go ahead and do it, but I'll still supervise their actions.

Moreover, I can think of many circumstances in which the MO is not qualified to make sortie planning decisions.  In my area, they don't attend mountain flying training and thus don't acquire the knowledge necessary to plan appropriate and safe searches of mountainous terrain.  I can't think of an MO I've ever met that could tell me how far over water is too far to glide back to land if the engine quit, or one who could tell me if our fuel burn would be less or greater at 11,000 ft than at 3,000 ft.  And if they can't do these basic things, how can they plan a sortie that's both safe and effective?  Bottom line, most can't. Those who can are few and far between.

MO training used to be a 6-sortie affair that required completion of two ECI courses.  Today, it's a couple mind-numbing hours of PowerPoint slides and four training flights (two as a scanner trainee).  I don't think that's sufficient.  (And don't get me started on the inadequacy of Mission Pilot training these days!)

[JohnKachenmeister]

I feel your pain, Mustang.

In my opinion, and in my fantasy world when I become National Commander, MO's would have resident, classroom training FROM A PILOT, PREFERABLY A FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR, on the following topics:

1.  Aerial navigation

2.  Use of the GPS.

3.  Use of the radio, both CAP and FAA

4.  Patterns and special use airspace

From a qualified MO, they would get:

1.  Types of searches, how to navigate grids, expanding squares, etc.

2.  CAP paperwork

From an Instructor Pilot, they would get:

1.  The pinch-hitter course.

2.  Flight instruction (2-3 hours) at the controls in the right seat (In case the pilot drops over dead).

Of course, if the MO trainee is also a pilot, some of that can be waivered.

[mikeylikey]

I think Mustang wants to keep the "pilots club" going strong in CAP. 

I am a pilot, but never once flew for CAP, and I absolutely know everything you referenced.  Perhaps I will take Major K's suggestion, and see if I can start a course to train up MO's, so that the pilot "only drives" the plane in the future. 

I guess we should just get rid of MO's alltogether!  Since in Mustangs eyes, they are redundant and not needed, lets scrub that specialty. 

[cnitas]

As an MP, I will not delegate ANYTHING to a non-pilot MO that may affect the safe outcome of the flight.  That includes the navigation, fuel planning, aircraft preflight inspection, and aircraft radio communications. Why? Because as far as the FAA is concerned, I am the sole party responsible for that aircraft; the MO is nothing more than a passenger in their eyes, and as long as my certificate is on the line, that's the way it will stay.

I just had a conversation about this with a new MP at my squadron.  I wish more MPs would think this way.  There are specific duties that the MO is supposed to be performing.  Keeping a mission log, using the CAP radio, and <gasp> actually looking for the target; visually or electronically. 

I get nervous when pilots make me navigate for them or 'help' with fuel planning, etc.  Not because I can't do those things, but because it is an indication that the PIC can't. 

As a result of playing co-pilot, the mission suffers because I cannot focus on my duties as MO.  But then again, I suppose I take MO more seriously as a non-pilot than pilot rated MOs do.

[flynd94]

Haven't be beaten this topic to death enough!!!  If you want them to be a Mission Commander, then we need to have a more formal, longer and, meaningful training program.

Maybe its time to voter for Kach for "el presidente"   

The problem is training and, continuing education.  Most MO's (and even those from NESA) forget what they learn because they don't practice those skills on a regular basis. 

PS-Mustang I totally agree with you....

[flyguy06]

As an MP, I will not delegate ANYTHING to a non-pilot MO that may affect the safe outcome of the flight.  That includes the navigation, fuel planning, aircraft preflight inspection, and aircraft radio communications. Why? Because as far as the FAA is concerned, I am the sole party responsible for that aircraft; the MO is nothing more than a passenger in their eyes, and as long as my certificate is on the line, that's the way it will stay.

I just had a conversation about this with a new MP at my squadron.  I wish more MPs would think this way.  There are specific duties that the MO is supposed to be performing.  Keeping a mission log, using the CAP radio, and <gasp> actually looking for the target; visually or electronically. 

I get nervous when pilots make me navigate for them or 'help' with fuel planning, etc.  Not because I can't do those things, but because it is an indication that the PIC can't. 

As a result of playing co-pilot, the mission suffers because I cannot focus on my duties as MO.  But then again, I suppose I take MO more seriously as a non-pilot than pilot rated MOs do.

