What does everyone think about "wings" ("Air Crew" badge) for scanners, doctors, nurses, and other CAP members who spend many hours flying in CAP aircraft?
At first... because these people are not involved with flying the aircraft... a badge might not seem appropriate.
However... if we were to follow the lead the Air Force takes on this question... we see that the Air Force gives wings to all sorts of Air Crew members (even if they are not pilots or navigators).
Being part of a trained air crew appears to be enough...
PILOT
NAVIGATOR / OBSERVER
FLIGHT SURGEON
FLIGHT NURSE
AIR BATTLE MANAGER
SENSOR OPERATOR
AIR CREW
All of the above (as far as I know) wear wings on their uniform.
Does it make sense then, or would it be appropriate... for CAP to have specific "wing" badges created for other "non-pilot" members who train... and log enough hours flying in an aircraft?
What does everyone think?
Here's a quick link to see some examples of the Air Force's many types of wings:
(Just wikipedia, but hey... good enough for a quick look)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badges_of_the_United_States_Air_Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badges_of_the_United_States_Air_Force)
Quote from: supertigerCH on April 09, 2012, 09:30:05 AM
What does everyone think about "wings" ("Air Crew" badge) for scanners, doctors, nurses, and other CAP members who spend many hours flying in CAP aircraft?
At first... because these people are not involved with flying the aircraft... a badge might not seem appropriate.
However... if we were to follow the lead the Air Force takes on this question... we see that the Air Force gives wings to all sorts of Air Crew members (even if they are not pilots or navigators).
Being part of a trained air crew appears to be enough...
PILOT
NAVIGATOR / OBSERVER
FLIGHT SURGEON
FLIGHT NURSE
AIR BATTLE MANAGER
SENSOR OPERATOR
AIR CREW
All of the above (as far as I know) wear wings on their uniform.
Does it make sense then, or would it be appropriate... for CAP to have specific "wing" badges created for other "non-pilot" members who train... and log enough hours flying in an aircraft?
What does everyone think?
Here's a quick link to see some examples of the Air Force's many types of wings:
(Just wikipedia, but hey... good enough for a quick look)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badges_of_the_United_States_Air_Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badges_of_the_United_States_Air_Force)
Scanner, maybe. More later.
Who are these doctors, nurses, and other CAP members who spend many hours flying in CAP aircraft? We have no flight surgeon/nurse jobs in CAP. Those who do fly are doing so as MPs, MOs, and MSs. RealMilitary™ flight surgeons are doctors first, and aircrew second. Even then, the flying is a bennie, and not a regular duty. They get specialty training associated with the physiology og flying, and its side effects on the human body. Flight nurses are like the olde time original stewardesses, but CAP has nothing for them to do. What other folks fly these many hours you speak of? Help us understand.
ABMs work in the air, but CAP has no real direct equivalent. MO comes the closest, but even that's a stretch. Sensor operators and other aircrew fly, too, but they get oodles of training before setting foot in a plane. Again, CAP has no real direct equivalent, so there's no comparison there, either.
I think you've got a solution looking for a problem, myself.
YMMV.
Scanner is viewed by most as a stepping stone to MS or MO, since it is a prerequisite for either. There has been discussion of wings for scanners, but it always ends up going flat, with little action past the huffing and puffing of the folks who are ardent about the issue.
I do feel that mission scanners (as well as things like airborne photographers, or other sensor operators who physically go up into the sky to do their job) should have a "wingy" badge. IMHO it should be the 'mission observer' badge become "general aircrew" badge, and keep the pilots wings for pilots who actually stick and rudder the plane.
The rest of your analogy to the military breaks down pretty early though :) since CAP doesn't work "like that"
+1
Expand the crew wings to Aerial Photographers and Mission Scanners. Most of their job is in the air. In fact I've had to work harder as an AP than I ever did as a Scanner.
I already have Observer wings, so this isn't a bling quest. It just seems right.
A proposal for aircrew (Scanner, Aerial Photographer, High Bird Radio Operator, ARCHER) has already been submitted to the black hole called National.
Added: for those who missed it...
Quote from: wuzafuzz on April 09, 2012, 12:15:01 PMExpand the crew wings to Aerial Photographers and Mission Scanners.
I agree. All aircrew should have wings.
Good thoughts everyone!! Yeah... Air Force flight crew jobs are certainly not not the same as CAP jobs. You are very correct when you say... that doctors and nurses (that happen to join CAP) are not the same thing as flight surgeons and flight nurses.
Just throwing the comparison out there... because it was the easiest way for people to undertand what I'm saying. Very true... that only CAP members who's main job is to fly on aircraft... would even have a chance of getting wings awarded someday.
Of course it should never be "just because someone joins CAP" -- and happens to fly sometimes.
Quote from: SarDragon on April 09, 2012, 10:18:43 AM
Flight nurses are like the olde time original stewardesses, but CAP has nothing for them to do.
Stewardesses? Would you mind extrapolating? About .5 seconds of googling will show that the role of flight nurses, specifically military flight nurses, is a little more involved than bringing someone peanuts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_nurse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_nurse)
Am I misunderstanding you here?
Quote from: supertigerCH on April 09, 2012, 09:30:05 AM
What does everyone think about "wings" ("Air Crew" badge) for scanners, doctors, nurses, and other CAP members who spend many hours flying in CAP aircraft?
...
Does it make sense then, or would it be appropriate... for CAP to have specific "wing" badges created for other "non-pilot" members who train... and log enough hours flying in an aircraft?
What does everyone think?
Having been a mission scanner and a qualified USAF aircrew member, I think this your question is a bit muddles, but here's my $0.02...
I've been told that Mission Scanner is a beginner-type of qualification, and that's why it doesn't have its own wings.
Now that we have additional qualifications that people are training into: Airborne photographer, ARCHER, etc, we might look at a single crew-member badge that shows qualification beyond mission scanner, but I don't think we should award wings to scanners. Let's keep the badges for people who continue to train beyond the introductory level.
And I don't think that we should be giving wings to anything other than folks who perform in-flight duties, so flight nurses and flight surgeons are out as far as CAP is concerned at this time.
I've often thought that Scanners should have at least a half-wing. Believe it or not, there are Scanners who really aren't interested in becoming Observers.
Also, Observer should be renamed to Navigator. "Observer" implies someone just sitting on their duff looking out the window.
These examples are from the Irish Air Corps - try and imagine them with an enamelled red-white-blue CAP insignia (what we have now but in colour; it used to be that way):
Pilot:
(http://www.irishmilitaryinsignia.com/flash/images/aircorps/pilotwings/ac_pilot_metal_blue.gif)
Mission Scanner:
(http://www.irishmilitaryinsignia.com/flash/images/aircorps/crewwings/ac_wing_officer_metal_(t).gif) (put an "S" in the centre)
Navigator:
(http://www.irishmilitaryinsignia.com/flash/images/aircorps/crewwings/ac_wing_officer_metal_(t).gif) (put an "N" in the centre)
QuoteStewardesses? Would you mind extrapolating? About .5 seconds of googling will show that the role of flight nurses, specifically military flight nurses, is a little more involved than bringing someone peanuts.
Another .5 seconds of searching on Wikipedia finds this under
stewardess:
The first female flight attendant was a 25-year-old registered nurse named Ellen Church.[4] Hired by United Airlines in 1930,[5] she also first envisioned nurses on aircraft. Other airlines followed suit,
hiring nurses to serve as flight attendantsThe requirement to be a registered nurse on an American airline was relaxed as more women were hired, and it disappeared almost entirely during World II...
From Wikipedia's definition of
flight nurse "Flight nurses are registered nurses..." Granted, the roles and training of nurses has changed since the 1920s and 1930s, but SarDragon's reference to "olde time stewardesses" was because they were expected to perform airborne nursing duties if needed in the early days of commercial air transport.
QuoteLet's keep the badges for people who continue to train beyond the introductory level.
CAP has badges for GTM3 and IC3.
Although scanners are treated like beginners or considered to be observers-in-training, I don't think that was the intent when the scanner position was created in 1975. From the observer manual (CAPM 50-5) of that year:
"The observer course is divided into two phases. Phase I is rather abbreviated but is designed to qualify scanner candidates in a short time to become productive members of the SAR team. Phase II (observer) is somewhat longer and more demanding. It includes some areas which may seem unnecessary to the trainee, such as knowledge of the flight computer; however, trainees should bear in mind that knowledge of these areas will be a definite asset when they begin training for mission coordinator (MC) qualification."
