Mission Observer: Whats in a name

[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.