Actually, the scanner is supposed to be keepingthe log and loking for the target.

I am also a pilot. and  a CFI and CFII as well. I think the MO is a vital part of the SAR crew. As a pilot, I dont have time to plan the mission, navigate, and fly the airplane. This is NIOT a cross country trip we aer taalking about. We are talking about entering a grid. flying a grid timing it calling CAP and monitoring ATC. yeah, that MO is vital to me as a pilot.

[aveighter]

 This "mission commander" nonsense is simply a movement started by a bunch of MOs with fragile egos. 

Well said!

I think Mustang wants to keep the "pilots club" going strong in CAP. 

I am a pilot, but never once flew for CAP, and I absolutely know everything you referenced.  Perhaps I will take Major K's suggestion, and see if I can start a course to train up MO's, so that the pilot "only drives" the plane in the future. 

I guess we should just get rid of MO's alltogether!  Since in Mustangs eyes, they are redundant and not needed, lets scrub that specialty. 

Perfect example!

[Eclipse]

More things I love about MO's who fly as the "co-pilot":

No radio check-ins or mission comms because the MO switched the panel over to ATC "...to monitor in case the pilot misses something..."

Becker DF reprogrammed for VOR's, commercial radio stations, or anything else >but< 121.x, resulting in scrubbed missions because of "inop DF gear".

To paraphrase Lt. Jonathan Kendrick:  "I like all you pilots. Every time we've gotta go someplace and find something, you fellas always give us a ride. ..." :angel:

[RiverAux]

Haven't be beaten this topic to death enough!!! 

Beat to death??  It hasn't even been 2 pages yet.

It is all about CAP experience.  The pilot better know all the "airplane stuff", but that doesn't mean they know beans about planning a CAP mission -- that only comes through CAP mission flight time.  For better or worse, CAP devotes most of its resources to training Mission Pilots with the other aircrew only being an afterthought, which results in many qualified Mission Observers being barely able to stay competent while Mission Pilots get plenty of opportunities to practice.   Its not because Mission Pilots are inherently better. 

I agree that "Mission Commander" would be a misnomer unless CAP drastically changed its whole mission aircrew doctrine and philosophy.  In the meantime "Observer" is probably as good as any other option for the that position. 

[LittleIronPilot]

Well I am a pilot, own my own aircraft, and am MS/MO qualified.

I agree with what has said about PIC, however that is only in regards to the parameters of FLIGHT. I love pilots, but sometimes by flying brethren need to learn to check the ego at the door and realize that while safety of flight IS their domain, the MISSION may not be.

I have met some humble amazing pilots, and some arrogant SOB's. The latter I chose not to fly with.....

[mikeylikey]

I have met some humble amazing pilots, and some arrogant SOB's. The latter I chose not to fly with.....

Exactly!

[jayleswo]

It is all about CAP experience.  

I agree with that part of RiverAux's statement. I've been a CAP Mission Observer for 24 years, am a Master Observer and, more recently, a qualified Mission Pilot. At the beginning of my CAP aircrew career, I was the least experienced aircrew member and deferred to the judgement and decisions of the Mission Pilot on just about everything. As I gained experience and flew on occasion with Mission Pilots with less experience flying CAP SAR or other missions, they would tend to defer to my judgement and experience insofar as the mission was concerned. I think that's the way it should be and everyone should figure this out on the ground as they plan the sortie and  before they go fly.

Bottom line is that whoever is the more experienced aircrew member should take responsibility for how the sortie is planned and flown with the major caveat that it is a TEAM effort and that as far as the aircraft and safety of flight goes the PIC has the final say and legal responsibility for that.

John Aylesworth, Lt Col, CAP
Commander, PCR-CA-151

[capchiro]