Mike
Quote from: sardak on April 09, 2012, 09:03:18 PM
Although scanners are treated like beginners or considered to be observers-in-training, I don't think that was the intent when the scanner position was created in 1975. From the observer manual (CAPM 50-5) of that year:
"The observer course is divided into two phases. Phase I is rather abbreviated but is designed to qualify scanner candidates in a short time to become productive members of the SAR team. Phase II (observer) is somewhat longer and more demanding. It includes some areas which may seem unnecessary to the trainee, such as knowledge of the flight computer; however, trainees should bear in mind that knowledge of these areas will be a definite asset when they begin training for mission coordinator (MC) qualification."
Not to mention that the majority of actual "work" of CAP aircrews is now done by scanners or "other" (SDIS, GIIEP, ARCHER). The pilot and observer have important and defined roles, but when doing missions other than DF Search, the real work is done in the back seat.
There's no reason all aircrew should not have wings, the USAF issues wings to enlisted personnel and non-flight aircrew, so should we.
The nonsense that scanner is a stepping stone is GOB talk for "not a pilot".
I also am not a fan of the word "Observer" but I don'l really care for "Navigator" either as I think that simplifies the job duties of an Observer, there's way more to it than that. Also that half wing looks a little weird to me...
If scanners were to have wings, why not use the Observer wing and replace the "O" with an "S." "AP" for Airborn Photographer, etc.
Good comments everyone! Thanks for a lively discussion...
Ed Bos... your past air crew experince and well explained thoughts sounded good to me. Although he expressed a slightly different opinion... I like the comment from Woodsy too. (Not that the others didn't make me think also... they did and it's nice to hear everyone's opinion).
Just so everyone knows... even though I started this particular topic... I am not a scanner, or air crew member of any kind (and do not have any desire to become any of those). As a member of CAP, however, this has crossed my mind a number of times...
Quote from: 68w10 on April 09, 2012, 07:39:31 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on April 09, 2012, 10:18:43 AM
Flight nurses are like the olde time original stewardesses, but CAP has nothing for them to do.
Stewardesses? Would you mind extrapolating? About .5 seconds of googling will show that the role of flight nurses, specifically military flight nurses, is a little more involved than bringing someone peanuts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_nurse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_nurse)
Am I misunderstanding you here?
Your concept of stewardess is seriously flawed.
Today's flight attendants are trained to do more than pass out peanuts. They are trained in emergency procedures related to fire, emergency landings, etc.
The original stewardesses back in the '30s were mostly all nurses. More detail here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewardess).
Quote from: SarDragon on April 09, 2012, 10:21:47 PM
Quote from: 68w10 on April 09, 2012, 07:39:31 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on April 09, 2012, 10:18:43 AM
Flight nurses are like the olde time original stewardesses, but CAP has nothing for them to do.
Stewardesses? Would you mind extrapolating? About .5 seconds of googling will show that the role of flight nurses, specifically military flight nurses, is a little more involved than bringing someone peanuts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_nurse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_nurse)
Am I misunderstanding you here?
Your concept of stewardess is seriously flawed.
Today's flight attendants are trained to do more than pass out peanuts. They are trained in emergency procedures related to fire, emergency landings, etc.
The original stewardesses back in the '30s were mostly all nurses. More detail here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewardess).
Clearly my concept is flawed. Flight attendants are highly-trained professionals that play a vital role in maintaining the effectiveness and safety of commercial air travel, and my comment trivialized that role. I apologize, as that was certainly not my intent.
That being said, I fail to see how their job translates to this:
http://www.warisboring.com/2010/04/23/zach-in-afghanistan-the-aeromedical-evacuation-shuffle/ (http://www.warisboring.com/2010/04/23/zach-in-afghanistan-the-aeromedical-evacuation-shuffle/)
Today, nothing. I was just pointing out that jobs and duties have changed over the years, and that youe being way too general in your assessments.
Given that, CAP has no similar role.
Quote from: Woodsy on April 09, 2012, 09:36:29 PM
I also am not a fan of the word "Observer" but I don'l really care for "Navigator" either as I think that simplifies the job duties of an Observer, there's way more to it than that. Also that half wing looks a little weird to me...
If scanners were to have wings, why not use the Observer wing and replace the "O" with an "S." "AP" for Airborn Photographer, etc.
For individual badges for the different specialties, I don't think Vanguard could sell enough to be worthwhile. Economy of scale. For a single aircrew badge covering everything not MP or MO, sure. Go for it.
Quote from: supertigerCH on April 09, 2012, 04:58:26 PM
Just throwing the comparison out there... because it was the easiest way for people to undertand what I'm saying. Very true... that only CAP members who's main job is to fly on aircraft... would even have a chance of getting wings awarded someday.
For many members who fly, their aircrew job
isn't their primary function. It's performing some staff job in the unit
Quote from: 68w10 on April 09, 2012, 07:39:31 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on April 09, 2012, 10:18:43 AM
Flight nurses are like the olde time original stewardesses, but CAP has nothing for them to do.
Stewardesses? Would you mind extrapolating? About .5 seconds of googling will show that the role of flight nurses, specifically military flight nurses, is a little more involved than bringing someone peanuts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_nurse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_nurse)
Am I misunderstanding you here?
Happens to be one of their duties, care and feeding of patients.
But what do I know, I just have several hundred AirEvac sorties in the logbook...
Do we really need a badge for every qualification? Apparently CAP thinks so because we're already well on our way.
In a perfect world, I would say no badge for scanners (and thats what I've spent most of my air time doing BTW). But, if someone that does the minimal work required to be a GT3 qualifies for the GT badge, then I see no reason for scanners to not have one.
However, here is what I would do --- we've discussed in another thread how little the senior and master observer ratings are utilized and that very few people ever earn them. How about incorporating them into a single system with the scanner qual and doing some renaming:
Observer badge (same qualification as current Scanner).
Senior Observer badge(same qualification as current Observer)
Master Observer badge (100 hours of flight time as Senior Observer)
That eliminates the need for coming up with a new badge and put getting Master Observer in the realm of the possible for most dedicated, long-time aircrew members.
Quote from: SarDragon on April 10, 2012, 12:34:31 AM
For individual badges for the different specialties, I don't think Vanguard could sell enough to be worthwhile. Economy of scale. For a single aircrew badge covering everything not MP or MO, sure. Go for it.
I could live with that.
RiverAux...
That "single system" / re-naming idea sounds like a really good one!
(combining scanner and observer into one badge, and making scanner the first level.)
(My other favorite idea so far is the one by SarDragon... with just a single air crew badge/wings for everyone besides MP and MO. That sounds like a good option too, if anything like this ever happened.)
The down side to my idea, is what to do with the existing stock of "O" wings, which would now be obsolete.
hmm... true. you're probably right about possible difficulty of making so many (and selling enough) of the different "wing" badges though...
(one for every different type of air crew member)
Quote from: SarDragon on April 10, 2012, 04:21:30 AM
The down side to my idea, is what to do with the existing stock of "O" wings, which would now be obsolete.
Use them for the new Air Crew Badge......Don't reinvent the wheel.
I considered that option, and discarded it. I think it might cause confusion somewhere along the line.
YMMV.
In reply to previous posts.
I have known two flight surgeons in CAP, who used their authority to grant flight physicals to CAP aircrew members. Both were rated as mission pilots and flew missions as appropriate. One was a flight surgeon through the Indiana Air National Guard and only ever wore his AF Flight Surgeon wings. The other is now a retired Army Reserve Flight Surgeon/hospital commander who wears Army Flight Surgeon wings. Do I think we need those wings in CAP? Perhaps for those who have never gone the military route, but I think those wings are more impressive. Flight nurses might be an interesting concept, but we don't airlift patients, so what's the point?
Do we need to award wings to scanners, no. Do we need to award wings to scanners who are specialized in things like ARCHER, SDIS, etc. Perhaps we need to revisit that one because they are specialized aircrew. Of course, the real solution is to move on to observer, which is where I would prefer they go for aircrew consistency. Keep this in mind, my active duty experience as a scanner flying with the 71st ARRS at Elmendorf AFB, Alaska, back in the late 70s was under a MAC program called mission essential aircrew member. I met other mission essential aircrew members who flew on C-141s in what was then a classified communications capacity. Mission essential aircrew (scanners) were never awarded formal wings, even though I was presented two unofficial sets of wings as souvenirs. My real reward was a cool complete set a flight gear and sitting in an HH-3 or HC-130 in a formal capacity.
