Wings (Air Crew Badge) for Scanners?

[supertigerCH]

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.)

[SarDragon]

The down side to my idea, is what to do with the existing stock of "O" wings, which would now be obsolete.

[supertigerCH]

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)

[lordmonar]

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.

[SarDragon]

I considered that option, and discarded it. I think it might cause confusion somewhere along the line.

YMMV.

[flyboy53]

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.

[Eclipse]

Of 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.

[jeders]

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.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

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:

[PHall]

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:

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...)

[SarDragon]

According to Wikipedia, the term is not just reserved for the one winged insignia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircrew_brevet

[flyboy53]

Of 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.

[Eclipse]

Of 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.

[ßτε]

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?

[Eclipse]

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.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

According to Wikipedia, the term is not just reserved for the one winged insignia.

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!


Avionics Systems Tech

They also have a unique "upswept wing" for "General Flight Crew" (maybe a rating title we could adapt?):

[supertigerCH]

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.   

[Eclipse]

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.

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.

[supertigerCH]

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.   

[arajca]

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.