If a mission observer wants to increase their effectiveness, professionalism, they can complete a 40 or 36 hour ground school and take the ground school test and then they will have a basic understanding of the requirements of being a pilot and they will be able to "assist" more effectively on a mission.  They will learn basic navigation, weather, instrumentation, and aircraft safety.  I believe the term of observer came from military heritage.  When my father became a bombardier in WWII he was originally an observer and had observer wings.  I think that at that time you either had officers that were pilots or observers and it wasn't until alter that they made observers navigators, bombardiers, etc.  So, I am proud to be an "Observer" and wear my wings proudly.  Unfortunately, in CAP we go to missions that throw aircrew's together that don't know each other or each others capabilities.  I know we all have a certain base capability, but if you fly with someone for 2-50 hours over a period of time, you become comfortable and know what to expect from each other.  I have had pilots that allowed observers to take the stick on the way to or from a mission to make it more fun for them.  A lot of observers are either in pilot training or want to be in pilot training.  I have found almost all of the pilots I have flown with to be understanding and intuitive as to what the assigned observer can capably do.  I think they get a clue as to how good the observer is during the briefing and if the observer is taking notes at the appropriate time and asking appropriate questions.  I would think twice about a pilot that allowed an observer to attend the briefing alone and counted on him for the planning of the flight.  After all, if something goes wrong, it is the pilot that will get blamed..     

[Short Field]

Lets not confuse planning a flight profile and flying it with planning a search and executing it.  If the PIC has been concentrating on flying the search pattern low and slow, he probably hasn't had too much time to keep track of how well the area has been searched and what may need another pass or two.   

CRM isn't just about a sterile cockpit - it is about balancing the workload among the entire crew to improve safety.

Mission Observer works well as a qualification/achievement.   

[Eclipse]

Bottom line is that whoever is the more experienced aircrew member should take responsibility for how the sortie is planned and flown with the major caveat that it is a TEAM effort and that as far as the aircraft and safety of flight goes the PIC has the final say and legal responsibility for that.

Sorry, I have to disagree.  Experienced personnel should have an opinion and input, but they don't get extra mojo points for more sorties.  If they did, a lot of scanners would be running the show from the back seat.

We are trained as specialists with specific duties.  Assuming everyone is at least mission qualified, we'd all be better off if we did >our< jobs and left everyone else's to everyone else.

This is not to say we should not work as a team, collaborate, and use the skills we have to accomplish the mission, but we all know members who don't "get" ICS, mission assignment, or "my job".

Much of this problem stems from our lack of enough personnel to allow members to do only their job, so hats are traded all day long as mission needs change, making people forget how the game is supposed to be played.

The pilot has the ultimate legal and mission responsibility for all driving duties, and to insure that the aircrew is able to accomplish the mission.  Flying the airplane is the vehicle not the mission, and too many of our PICs forget that.  In fact too many of our base staff in planning and ops forget that, too.

[flyguy06]

I tend to agree with Eclipse on this one. This whole discussion would be null and void if National came out with more specific job descriptions and if training was held to a standard.

[wingnut55]

Oh Boy you said the NHQ thing again

as I am reaching my Master Observer Wing eligibility (and in less than 5 years) I can report that there are some pilots that scare the dickens out of me, and  yet if I can operate the Aircraft radio, CAP radio, DF, and a secret is if you know how to program the GPS , you are now a crew. many quote FAA regs, and lots of Bla, Bla, Bla. CAP has a solid 50 years of flying search missions. The manuals and regs have been there for just as long. I think people just need to read the regs, and other documents. But most of all train, train hard, train realistically, no free ride,

trainers need to have more simulated wreck configurations, DF training, regardless of how many hours I have next year I am going to the National Search and Rescue School.

Oh one little monkey wrench, Archer operators do run the Mission, they direct the pilot, correct airspeed, heading, banking turns, Grid coverage, re-fly missed areas. this will come as an addendum in the regs. And if a pilot can't fly a line, or maintain airspeed and course (for 3 to 6 hours) then the pilot will not be certified to fly an Archer mission. As CAP begins to incorporate new Technology so will the duties and responsibilities of the Aircrew change. I can tell you this, it is tough flying an Archer mission and these guys are good, and the seats are oh soooo very thin.

[DG]

The National Mission Aircrew School (2 weeks this summer 2008 in Indiana) teaches the Mission Observer should be Mission Observer / Mission Commander.

The National school further teaches the Mission Pilot should be limited to that of the bus driver.

[jayleswo]

I tend to agree with Eclipse on this one. This whole discussion would be null and void if National came out with more specific job descriptions and if training was held to a standard.

They have. Read the Mission Aircrew Reference Text and the Aircrew and Flight Line Personnel Task Guide. Refer to P-2001, P-2005 and P-2007.