One other thing, back in the 1960s, CAP awarded a stewardess badge, but this badge was more for those cadets and senior members who completed actual stewardess training. I'm not sure if it was a summer special activity or actual stewardess training. I only ever met one recipient of those wings, a senior member, and I'm pretty sure she was a stewardess for what was then Allegany Airlines. I think it would be a cool activity if such a program were offered again. The badge looked like half of a droop winged pilots badge.
Quote from: flyboy1 on April 10, 2012, 10:56:59 AMOf course, the real solution is to move on to observer, which is where I would prefer they go for aircrew consistency.
Why? There's nothing an Observer does that would make them necessarily better AP's or ARCHER operators.
Quote from: RiverAux on April 10, 2012, 02:24:16 AM
Observer badge (same qualification as current Scanner).
Senior Observer badge(same qualification as current Observer)
Master Observer badge (100 hours of flight time as Senior Observer)
That eliminates the need for coming up with a new badge and put getting Master Observer in the realm of the possible for most dedicated, long-time aircrew members.
This is probably the best solution, and one I had in mind. Although to be honest, I put MS on the same level as UDF, neither of which currently have a badge, and neither really needs one. But if we are going to give wings to non MP/MO aircrew, then this is certainly the best, and least expensive, route.
I don't think that just narrowing down to two sets of wings, one for pilots and one for other aircrew, would be the worst idea.
Our allies in Britain and Australia have already done that (for officers anyway)
And there is precedent for CAP half-wings:
(http://i.ebayimg.com/t/WWII-Era-Civil-Air-Patrol-Observer-Wing-Sterling-Pinback-/00/s/NTA1WDYwMA==/$(KGrHqF,!lkE9K8O-wq,BPgdk03TCQ~~60_3.JPG)
Quote from: CyBorg on April 12, 2012, 12:06:27 AM
I don't think that just narrowing down to two sets of wings, one for pilots and one for other aircrew, would be the worst idea.
Our allies in Britain and Australia have already done that (for officers anyway)
And there is precedent for CAP half-wings:
(http://i.ebayimg.com/t/WWII-Era-Civil-Air-Patrol-Observer-Wing-Sterling-Pinback-/00/s/NTA1WDYwMA==/$(KGrHqF,!lkE9K8O-wq,BPgdk03TCQ~~60_3.JPG)
And they're not called "half-wings". They're called a "Brevet". At least that's what they're called by the Air Forces that use them. (RAF, RAAF, RNZAF, etc...)
According to Wikipedia, the term is not just reserved for the one winged insignia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircrew_brevet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircrew_brevet)
Quote from: Eclipse on April 10, 2012, 01:01:06 PM
Quote from: flyboy1 on April 10, 2012, 10:56:59 AMOf course, the real solution is to move on to observer, which is where I would prefer they go for aircrew consistency.
Why? There's nothing an Observer does that would make them necessarily better AP's or ARCHER operators.
Agreed, but debating the issue in this forum does nothing in terms of influencing the National Board, National Executive Committee or the people at NHQ from making a change to allow for such a new badge. The one common issue related to a lot of CAP mission badges is that people will do what they have to do to earn the badge and then never show up again when you need them for a mission. So, we offer a badge for scanners; people will aspire for that rating and go no further.
I am not sure if the real solution is to rename observer as just aircrew, because that's what the Coast Guard Auxiliary does. Another solution is to just expand the entire observer rating to include all of those different specalities. Then you could have different classifications of observers based on their level of expertise. In the Auir Force, the aircrew rating means a whole bunch of different aircrew assignments; everything from loadmaster to aerial gunner, sensor operator, and even aeromedical evacuation.
I wouldn't go as far as changing the ranking of the badge now based on flight hours or mission participation because that shows years of qualification.
Quote from: flyboy1 on April 12, 2012, 12:38:03 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 10, 2012, 01:01:06 PM
Quote from: flyboy1 on April 10, 2012, 10:56:59 AMOf course, the real solution is to move on to observer, which is where I would prefer they go for aircrew consistency.
Why? There's nothing an Observer does that would make them necessarily better AP's or ARCHER operators.
Agreed, but debating the issue in this forum does nothing in terms of influencing the National Board, National Executive Committee or the people at NHQ from making a change to allow for such a new badge. The one common issue related to a lot of CAP mission badges is that people will do what they have to do to earn the badge and then never show up again when you need them for a mission. So, we offer a badge for scanners; people will aspire for that rating and go no further.
But I don't have an issue with that, any more than I'd have an issue with a member who attained GT1 and chose not to be a GTL.
I don't view scanner as a stepping stone, especially if the member is being a proficient AP or other specialist.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 12, 2012, 01:03:23 PM
I don't view scanner as a stepping stone, especially if the member is being a proficient AP or other specialist.
This doesn't make sense to me. If a member is being a proficient AP or other specialist, then isn't MS a stepping stone to those specialties?
Quote from: ß τ ε on April 12, 2012, 04:57:30 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 12, 2012, 01:03:23 PM
I don't view scanner as a stepping stone, especially if the member is being a proficient AP or other specialist.
This doesn't make sense to me. If a member is being a proficient AP or other specialist, then isn't MS a stepping stone to those specialties?
Fair enough, I suppose, until very recently there was no rating for any of the specialties.
AP is brand new, ADIS doesn't exist except as a shell, neither does ARCHER or GIIEP. One could conjecture that ADIS is intended to
cover a range of imaging and survey specialties, but as of today it's a name only.
In olde school pure airborne DF and visual SAR, the scanners are critical, possibly the most important members of the crew on a visual search,
since the MP and MO have other work to do (the MP isn't even supposed to be looking down much).
So perhaps my view on this stems from the fact that until recently, the Scanner was responsible fore a big chunk of our marketed capabilities,
yet got treated as an afterthought by MP's who feel an air sortie is focused on the airplane flying and not producing a client product, etc.
Quote from: SarDragon on April 12, 2012, 06:39:12 AM
According to Wikipedia, the term is not just reserved for the one winged insignia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircrew_brevet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircrew_brevet)
I have heard both definitions.
The RCAF has dropped half-wing brevets for Aircrews, but interestingly, they still have them for ground trades!
(http://www.airforcebadges.ca/badges/CAF-MOC526.jpg)
Avionics Systems Tech
They also have a unique "upswept wing" for "General Flight Crew" (maybe a rating title we could adapt?):
(http://www.airforcebadges.ca/badges/CAF-FC69.jpg)
You make a good point that some people... might just go hunting for the badge (and then do very little after that to make wearing it seem appropriate).
What I remember from my military days... is there are ways to address this situation. You can have requirements that need to be met... to keep wearing the badge (for example... members should do a certain number of hours each year... to continue to wear the badge on the uniform -- as a "current" badge).
This does not mean that members have the badge "taken away" ...or that paper records showing they are qualifed disappear. Those things always remain.
CAP is a volunteer organization... and people give their valuable time... that they could be spending somewhere else (even earning money). This always has to be kept in mind... and we have to be careful not to throw the book at people if they truly cannot be present for CAP activities sometimes.
However... it is also a fair point to make, that CAP can write up requirements... about how members can wear CAP badges. Having people continually stay "current" (to wear the badge on the uniform)... is not too much to ask. It is fair to ask for at least a minimal amount of training / mission time to be completed each year.
If people truly can't contribute this some years... then there's no shame. Their fellow unit members know they earned the badge... and they have the records to prove it. However, it seems any fair minded member... should also be able to realize... that keeping your qualification current is not too much to ask.
I mean... think about it. Just because I earn specific types of drivers licenses... doesn't mean that I can go driving on the same one for the rest of my life... without showing that I can still pass a test every few years. It really isnt too much to ask... and we do the same thing in most other areas of our lives.
Just my opinion there. :)
Quote from: supertigerCH on April 12, 2012, 05:29:42 PMI mean... think about it. Just because I earn specific types of drivers licenses... doesn't mean that I can go driving on the same one for the rest of my life... without showing that I can still pass a test every few years. It really isnt too much to ask... and we do the same thing in most other areas of our lives.
The badge is not your license to operate, your 101 card is, and that's based on having a current & approved SQTR on file.
