Mission Observer: Whats in a name

[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!