MART: https://ntc.cap.af.mil/es/reference_texts/MART.pdf (link broken)
AFLPTG: https://ntc.cap.af.mil/ops/es/TrainingMaterials/ACFLTG-11Apr05.pdf
Flight Guide: http://level2.cap.gov/documents/u_030304152753.pdf

-- John

[Eclipse]

The >tasking< is standard, but the training is not, nor is the subtext that goes with it.

[capchiro]

And of course, Hawk Mountain teaches that some cadets are more equal than other cadets.  Why is it that someone always wants their job/moniker to be the top one and will argue to the death that is what it's supposed to be.  You can call an observer mission commander, but, it doesn't matter what you call him, the aircraft goes where the PIC says.. and the observer better be going the same direction because it's hard to get out and walk at 1000' AGL..   

[Eclipse]

And of course, Hawk Mountain teaches that some cadets are more equal than other cadets.  Why is it that someone always wants their job/moniker to be the top one and will argue to the death that is what it's supposed to be.  You can call an observer mission commander, but, it doesn't matter what you call him, the aircraft goes where the PIC says.. and the observer better be going the same direction because it's hard to get out and walk at 1000' AGL..   

The aircraft is supposed to go where the mission observer has planned for it to go, based on where the AOBD told him to put it, based on where OPS and Planning decided it needed to be.

If there is a disagreement at 1000' AGL, the airplane comes back.

If everyone is doing their job, all of this should decided and agreed upon before wheels up, and there should be little need for testosterone in the aircraft. 

That airframe will need to land eventually, and if the PIC decides to play the "I know better / zippered sun god card" too often it might be a while before he's flying it again.

[jayleswo]

The >tasking< is standard, but the training is not, nor is the subtext that goes with it.

The discussion had turned to what the job of the Mission Observer was. Since I ahve been one for a long time, and very familiar with the training material involved, I thought I would point out that there is a published job description for Mission Observer and Mission Pilot that is fairly complete, even if it doesn't answer every question. The task descriptions are pretty clear that the Observer assists the Mission Pilot.

Anyway, you seem to have a strong opinion on this topic. What is your background?

-- John

[Eclipse]

Anyway, you seem to have a strong opinion on this topic. What is your background?-- John

I've been a qual'ed Mission Scanner, recognized for photo work, for about 5-6 years (in CAP for  about 9).  I've created and  regularly updated and presented a training curriculum for Photo Recon Officers.

I have the majority of the MO work done, and have spent a fair amount of time in the right seat (people keep asking me why I'm not wearing wings, and assigning me as an MO, assuming I am one), but want to go to NESA to complete the rating.

In addition I am a qual'ed GTL, GBD,  & MRO, and am currently assigned as a Group CC.

I have the regular privilege of planning larger missions and interacting with some of the best aircrews in the country, including some of the best, nationally recognized pilots not only in CAP but in aviation as a whole - gents who could fly a bicycle with a garage door stapled to it with enough runway, but who don't always know how CAP is supposed to work.

So I get into these conversations all the time on either a command or operational level.

[flynd94]

John,

I had this point was beaten to death on another thread awhile back.  He (Eclipse) recieved his training from NESA ( I believe).  They have a big push there that the MO runs the mission in the airplane and, that the MP is just a bus driver.

He seems to believe that all the MP's do is fly the plane.  Last time I flew a mission I remember doing the most of the work on the ground.  Once in the air, the MO assisted me in flying the search pattern.  It also seems, that he thinks that the MO training is as tough as MP.  I totally disagree with him on that point.

There is more to planning a sortie then determining the search pattern, turn points etc.  Most MO's don't have the knowledge (or that don't practice the skills enough) to be Mission Commanders. 

In my experience as a MP, I have dealt with great MO's and some not so great.  I would say that 80% of the time when I fly with a MO, I end up doing most of their work.  Most MO's don't realize that the skills they have are extremely perishable.  They need to go out and practice.  I don't think participating in 2 SAREX's a year is enough. 

Before I get jumped on, when I fly my MP proficiency flights I invite MO's to come along and brush up on their skills.  I generally get turned down so, off I go to fly by myself.

[Eclipse]

I had this point was beaten to death on another thread awhile back.  He (Eclipse) received his training from NESA ( I believe).  They have a big push there that the MO runs the mission in the airplane and, that the MP is just a bus driver.