When aircrews are put together, it's not based on what badge people are wearing (or not), it's based on what eServices says in regards to
your currency.
Yes... very true.
Didn't mean to sound like the badge was a license to operate. Just trying to think of an example from everyday life... where all of us have to continually qualify for something.
In this situation... we just mean having very simple, basic requirements... for continued wearing of the badge on the uniform.
Not a perfect example... I know. However... hope everyone get's my point. :)
Quote from: supertigerCH on April 12, 2012, 05:39:10 PM
Yes... very true.
Didn't mean to sound like the badge was a license to operate. Just trying to think of an example from everyday life... where all of us have to continually qualify for something.
In this situation... we just mean having very simple, basic requirements... for continued wearing of the badge on the uniform.
Not a perfect example... I know. However... hope everyone get's my point. :)
Here's simple answer - be currently qualified for whatever rating (MP, MO, MS, GTM, GTL, IC, etc.). Not current - don't get to wear the badge. We already have requirements for maintaining currency. Perhaps build in a "after XX years of currency, the badge/wings/bling becomes a permenant award" clause.
arajca... you are better at explaining things than I am... and worded that much better than I did.
thanks!!
Quote from: arajca on April 12, 2012, 06:05:36 PMHere's simple answer - be currently qualified for whatever rating (MP, MO, MS, GTM, GTL, IC, etc.). Not current - don't get to wear the badge. We already have requirements for maintaining currency. Perhaps build in a "after XX years of currency, the badge/wings/bling becomes a permenant award" clause.
Not unreasonable, but then to be fair you'd have to require the same of military badges, and then you'd have people saying "Well the military awards them
permanently, so they are permanent..." From there you've got a bunch of people wearing badges that have nothing to do with CAP, and members who
earned CAP badges not able to wear anything.
Hmm... I see your point Eclipse.
Maybe a good compromise to address that... is arajca's suggestion... of there being a way to make the badges eventually become permanent on the uniform (after 5 or 10 years of staying current).
Then in a way similar to military badges (which normally also have to be kept current while a person is serving)... CAP would also have a way to wear them permanently... after a period of service.
Scanner is important but it is a stepping stone to more advanced ratings and I would prefer that earning wings be an incentive to completing the requirements for MO. Otherwise, what next? A UDF badge? An MSA badge? -- John
Quote from: supertigerCH on April 12, 2012, 06:17:00 PM
Then in a way similar to military badges (which normally also have to be kept current while a person is serving)...
I don't know about the other services, but in the Army you keep the wings as long as you don't do something to cause them to be taken away. Currency has nothing to do with it. Make 5 jumps* as a lieutenant or private and wear jump wings for the rest of your career whether you ever jump again or not.
*and subsequently graduate from Airborne School, of courseQuote from: jayleswo on April 12, 2012, 06:18:10 PM
Scanner is important but it is a stepping stone to more advanced ratings and I would prefer that earning wings be an incentive to completing the requirements for MO. Otherwise, what next? A UDF badge? An MSA badge? -- John
What is the purpose for awarding badges? Is it to recognize accomplishment, recognize participation in potentially hazardous duty or is it to be used as a carrot? It strikes me as strange that we would put three people in an airplane and call them an aircrew, but only give two of them wings to denote their aircrew involvement.
I guess we could restyle Scanner as Mission Observer (Trainee), but that seems odd, too.
In my mind, the MS participates in the aircrew and should be recognized with the same aircrew badge as an MO. To use what I know, an Army crew chief wears the same wings as a flight engineer and (when we had them) flying artillery FOs [see GEN Tommy Franks].
If someone only has the time and energy to devote to becoming a qualified (and quality) MS, what is wrong with that? Now, if someone decides to take the training, get the wings and never fly again, that is a leadership issue and not an award/badge issue.
I don't understand what the heart burn is about for the so called "badge" trolls.
The badge is there to recognise the effort and skills of our member.....if you want more effort out of them....change the requirements to earn the badge.
It is not rocket science.
As for the OP......If we want to recognise the efforts and skills of our MS.....then just award the Observer wing to the MS.
Personally I would do away with MS rateing altogether and change it so those skills/flights are added to the FAM and PREP skills of the other rateings MP, MO, AP, ARCHER etc.
Change the name of the obersver wings to "aircrew wings" but keep the O for historical value....and saveings at Vanguard.
Hi FlyTiger,
Good point about airborne jump wings in the army. There definitely are some examples of badges that people can earn... and wear for life.
You also raised a good question... about the purpose of a badge. is it to recognize skills/accomplishment... or is it to be used as a "carrot" on the end of a stick? Good question... and important to consider when thinking about all this.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 12, 2012, 07:10:36 PMPersonally I would do away with MS rateing altogether and change it so those skills/flights are added to the FAM and PREP skills of the other rateings MP, MO, AP, ARCHER etc.
I'd sign that, except that "Scanner" is still a viable and necessary position on an aircrew doing a visual search. Not all aircrew missions are DR.
Quote from: jayleswo on April 12, 2012, 06:18:10 PM
Scanner is important but it is a stepping stone to more advanced ratings and I would prefer that earning wings be an incentive to completing the requirements for MO. Otherwise, what next? A UDF badge? An MSA badge?
UDF - Yes. UDF is not a stepping stone to GT by a long shot.
MSA - Yes. We've discussed a mission staff badge to recognize all of the important support roles that do not have a badge.
And again, Scanner is not a "stepping stone".
Quote from: Eclipse on April 12, 2012, 07:53:11 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 12, 2012, 07:10:36 PMPersonally I would do away with MS rateing altogether and change it so those skills/flights are added to the FAM and PREP skills of the other rateings MP, MO, AP, ARCHER etc.
I'd sign that, except that "Scanner" is still a viable and necessary position on an aircrew doing a visual search. Not all aircrew missions are DR.
True... some missions will still have a need for scanners, even if other aircrew (ARCHER qualified, etc.) are not needed.
In those situations... couldn't
any of those air crew members who are trained in the "scanner tasks" (as part of FAM/PREP skills for their other ratings)... step in and perform those scanner functions?
Quote from: supertigerCH on April 12, 2012, 08:21:00 PMIn those situations... couldn't any of those air crew members who are trained in the "scanner tasks" (as part of FAM/PREP skills for their other ratings)... step in and perform those scanner functions?
From the aircrew
pool, yes. In the airplane during the sortie, no.
An MO or MP could certainly accept the assignment as a Scanner for a visual search mission, but just as many GT's are not excited about UDF tasking,
even more so are MPs and MOs happy about sitting in the back, while I know any number of members who enjoy being scanners and have no interest in the front seat duties. Some have eagle-like vision but don't multi-task well, which is essential for an MO.
I also find it odd that scanners are not recognized with bling and support the aircrew wing idea. As previously stated, scanner, just as UDF, has just as much potential to be a stand alone qual as it does a stepping stone. Taking into account the arguments supporting recognition of aerial photographers, ARCHER operators, etc., perhaps a compromise could be a separate aircrew wing, and make senior and master ratings possible through additional quals (ie a MS with AP and ARCHER would rate a set of master level aircrew wings) instead of a set number of sorties. Perhaps a combination of # of quals and time in the seat might work as well. I don't think it would be overly costly to add "AC" into the center circle of the observer wings, ala the USN/USMC air crew wings.
I don't know that it would be fair to "downgrade" (no maliciousness implied) the observer wings to act as a catch all. Observers have earned their wings and should get to keep them and the recognition implied. A UDF badge of some sort is also somewhat intriguing to me, but that is another discussion.
Sounds like CAP_Marine has another another pretty good suggestion/alternative.
There seem like a few different ways this could be done (if it ever is)...
Quote from: Eclipse on April 12, 2012, 07:53:11 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 12, 2012, 07:10:36 PMPersonally I would do away with MS rateing altogether and change it so those skills/flights are added to the FAM and PREP skills of the other rateings MP, MO, AP, ARCHER etc.
I'd sign that, except that "Scanner" is still a viable and necessary position on an aircrew doing a visual search. Not all aircrew missions are DR.
I understand....but if the "scanner skills" are part of just about every other aircrew position then you solve a lot of problems. More APs, more ARCHER OPERATORS, MORE MO's.
If you don't want to be a front seat MO....then you are an AP.......even if you don't actually take photos.....but why would you not take photos on a SAR mission. If you want to be a front seat guy you go directly to the MO SQTR.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 13, 2012, 12:46:29 AMIf you don't want to be a front seat MO....then you are an AP.......even if you don't actually take photos.....but why would you not take photos on a SAR mission. If you want to be a front seat guy you go directly to the MO SQTR.