As I say above, I have not yet attended NESA, however a good deal of the NESA instructors are from my state, so the training and direction are about the same.

He seems to believe that all the MP's do is fly the plane.  Last time I flew a mission I remember doing the most of the work on the ground.  Once in the air, the MO assisted me in flying the search pattern.  It also seems, that he thinks that the MO training is as tough as MP.  I totally disagree with him on that point.

That's what they are supposed to do, for all that entails, which is no small job, and involves the safety of 3-4 people on board and countless others on the ground (not to mention who / what we're looking for). 

I don't believe I have ever said MO training is as hard as MP training, for one thing it is different, for another, you have to be a pilot (with a fair amount of hours) to start, which is no easy feat in and of itself.

Similar arguments can be made about GTL's who also drive the vehicle, work the radios, and do all the DF'ing while the rest of the team just follows them around. 

The point I'm making is that the reason for a crew (or team) is to provide enough trained people to be able to do their jobs in a situation where no one is over bandwidth.  Unfortunately too many pilots have been allowed perpetuate the "my plane, my rules attitude so the rest of the aircrew never gets to do their own jobs properly.

[jayleswo]

Hi Keith! Congrats on Major. I agree with you completely. In theory, the idea of the MO as Mission Commander is tantalizing, there are few MO's I have encountered in 24 years of flying SAR in CAP with the experience and skills to perform that function. I've taught Mission Scanner's and Mission Observers, and held the rating of Observer Examiner/Instructor in CAWG back when we had such a thing. Aircrew members come from all sorts of backgrounds. The ability of the individual to contribute to the success of that sortie is what counts and some MO's are better able to assist the MP than others. The MO and MS job is to direct the pilot onto any targets they see and they can assist in sortie planning and execution, but the MP is responsible for the safety of the flight and planning and executing the sortie.

[flynd94]

Hi John,

Thanks for the congrats.  I also agree with you, the only problem is you are furthering the "its a pilot flying club" mentality.   When we get into the plane and, fly the mission the MO/MS job is to look out the window, run the CAP Comm, take notes, etc.

I would add a little more to my note but, I am off to my most favorite airport in the world, Newark, NJ.  I truly hate that place.

[mikeylikey]

From Mission Aircrew Reference Text.........

1.2 Mission Observer duties and responsibilities
The mission observer has a key role in CAP missions, and has expanded duties that mainly pertain to assisting the mission pilot. This assistance may be in the planning phase, handling radio communications, assisting in navigation, and crew management (i.e., mission commander). The proficient observer makes it possible for the pilot to perform his duties with a greater degree of accuracy and safety by assuming these aspects of the workload.
In addition to the scanner duties, observers must also:
• Depending on conditions, you may report with the mission pilot for briefing.
• Assist in planning the mission. The observer may act as mission commander for the sortie.
• Assist in avoiding collisions and obstacles during taxiing.
• Assist in setting up and operating aircraft and CAP radios.
• Assist in setting up and operating aircraft navigational equipment (e.g., VORs and GPS).
• Assist enforcing the sterile cockpit rules.
• Maintain situational awareness at all times.
• Assist in monitoring fuel status.
• Monitor the electronic search devices aboard the aircraft and advise the pilot when making course corrections in response to ELT signals.
• Keep mission base and/or high bird appraised of status.
• Coordinate scanner assignments and ensure proper breaks for the scanners (including you). Monitor crew for fatigue and dehydration (ensure the crew drinks plenty of fluids).
• Maintain a chronological flight log of all observations of note, including precise locations, sketches and any other noteworthy information.
3
• Depending on conditions, report with the mission pilot for debriefing immediately upon return to mission base. The applicable portions on the reverse of CAPF 104 should be completed prior to debrief.
• Keep track of assigned supplies and equipment.
Once team members have been briefed on the mission and accomplished the necessary planning, observers determine that all necessary equipment is aboard the airplane. Checklists help ensure that all essential equipment is included, and vary according to geographic location, climate, and terrain of the search area. Items on the observer's checklist should include CAP membership and specialty qualification cards, current charts and maps of the search area, flashlights, notebook and pencils, binoculars, and survival gear (prohibited items, such as firearms, should be listed too, to ensure none is included). A camera may be included to assist in describing the location and condition of the search objective or survivors. Unnecessary items or personal belongings should be left behind. The mission observer also assists the pilot in ensuring that all equipment aboard the search aircraft is properly stowed. An unsecured item can injure the crew or damage the aircraft in turbulence.
Once airborne, the observer provides navigation and communication assistance, allowing the pilot to precisely fly the aircraft with a greater degree of safety. The observer also assists in enforcing "sterile cockpit" rules when necessary. In flight, particularly the transit phase, the observer maintains situational awareness in order to help ensure crew safety.
The mission observer divides and assigns scanning responsibilities during her mission observer briefing, and ensures each scanner performs their assigned duty during flight. She monitors the duration of scanner activity, and enables the scanners to rest in order to minimize fatigue.

So it would seem that the Observer is there to assist the pilot if the pilot wants assistance.  Perhaps we should just scrub Observer from CAP altogether.  The Pilot can truly be the Pilot, responsible for everything, but looking out the windows and doing the actual searching.  Maybe a Navigator would better suit our needs.  He or she would be responsible for everything the pilot wants other than driving the plane, if the pilot requests the assistance.  So maybe ground school, but the navigator would not need to be an actual pilot. 

[Eclipse]

The MART >does< use the term "Mission Commander", as do the national training slides.

[Frenchie]

The MART >does< use the term "Mission Commander", as do the national training slides.

It says the MO may function as Mission Commander.  They also refer to missions where you have 2 scanners (which is also something that rarely happens).

Personally I have never seen a non-pilot MO act as Mission Commander.  I'm sure there are some that can and routinely do, I just have never seen it.  Personally I would love to have a MO that can run the mission.  If they want to do all the mission planning, fill out the forms, run the CAP radio, operate the GPS, operate the DF, tell the MS what to do, and all the rest of the mission oriented stuff, I'm more than happy to do what I love most and fly the plane.   The problem I run into is most non-pilot MOs aren't even proficient enough to run the comm panel.  Perhaps the problem is MOs aren't expected to act as Mission Commanders and maybe that needs to change, but we have a long way to go to get there.

[RiverAux]

Until getting flight time for Mission Observers becomes at least 25% as important as getting flight time for pilots, I don't think it will happen unless you're in a very high-mission area where there is plenty of work for everybody. 

[Flying Pig]

Until getting flight time for Mission Observers becomes at least 25% as important as getting flight time for pilots, I don't think it will happen unless you're in a very high-mission area where there is plenty of work for everybody. 

I agree that MO need to fly and train more, however, most of the training can be done sitting in the plane with it hooked to an APU just getting familiar with the panel.

[mikeylikey]

^ Sometimes its the pilot who won't allow the MO to do anything.  I have seen it happen before.  The "club" exists, and some older types will do anything to make sure a non-pilot does not do anything related to airplane stuff. 

It will change, I think our pilots are getting older and we are not recruiting the younger guys and girls like we did in the late 80's early 90's.

Eventually the pilots currently in will fade away, and a younger group will take their place.  Plus when the Gen X, Y and "millenials" are running CAP, I think it will be much better anyway!! 

[lordmonar]

Did anyone read the changes to the ARCHER program.....where they specifically state the "Mission Commander' should be the most experinced ARCHER Member...even if they are not the pilot.

So even NHQ is seeing that the MO/MP/MS thing is not really working out for us.

[mikeylikey]

^ Nice catch!

[Trung Si Ma]

Back in the dark ages when I was active as a CAP Observer, I often split the costs with select mission pilots while doing proficiency flights.  I know that this was pretty uncommon and I only did it with select pilots that I had a good, professional relationship with.  In every wing that I was an observer, I would only fly with pilots that I trusted and respected, pretty much in that order.

In hindsight, I believe that we operated as an integrated crew utilizing each of our strengths while working on improving our team.  I believe that being an Army Aerial Observer (OH-58A/C), an FAA Certificated Ground Instructor, and a National SAR school graduate helped with both my ability to contribute and my credibility.

I am now considering MP qualification.  If I do pursue qualification, I intend to fly with the same two or three observers on missions after my training period is over.  Some will think this is unfair (and maybe impractical sometimes), but I believe that the familiarity will increase crew safety and effectiveness.

I do have the advantage of being the only pilot in my squadron and we only have one observer in the unit right now with two others thinking about going through the training.  The nearest CAP aircraft is 35 minutes away in my 172 so we can launch as a crew, perform as a crew, and then return home as a crew.