Because in a SAR you're supposed to be looking for the "thing" that's lost, not taking photos of it.
Maybe you don't want to take pictures, maybe it makes you sick, maybe you take lousy photos, etc., etc.
If there ever were to be a separate Air Crew badge (wings)...
Probably would be best... to stick to a design that is similar to the other 2 "wing" badges CAP already has. How to make it similar... and yet "different" enough?
Maybe something like this?
WING TYPES:
1. Pilot = Center circle has triangle & propeller.
2. Observer = Center circle has triangle & propeller with "O"
3. Air Crew = Center circle has triangle only (nothing else. very basic)
We could just use the existing wings.
Abandon the "command pilot" based on hours, that few ever get near, and adopt the same practice as the ground badge.
Scanner - plain wings.
Observer - Wing with star.
MP - wings with wreath.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 13, 2012, 02:03:11 PM
We could just use the existing wings.
Abandon the "command pilot" based on hours, that few ever get near, and adopt the same practice as the ground badge.
Scanner - plain wings.
Observer - Wing with star.
MP - wings with wreath.
What do you do with all the miscellaneous pilots (O-flight pilots for example)? Right now the requirement for the pilot badge is be a CAP VFR pilot, nothing more IIRC.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on April 13, 2012, 02:04:45 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 13, 2012, 02:03:11 PM
We could just use the existing wings.
Abandon the "command pilot" based on hours, that few ever get near, and adopt the same practice as the ground badge.
Scanner - plain wings.
Observer - Wing with star.
MP - wings with wreath.
What do you do with all the miscellaneous pilots (O-flight pilots for example)? Right now the requirement for the pilot badge is be a CAP VFR pilot, nothing more IIRC.
Ugh - there's always somebody.
OK.
F5 pilots get the regular pilot wings.
MP's get the wings with a star.
Scanners and specialists get the standard observer wings.
Observers get the Observer wings with the star.
Out of curiosity, when the discussion were happening about Observer wings, did anyone bring up the point that if we had wings for Observers, then what about everyone else? And were there people who poo-pooed the idea?
It probably would have solved a lot of problems by just having wings for the people that wiggle the yoke.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 13, 2012, 02:03:11 PM
We could just use the existing wings.
Abandon the "command pilot" based on hours, that few ever get near, and adopt the same practice as the ground badge.
Scanner - plain wings.
Observer - Wing with star.
MP - wings with wreath.
Hmm... that way doesn't sound too bad either.
(although someone mentioned "other" pilots would have to be taken into consideration. that's okay... these are all just ideas anyway :) )
Quote from: bflynn on April 13, 2012, 02:44:17 PM
Out of curiosity, when the discussion were happening about Observer wings, did anyone bring up the point that if we had wings for Observers, then what about everyone else? And were there people who poo-pooed the idea?
It probably would have solved a lot of problems by just having wings for the people that wiggle the yoke.
Sounds like a fine idea!
Quote from: 754837 on April 13, 2012, 06:40:10 PM
Quote from: bflynn on April 13, 2012, 02:44:17 PM
Out of curiosity, when the discussion were happening about Observer wings, did anyone bring up the point that if we had wings for Observers, then what about everyone else? And were there people who poo-pooed the idea?
It probably would have solved a lot of problems by just having wings for the people that wiggle the yoke.
Sounds like a fine idea!
Yes, only the zipper-suited sun gods are worthy of badges. That makes perfect sense.
That's definitely another approach to it -- a way that would be easy & straightforward.
Only pilots with wings and no one else.
It's not very common to do it that way (in just about all other agencies, or branches of the military). However, it definitely is one way that you could do it... and it would be a very simple solution.
In the Navy, just about anyone who flies and gets paid for it has wings, even if they don't wiggle the yoke/stick. In fact, I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and guess that there are more non-pilots getting paid to fly than there are pilots. Thinking a little farther on that, the same likely applies to the AF, too.
Quote from: supertigerCH on April 13, 2012, 07:36:24 PM
That is definitely another approach to it, and a way that would be very easy and straightforward. Only pilots with wings and no one else.
It's not too common to do it that way... in just about all other agencies, or in any branches of the military. However... it definitely is one way that you could do it (and it would be a very simple solution).
??
Well the simple solution is to do nothing.
If a scanner wants some wings...get his pilot's license or do the MO training.
I guess what the argument is really about is......do Scanners RATE a badge?
That argument has not really been hashed out yet IMHO.
If they do....then the following question is do they get their own badge or do mess up all the wing wearers by completely reinventing the wheel?
If you think that Scanner do Rate a Badge.....okay....I would suggest that they just get the Observer Badge.
Change the Senior Observer requirments to include having to get an additional aircrew rateing (MO, AP, ARCHER, Etc) in addition to the 100 hours....and I would be happy.
Quote from: SarDragon on April 13, 2012, 07:41:29 PM
In the Navy, just about anyone who flies and gets paid for it has wings, even if they don't wiggle the yoke/stick. In fact, I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and guess that there are more non-pilots getting paid to fly than there are pilots. Thinking a little farther on that, the same likely applies to the AF, too.
+1
A C-130 crew has 2 pilots, 1 flight engineer, 1 navigator, 1 load master......as a minimumn.
Add all the flight surgions, flight nurses, sensor operators, gunners, Air Battle Managers, INTEL guys, FLYING MAINTAINERS.....and I would not be suprised that there are more non pilots with flying pay and wings then pilots.
Quote from: SarDragon on April 13, 2012, 07:41:29 PM
In the Navy, just about anyone who flies and gets paid for it has wings, even if they don't wiggle the yoke/stick.
(http://d2jxk7u2ol2fk7.cloudfront.net/image/AIRCREWMAN.jpg)
(http://d2jxk7u2ol2fk7.cloudfront.net/image/COMBAT_AIRCREW.jpg)
(http://d2jxk7u2ol2fk7.cloudfront.net/image/NAVY_FLIGHT_OFFICER.jpg)
(http://d2jxk7u2ol2fk7.cloudfront.net/image/FLIGHT_SURGEON.jpg)
(http://d2jxk7u2ol2fk7.cloudfront.net/image/FLIGHT_NURSE.jpg)
All of the above are worn by the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard (with the exception of Flight Surgeon/Nurse), though I'm not sure if USCG wears the NFO wings...I know one who did but he earned them in the Navy. None of the above are pilots.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 13, 2012, 07:45:35 PM
A C-130 crew has 2 pilots, 1 flight engineer, 1 navigator, 1 load master......as a minimumn.
Are navigators still used by the C-130J? I was under the impression that they had been cybernetically retired.
I've talked to quite a few LM's...what a job, and it would stink for me as I hate numbers, equations, etc. I had a long chat with an AFRES C-130 LM (TSgt) some years ago...she was a brainiac, make no mistake.
Quote from: bflynn on April 13, 2012, 02:44:17 PM
Out of curiosity, when the discussion were happening about Observer wings, did anyone bring up the point that if we had wings for Observers, then what about everyone else?
When those discussions where held there were only pilots and observers.
Quote from: wuzafuzz on April 09, 2012, 12:15:01 PM
+1
Expand the crew wings to Aerial Photographers and Mission Scanners. Most of their job is in the air. In fact I've had to work harder as an AP than I ever did as a Scanner.
I already have Observer wings, so this isn't a bling quest. It just seems right.
I agree whole heartedly. We could use binoculars with wings attached. ;D
Scanner wings??? Getting scanner wings would be easier than getting a membership ribbon! Id say if a scanner wants wings, then they need to become qualified observers. I wouldnt compare CAP to the military on this issue. Scanner isnt aircrew. The position isnt even required. Its a way to get new members in the aircraft quickly. In my opinion a member who has settled into being a scanner is shorting themselves and the program. Offering wings to a career scanner only encourages stagnation in that slot. Other than the lack of motivation why would a scanner NOT want to move into the Observer seat? So to argue the point, No, I dont believe the scanner job rates a set of wings. Lets face it, when the W&B goes over, its not the observer who gets left behind!! In the military aircrew load masters, navigators, gunners, srent the same. The aircraft does not fly without them. In CAP we fly without scanners all the time. As an MP Id rather leave them to have better performance most of the time.
If your a sanner/ aerial photographer or a scanner/ archer operator I would say thats great, but now its time for you to take that final step and be the master of your trade and get your Observer on!!!
So, how do justify that attitude if the scanner is prevented from getting flight time because all the MOs and MPs are taking the front seats? or you have a, heaven forbid, a scanner who is not a pilot that has the gall to want to move to the front seat?
Scanner is as much aircrew as the GOBs in the front seats. The pilot's job is to drive the plane and avoid the edges of the sky. That's it. The scanner provides the eyes outside on the left side of the aircraft.
No, the Observers job is ultimately to search. The Scanner is a luxury when we have them and the aircraft performance specs can handle it. Ive left a few scanners behind because the aircraft performance (flying the the Sierra) or gone on missions without them because we didnt have them. That tells me they are not essential crew. Ive never flown a mission without at Observer. Would I have loved to have an MS on every flight? Sure, but it didnt always happen. If a scanner is having issues getting front seat time then thats something that needs to be addressed by their chain of command. That issue doesnt justify CAP creating wings for them.
I would view CAP flying more like LE flying, not compare it to the military. I have a pilot (me) and my observer (flight officer). If I have extra set of eyes to throw in the back sure, go for it. But I never leave without my observer.
Don't have any personal knowledge of the crews on AF C-130Js, but the Marines carry four: two pilots and two loadmasters. I was under the impression that the AF no longer carries navigators on any of their cargo aircraft. I went to Korea in 1996 on an AFRES C-5A and it didn't carry a nav: in fact, I flew in the nav seat for takeoffs and landings. Talk about a long trip!!!!!!
Air Force C-130J's normally have a crew of three. 2 pilots and a loadmaster.
Usually a second loadmaster is carried to speed up the loading and unloading of cargo and to help monitor the passengers.
The Special Operations MC-130J's carry Navigators, but that's because of their unique mission.
On the C-141B/C, we had a Navigator position on the aircraft. But we only carried a Navigator on airdrop missions and on missions that went above 60 degrees North or below 60 degrees South latitude.
A C-130 and a C-141 have nothing in common with a C-182!
Quote from: 754837 on April 15, 2012, 05:43:57 PM
A C-130 and a C-141 have nothing in common with a C-182!
Understood. However, all those personnel wear wings of some sort, not just the pilots. That being the case, scanners should have wings too.
^ "All those personnel" have a lot more training and a do a lot more than a CAP scanner does to get their "rating," and earn their wings.
I honestly don't think scanner qualification merits wings. Let's save badges for crew-members who put in the effort for the additional training and additional ratings.
Again, comparing a load master or a navigator getting wings has nothing to do with a CAP sanner getting wings. Those military badges are for people who are critical to the operation and the plane doesnt fly without them. A CAP scanner isnt the same way.
Just an opinion here, though I'll agree with Flying Pig a bit with the concept that scanners are "non-essential". Valuable when circumstances allow for it but as long as you have an MO and MP you can effectively manage a mission. Taking some of the search duties away from the MO so he/she can focus on getting the plane to its target or search area and effectively managing communications is a luxury which can not always be afforded.
That said I think scanners who have qualified in another aircrew specialty such as AP, Archer, etc... may be worth looking into some kind of aircrew badge... Perhaps a different shape or style of wing similar to how the Navy combat aircrew badge has "wings" on it but they are clearly not pilot wings or nav wings or what have you. Just my 2 cents, YMMV.
Flying Pig is only one of several people who, in the past, have seen scanner wings as unnecessary (no judgments, just a fact to preface what I am about to write next.)
I must say, that I am surprised that the nature of this thread is as favorable as it is. There was another such discussion, either here or at the now defunct CIVIL AIR PORTAL where the then forum mavens were quite negative on the prospect of SCANNER WINGS.
The arguments against it ranged from similar one's Flying Pig is making to one that "Mission Scanner is a step in becoming a Mission Observer)
I have always been favorable to the idea myself having once qualified long ago as a Mission Observer. I have not worn those wings in over a decade (when my quals ran out, but an considering wearing them again) The Mission Scanner, by virtue of the fact that is it 1) completely different than an OBSERVER, 2) often takes on other responsibilities (such as aerial photography) 3) has its own SQTR form and 4) is part of a qualified aircrew (for example you cannot just grabs any CADET PROGRAMS OFFICER, MISSION RADIO OPERATOR or GROUND TEAM MEMBER who happens to be free and put them in as a qualified mission scanner with out training and expect your sortie to be released.)
I say, there is nothing to lose by creating the wings...and, if some person who is primary Ground Team, MRO, CP or the like wants to take a WHOLE CAP approach to their service and serve as a qualified "Stand by" Mission Scanner with no ambitions to become a pilot or observer. I say let them.
Quote from: Major Carrales on April 15, 2012, 08:52:56 PM
I say, there is nothing to lose by creating the wings...and, if some person who is primary Ground Team, MRO, CP or the like wants to take a WHOLE CAP approach to their service and serve as a qualified "Stand by" Mission Scanner with no ambitions to become a pilot or observer. I say let them.
I see your point of view here. I see Flying Pigs as well. I remember when I was a scanner, while I wanted to be aircrew for the missions and love for being in an aircraft, the added idea of having wings of course was there. I think that extra little push to want wings was enough incentive for me to pursue being an observer though. I am not a pilot so earning those observer wings was an accomplishment for me and I actually enjoy the front seat more than I do the back. I don't mean to belittle the value of having a scanner in the back though and if people are content just being scanners, power to them. If scanners did get approved for a badge of some kind, you wouldn't see me complaining, but personally would like to see scanners at least rate in something else before giving them wings.
Just a suggestion, make the scanner wing a half wing. They've been produced before,but update the design to the straight wing. I wouldn't be surprised if many would upgrade to replace it with ful wings.
If you're going to talk about things that are "non-essential", then solo and pre-solo wings have got to go. They really are nothing more than "feel good" bling in the first place, and don't indicate any kind of mission ability. At least a scanner provides a function; solo and pre-solo do not.
Quote from: Captainbob441 on April 15, 2012, 08:48:57 PM
Perhaps a different shape or style of wing similar to how the Navy combat aircrew badge has "wings" on it but they are clearly not pilot wings or nav wings or what have you. Just my 2 cents, YMMV.
An example from north of the 49th parallel:
(http://www.airforcebadges.ca/thumbs/tn_CAF-Plt86.jpg)
Pilot
(http://www.airforcebadges.ca/thumbs/tn_CAF-Nav86.jpg)
Navigator
(http://www.airforcebadges.ca/thumbs/tn_CAF-FC86.jpg)
Flight Crew
(http://www.airforcebadges.ca/thumbs/tn_CAF-FS86.jpg)
Flight Surgeon
The distinction between the "front office" and the "back office" is clear by the shape of the wings...interesting to note that they include Flight Surgeons in the "back office."
Again, a single half-wing brevet would be usable for CAP.
Aside from other jobs ie. ARCHER, AP, etc, There are two specialties in a CAP plane. Observer and Pilot. Both start as Scanners and branch out into their respective paths. Thats one of the reasons I see it as a starting point for continued training, not an "aircrew" spot. Not all pilots are observers and not all observers are pilots, but ALL observers and pilots are scanners. Scanner isnt a specialty, its a common foundation. Its the most basic qualification to be able to "work" in a CAP aircraft
I have had the opportunity to fly with Observers who really do command the mission and it takes a huge relief off of the pilot when the Observer is tuning radios for you, pulling things up on the MFD (G1000) or working the other avionics. That is what a scanner should be attempting to become. I've also flown with Observers who were nothing more than a number in my W&B calculation!
So what I am saying is f you are happy being a Mission Scanner and you have no desire to move beyond that GREAT! I just dont think you need a badge. We all know once we approve scanner wings, we will need Senior Scanner and Master Scanner wings. Please..........
However....
If CAP does move on with making scanner wings make it a head in a barf bag with lightening bolts coming out of their ears ;D
Even if an Air Crew badge did exist though... wouldn't pilots/observers still start out in the scanner position?
That wouldn't have to change... would it?
Quote from: supertigerCH on April 15, 2012, 09:48:29 PM
Even if an Air Crew badge did exist though... wouldn't pilots/observers still start out in the scanner position?
That wouldn't have to change... would it?
Not necessarily.