[jayleswo]

Man, can we beat a topic to death. The original question and proposal from flyguy was:

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.

Based on my experience, as a Mission Observer for 24 years, Master Observer, current Mission Pilot, etc. is... no, we should not change the name of the Mission Observer ES or aero rating. The skills and experience of our Mission Observers is too varied to conclude that everyone can function as a Mission Commander. Even the MART says that the Mission Observer MAY function as Mission Commander, not WILL or DOES.

What I would absolutely agree with is that The Mission Pilot, who is also functioning as Pilot-in-Command, should default to functioning in the role of Mission Commander - unless she has a highly experienced Mission Observer who may then function as Mission Commander instead. So, Mission Commander is a role, not an aircrew title and the most appropriate aircrew member can function in that role.

This has nothing to do with prima-donna pilots, "flying clubs" or any of the usual inflammatory terms we like to throw around on cap-talk to light people up. I've flown with a *lot* of CAP Pilots, probably more than most of the people who have contributed to this topic, and it is exceedingly rare to find one who fits the negative image that has been commented on. I have found almost all (95+%) to be respectful, safe, team oriented and well qualified.

-- John

[KyCAP]

Gen X is already IN leadership of CAP...
http://earlyxer.com/atschool.aspx

I had the Star Wars lunch box... preparing for my imperial march.

[Eclipse]

This has nothing to do with prima-donna pilots, "flying clubs" or any of the usual inflammatory terms we like to throw around on cap-talk to light people up. I've flown with a *lot* of CAP Pilots, probably more than most of the people who have contributed to this topic, and it is exceedingly rare to find one who fits the negative image that has been commented on. I have found almost all (95+%) to be respectful, safe, team oriented and well qualified.

You forgot the /sarcasm tags that belong with that sentence... 

The unfortunate reality is that way too many of our pilots define that stereotype. In some cases it is not all their fault because they were recruited by someone with the same attitude and told "come and fly for free", etc., but the fact remains that there are way too many pilots who think the reason for the sortie is 1 take off, 1 hour in sky, and 1 landing, don't know how to operate anything right of center on the instrument panel, and get incredibly offended when you ask them to clean the plane, help at mission base, or do anything that does not involve them surrounded by an airplane.

[jayleswo]

You forgot the /sarcasm tags that belong with that sentence... 

The unfortunate reality is that way too many of our pilots define that stereotype. In some cases it is not all their fault because they were recruited by someone with the same attitude and told "come and fly for free", etc., but the fact remains that there are way too many pilots who think the reason for the sortie is 1 take off, 1 hour in sky, and 1 landing, don't know how to operate anything right of center on the instrument panel, and get incredibly offended when you ask them to clean the plane, help at mission base, or do anything that does not involve them surrounded by an airplane.

So, what dos that statement have to do with what we call Mission Observers? Anyway, I didn't forget the sarcasm quotes. Yes I have flown with a flew prima donna pilots. Most haven't been. That's my reality. Sorry it sucks so bad out where you are. I honestly hope it improves because that's not the CAP I believe in.

Ask me how many scanners and observers I have flown with who don't know how to operate anything on *either* side of the panel, throw up all over the airplane, bring 50 lbs of gear, etc. There are two sides to the coin - and I've been on both.... More training is needed and it is sometimes hard to get. Better yet, an appreciation of what everyone brings to the table, respect for each other and teamwork. Let's start there.

-- John

[Eclipse]

Better yet, an appreciation of what everyone brings to the table, respect for each other and teamwork. Let's start there.

Works for me...

[NavLT]

I think NASA got it right with Pilot and Mission Commander.

The Pilot has one absolute responsibility the safe operation of the Craft.

What the Craft does as a mission is a shared role of the aircrew but the most qualified peson shoud direct the mission.  Saying a newbie MO should tell a MO Qualified MP with 50 searches that they are in charge is crazy.  We need to rely more on judgment then titles.  If that is in confusion train members more on judgment and less on medals, ribbons and titles.

V/R
Lt J.

[davidsinn]

I think NASA got it right with Pilot and Mission Commander.

The Pilot has one absolute responsibility the safe operation of the Craft.

Funny thing is the Commander usually drives. Look at Apollo XI Armstrong flew the lander and Aldrin monitored the gauges.