To quote my proposal:
"The Air Crew positions are fairly self explanatory. Mission Scanner is an entry level position and progresses to Mission Observer. Highbird Radio Operator is another entry level position, but does not have a progression track. The various ARCHER and aerial imagery qualifications involve significant training and practice. Progression through the aircrew insignia levels is possible, using a formula similar to the Observer progression"
The difference in the badge design generally indicates that the wearer is a back-seater, not a front-seater.
Quote from: arajca on April 15, 2012, 10:10:06 PM
Quote from: supertigerCH on April 15, 2012, 09:48:29 PM
Even if an Air Crew badge did exist though... wouldn't pilots/observers still start out in the scanner position?
That wouldn't have to change... would it?
Not necessarily.
To quote my proposal:
"The Air Crew positions are fairly self explanatory. Mission Scanner is an entry level position and progresses to Mission Observer. Highbird Radio Operator is another entry level position, but does not have a progression track. The various ARCHER and aerial imagery qualifications involve significant training and practice. Progression through the aircrew insignia levels is possible, using a formula similar to the Observer progression"
The difference in the badge design generally indicates that the wearer is a back-seater, not a front-seater.
Is HRO even a qual or is it an MRO in an airplane?
Quote from: arajca on April 15, 2012, 10:10:06 PM
Quote from: supertigerCH on April 15, 2012, 09:48:29 PM
Even if an Air Crew badge did exist though... wouldn't pilots/observers still start out in the scanner position?
That wouldn't have to change... would it?
Not necessarily.
To quote my proposal:
"The Air Crew positions are fairly self explanatory. Mission Scanner is an entry level position and progresses to Mission Observer. Highbird Radio Operator is another entry level position, but does not have a progression track. The various ARCHER and aerial imagery qualifications involve significant training and practice. Progression through the aircrew insignia levels is possible, using a formula similar to the Observer progression"
The difference in the badge design generally indicates that the wearer is a back-seater, not a front-seater.
Yeah, why not have people with an Air Crew badge... train to do
all these things? It seems like there are plenty of tasks (as you have listed here) for them to do... and to lay out a progression for them.
On top of that... the position could
still be a starting point for those who want to become observers/pilots.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on April 15, 2012, 10:14:06 PM
Quote from: arajca on April 15, 2012, 10:10:06 PM
Quote from: supertigerCH on April 15, 2012, 09:48:29 PM
Even if an Air Crew badge did exist though... wouldn't pilots/observers still start out in the scanner position?
That wouldn't have to change... would it?
Not necessarily.
To quote my proposal:
"The Air Crew positions are fairly self explanatory. Mission Scanner is an entry level position and progresses to Mission Observer. Highbird Radio Operator is another entry level position, but does not have a progression track. The various ARCHER and aerial imagery qualifications involve significant training and practice. Progression through the aircrew insignia levels is possible, using a formula similar to the Observer progression"
The difference in the badge design generally indicates that the wearer is a back-seater, not a front-seater.
Is HRO even a qual or is it an MRO in an airplane?
It is a planned qualification. Ref CAPR 60-3, Sect. 2-3, para f.
I figured I'd add it in the proposal now since it is listed in CAPR 60-3, rather than wait until the training gets developed.
Quote from: 754837 on April 15, 2012, 05:43:57 PM
A C-130 and a C-141 have nothing in common with a C-182!
Really???? You mean they do not fly because of the Bournulli effect? >:D
Quote from: Flying Pig on April 15, 2012, 09:36:21 PM
So what I am saying is f you are happy being a Mission Scanner and you have no desire to move beyond that GREAT! I just dont think you need a badge. We all know once we approve scanner wings, we will need Senior Scanner and Master Scanner wings. Please..........
Um, not necessarily. "Senior Scanner" would be ... Observer. Wouldn't it?
Quote
However....
If CAP does move on with making scanner wings make it a head in a barf bag with lightening bolts coming out of their ears ;D
Now
that is funny!
Jack
Quote from: ColonelJack on April 16, 2012, 01:52:53 AM
Quote from: Flying Pig on April 15, 2012, 09:36:21 PM
So what I am saying is f you are happy being a Mission Scanner and you have no desire to move beyond that GREAT! I just dont think you need a badge. We all know once we approve scanner wings, we will need Senior Scanner and Master Scanner wings. Please..........
Um, not necessarily. "Senior Scanner" would be ... Observer. Wouldn't it?
Quote
However....
If CAP does move on with making scanner wings make it a head in a barf bag with lightening bolts coming out of their ears ;D
Now that is funny!
Jack
I dunno..... go from Master Scanner or even COMMAND SCANNER to basic Observer? Who would dare give up the wreath and star on the Commander Scanner Wings for just a plain old set of observer wings? Certainly not I. That would be like going from CMSgt to 2Lt!! >:D
Quote from: Flying Pig on April 16, 2012, 02:18:16 AM
Quote from: ColonelJack on April 16, 2012, 01:52:53 AM
Quote from: Flying Pig on April 15, 2012, 09:36:21 PM
So what I am saying is f you are happy being a Mission Scanner and you have no desire to move beyond that GREAT! I just dont think you need a badge. We all know once we approve scanner wings, we will need Senior Scanner and Master Scanner wings. Please..........
Um, not necessarily. "Senior Scanner" would be ... Observer. Wouldn't it?
Quote
However....
If CAP does move on with making scanner wings make it a head in a barf bag with lightening bolts coming out of their ears ;D
Now that is funny!
Jack
I dunno..... go from Master Scanner or even COMMAND SCANNER to basic Observer? Who would dare give up the wreath and star on the Commander Scanner Wings for just a plain old set of observer wings? Certainly not I. That would be like going from CMSgt to 2Lt!! >:D
That's true... some people might feel like it's going backwards (to start work toward another badge). Is it really though?
My example comes from the Army... since that's where my past experience lies. If a soldier there was a helicopter crew member (Crew Chief) for many years... and then decided to go to Warrant Officer school to become a pilot (who wears different wings)... would he really be going backward? In most ways becoming a pilot would be a step up... unless a person just loved the particular job of being a Crew Chief.
Unless you're just joking... which I'm starting to think you might be. :)
Quote from: ColonelJack on April 16, 2012, 01:52:53 AM
Quote from: Flying Pig on April 15, 2012, 09:36:21 PM
So what I am saying is f you are happy being a Mission Scanner and you have no desire to move beyond that GREAT! I just dont think you need a badge. We all know once we approve scanner wings, we will need Senior Scanner and Master Scanner wings. Please..........
Um, not necessarily. "Senior Scanner" would be ... Observer. Wouldn't it?
My proposal has scanners progressing to observer, so the scanner would not have senior or command/master wings. Most other aircrew (AP, ARCHERs, GEIIPS, GF, etc) would have progression to senior and master as those involve alot more technical expertise.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 12, 2012, 06:11:00 PM
Quote from: arajca on April 12, 2012, 06:05:36 PMHere's simple answer - be currently qualified for whatever rating (MP, MO, MS, GTM, GTL, IC, etc.). Not current - don't get to wear the badge. We already have requirements for maintaining currency. Perhaps build in a "after XX years of currency, the badge/wings/bling becomes a permenant award" clause.
Not unreasonable, but then to be fair you'd have to require the same of military badges, and then you'd have people saying "Well the military awards them
permanently, so they are permanent..." From there you've got a bunch of people wearing badges that have nothing to do with CAP, and members who
earned CAP badges not able to wear anything.
Good suggestion, but not practical. You can go into e-services now and submit a request through channels to make your wings permanent. It's the same with a ground team badge. It's not fair to make an individual take a badge off if they're not current because of what time they invested to earn the badge in the first place.
I really think that the observer rating may need to be re-examined given all the new special areas like AP, ARCHER, or SDIS. Perhaps granting a scanner or aircrew badge is the best solution, especially for those individuals who are only badge hunting. The Air Force, after all, does have an officer aircrew badge (see below). The last time I looked at the requirements for this badge, I though they were kind of broad. In other words, when the badge was introduced, I was amazed at the number of senior officers who pursued it.
On the other hand, an observer rating in the military is a very broad rating...it can be anything from navigator to bombadier to radar gunner or operator. Air Force officers who served as mission specialists aboard the Shuttle were granted an observer rating and wore navigator wings. There was even a technical observer rating that involved rated pilots who peformed technical duties in relation to an aircrew. Perhaps the real solution is to broaden the observer rating and allow scanners to wear observer wings, but knowing the full limitations of that rating when assigning aircrew duties during a mission. After all, an observer can also serve as the mission commander by regulation.
the Royal Air Force only issues the double wing to pilots all other aircrew members have the half wing, with a letter showing what position they hold for example N - Navigator, LM - Load Master, AT - Airbourne Technician. So why not similar for CAP as all the aircrew rolls are becoming more and more specialized. I recently qualified as Observer but would love to see other aircrew positions be award wings of some sort. It is a great achievement so why not reward them. Members should also keep their wings even if the qual runs out. Ops Quals 101T card shows if you are current. GT badge is for life but doesn't mean you are current.
So yes wings for scanners and air photographer.
always wearing a badge (for life) would be nice. people do put a lot into getting them.
Quote from: andysum15 on April 16, 2012, 01:02:23 PM
Members should also keep their wings even if the qual runs out. Ops Quals 101T card shows if you are current. GT badge is for life but doesn't mean you are current.
So yes wings for scanners and air photographer.
Did I miss something? When I earned my Senior Observer wings (1995), it was understood that once awarded, always worn. I was out of CAP for 12 years, rejoining in 2009 ... and I have been wearing my wings ever since. I've recently re-qualified as far as basic observer, but - as they say here in the South - there ain't no way I'm going back to the old wings.
Unless, of course, regulations say I have to. If there's a reg that says one must have current quals for the wings they wear, I'd very much appreciate a cite.
Jack
^^^That's my understanding too. I got my Observer wings in '01, and I'm not current right now but I still wear them.
However, I believe General Courter was an Observer but she isn't wearing the wings in any picture I ever saw of her.
The rating of CAP Observer does not expire as noted in e-services it's only the op qual that runs out. Therefore the wings can be worn.
If you go into the left column of e-services, into my Operational Qualifications, and then in the sub-category of Pilot, there's a area called "CAP Ratings," open it and check the approprate observer or pilot rating, it initiates a request to your commander to approve it. The outcome is that your rating will show up in e-services as permanent and does not expire. In another area, you can do the same with the ES Patch, ES Badge and GT badges.
Certainly, once an aeronautical rating is awarded, the wings are permanent, but if it is displayed in e-services, there's no question.
I had a break in service because of CAP-RAP. When I rejoined, my orginal records (with the exception of what ever certificates and decorations I had previously earned) went to the winds. A check of NHQ found a computer record with my original observer rating on it and it was NHQ that said to put the wings back on.
Quote from: wuzafuzz on April 09, 2012, 12:15:01 PM
+1
Expand the crew wings to Aerial Photographers and Mission Scanners. Most of their job is in the air. In fact I've had to work harder as an AP than I ever did as a Scanner.
I already have Observer wings, so this isn't a bling quest. It just seems right.
+1 I agree with this logic.
Perhaps these designs would work for Scanner wings (if they ever became reality)...
1. Same as the "Pilot" and "Observer" wings... with only a triangle in the center circle (no letter "O", and no propeller).
2. Same as the "Pilot" and "Observer" wings... with the triangle, and the letters "CAP" superimposed over the triangle.
Just ideas. If such a thing ever happens... then whatever CAP chooses members wear.
I think the current style wings without the prop would be a good alternative as someone mentioned earlier in the thread.
If you check back earlier in this discussion, I noted I had already submitted such a thing. Whether anything comes of it is anyone's guess. Mayhap Ned would know if it made it to the Uniform Committee - and would be willing share that tidbit - even if they haven't acted on it.
Quote from: arajca on June 13, 2012, 05:39:07 PM
If you check back earlier in this discussion, I noted I had already submitted such a thing. Whether anything comes of it is anyone's guess. Mayhap Ned would know if it made it to the Uniform Committee - and would be willing share that tidbit - even if they haven't acted on it.
I thought that the Uniform Committee had kiboshed anything to do with uniforms for the foreseeable future.
I've had proposals on paper since after the CSU was killed but I haven't submitted them because it wouldn't do any bloody good since there was a moratorium on uniforms in general.
I still have the proposals...but the cynical side of me says it won't mean anything because it's not making everything grey. :-X
I'm neutral to slightly positive about having a single design of aircrew wings that covers all crew positions.
I really don't like half wings...it's like saying a crew member is only half as important as the pilot. And I agree, APs are the hardest working member of a photography mission...
Quote from: bflynn on June 13, 2012, 07:45:24 PM
I'm neutral to slightly positive about having a single design of aircrew wings that covers all crew positions.
I really don't like half wings...it's like saying a crew member is only half as important as the pilot. And I agree, APs are the hardest working member of a photography mission...
Our allies do quite well with them...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b7/Army_badges.jpg/800px-Army_badges.jpg)
Australian Army Aviation badges
I'm sorry, but the half-wings look idiotic.
They do, I'm sorry, history or such, whatever. But I've always thought they look just plain idiotic.
Quote from: a2capt on June 13, 2012, 11:33:33 PM
They do, I'm sorry, history or such, whatever. But I've always thought they look just plain idiotic.
Yes, but there is a historical precedence for such a wing not only in CAP, but also the Army and the Navy. Observers, both aircraft and balloon wore half-wings....as did WW II CAP observers and those who earned the CAP Stewardess Badge.
My own thought on the matter is that CAP should adopt an aircrew badge (half wing, full wing or whatever) just because we are accumulating so many ES ratings now that require flying in one capacity or an other while not requiring people to be observers....especially since our counterparts in the Coast Guard Auxiliary are already at that stage.
I don't understand why it is so hard to promote that idea with the NB and NEC. I would think they might embrace it as an incentive to achieve that rating...especially since they came up with two different solo wings for cadets and senior members....and yes, I have known of senior members who have earned solo badges.
Quote from: flyboy1 on June 14, 2012, 10:36:37 AM
Yes, but there is a historical precedence for such a wing not only in CAP, but also the Army and the Navy. Observers, both aircraft and balloon wore half-wings....as did WW II CAP observers and those who earned the CAP Stewardess Badge.
Some things are best left in the dustbin of history.
I would wear a half wing, but only if it was a Right Wing! Still waiting for CAP to issue the Chairborne Ranger Wings.
Major Lord
I'd wear a half wing if I qualified. Besides, some may look at it as a reason to continue their advancement.
Quote from: Hawk200 on June 14, 2012, 06:22:43 PM
I'd wear a half wing if I qualified. Besides, some may look at it as a reason to continue their advancement.
That could be said for not awarding wings at all to scanners.
IMHO...if we are going to consider MS a full position for aircrew then we should just issue the observer wings at that point.
Change the title of the wings to CAP Air Crew and then press on.
Note....some changes to the reg would need to be made to allow for award of senior and master wings.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 14, 2012, 06:34:15 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on June 14, 2012, 06:22:43 PM
I'd wear a half wing if I qualified. Besides, some may look at it as a reason to continue their advancement.
That could be said for not awarding wings at all to scanners.
IMHO...if we are going to consider MS a full position for aircrew then we should just issue the observer wings at that point.
Change the title of the wings to CAP Air Crew and then press on.
Note....some changes to the reg would need to be made to allow for award of senior and master wings.
Agree.
The thing is that the primary duty of an observer is still being a scanner, so why not do just that and sort out whose up front at the mission base.
Huh?
Quote from: EMT-83 on June 15, 2012, 01:35:37 AM
Huh?
And quote this again from the CAP Mission Aircrew Reference Text:
"The Mission Observer is a scanner with expanded duties who usually sits in
the right front seat. In addition to the primary duty of scanning while in the search
area, the observer assists the pilot with planning, navigation, and communication.
The observer may also server as mission commander, ensuring that all mission
objectives are met."
Or how about this from the NHQ ES training slides:
Primary Responsibility during searches: Visual Search
Report for briefings
Assist in planning – may be mission commander
Check necessary equipment aboard (checklists)
Assist in avoiding obstacles during taxiing
Assist in setting up and operating radios
Assist in setting up and operating nav equipment
Maintain situational awareness
Assist in monitoring fuel status
Was I the only one paying attention in class?
It's the "expanded duties" that make it more than a coin toss on who sits in the back seat.
Either change Observer wings to aircrew wings, or leave the whole thing as it is....half wings, historically based though they are, would look ridiculous today!
Quote from: ZigZag911 on June 15, 2012, 07:38:58 PM
Either change Observer wings to aircrew wings, or leave the whole thing as it is....half wings, historically based though they are, would look ridiculous today!
+1