Are CAP aircrew ES training requirements sufficient?

[RiverAux]

How does everybody feel about the current standards for becoming Mission Scanners, Observers, and Pilots?  Too high, adequate, too low?  What tasks would you like to see added or taken away? 

About the only thing I find glaring is a lack of any tasks on aerial damage assessment and/or photography.  Mission Pilots should have to demonstrate flying such a mission, scanners need to take photos during such a mission, and Observers need to demonstrate keeping track of photos being taken by the scanners. 

This type of mission has been the only real area of growth within the CAP ES field but all our training is still primarily focused on SAR, which will probably continue to decline.

[DNall]

There's a lot of trouble taking a new guy off the street & having them not see the training as overwhelming. First time around I went to the AF Res Observer course, which was great but really too fast. I don't know if we're still doing those, but it would be good if the students went to that before being faced with all the tasks.

Far as photography & such. Each tech is a dif specialty & should be signed off seperately on an SQTR & appear on the 101. Having navigator pilot wings in the AF doesn't mean you can trade in your keys to the C130 for an F15. You have to be qualified on the plane & every weapon system. It's not going to be a lot dif if we hav SDIS, ARCHER, FLIR, and more to come in the long term. You have to get the basic wings, for which the requirements now are pretty good, and then you need to just look at each of the specialties seperately.

[Eclipse]

The training is adequate to all tasks as defined by the 60-series.

Photography isn't one of them, therefore no training.

Which is of extreme disappointment, since it is being sold as one of our primary "products" right now. 

You can't run a radio without training, but Photo Recon is an afterthought and a "we hope you know how".

As someone who has created a formal training program for PRO's (one which has been presented extensively in NE ILWG), I have to say that this notion that Observers shoudl be in volved in the recording of ANY info regarding the photos is nonsense.

During the photo runs, the Scanner should be commanding the pilot on the alighnment of the aircraft, speed, angle, etc., and as to whether the photos actually came out.

The observer should be looking out the windows for traffic, etc., while the pilot and PRO are occupied taking the photos.

We need to follow the NASA model of mission specialists, in this case:

The Pilot flies the plane and has ultimate reponsibility for the aviation portion of the mission.

The Observer is the MISSION Commander, and has ultimate reposnisbility for the planning and success of the mission, only deffering to the pilot on matters related to aviation.

The Scanner, PRO, SDIS, ARCHER guy, takes over during portions of the flight which he is responsible for. 

Too many aircrews take off on photo runs and forget that the reason they are flying is to get photos, sometimes treating the GIB's as PITA cargo.

[RiverAux]

When you are doing a photo run it is very difficult for the scanner to both take the photos and record adequate information about what is being photographed.  Recording keeping needs to be done while the photographs are being taken.  If you try to recreate it after the run is over you will very quickly find yourself in trouble, especially if more than just a couple photos were taken. 

[DNall]

Software that records the photos straight to the laptop & marks the GPS on them would solve some of that work load for very cheap. The backseat is the best place to shoot from cause they can slide to either side. Someone needs to be the big picture guy to get the pilot moving to the right places, managing comms, and directing teh backseater. That's the mission commander, and should be the job of the observer. Now that sounds fine in theory, till you get an experienced pilot & a fresh observer, bad training all around. The tasks are teh right ones for the job, it's just the way we deliver them to the trainee that's problematic, but then that goes for everything.

[RiverAux]

That system might help some but you would still need someone entering additional information on the site (what the photo was of, what direction you were facing when taking the photo, etc.).

Hard experience has shown that the Observer has the most time available (while the photos are being shot by the scanner) to take care of these details. 

[Eclipse]

Some of what needs to be recorded depends on what type of photos you are taking.

Damage asseement photos of a known fixed target (such as a bridge, building, fixed point) do not need as much "as it happens" record keeping - you know the long/lat, etc., before you get there.

Most of the other data should be prepared enroute, and if fly a standardized box, as long as you know the direction of the FIRST photo, the others record themselves.

"Look around for stuff" missions are somewhat different in that you may not know a photo needs to be taken, until you see the object.

In either case, with 50 Wings, we 'll find at LEAST 50 different ways of doing things, and yet for some bizarre reason, NHQ has chosen to ignore the need for this training.

[A.Member]

About the only thing I find glaring is a lack of any tasks on aerial damage assessment and/or photography.  Mission Pilots should have to demonstrate flying such a mission...

A mission pilot doesn't really care about the type of mission being flown.  The mission pilot just needs to fly the designated patterns (and not run into stuff - mainly the ground), regardless of the mission. 

[RiverAux]

Being able to fly a good photo mission is not something every pilot instinctively knows how to do.  Like everything else it requires training and practice. 

Keep in mind that this is one of the approved proficiency  mission profiles in 60-1. 

[A.Member]

Being able to fly a good photo mission is not something every pilot instinctively knows how to do.  Like everything else it requires training and practice. 

Keep in mind that this is one of the approved proficiency  mission profiles in 60-1. 

True, it is mission profile.  However, my point is that from a mission pilot perspective it's all the same.   A pilot just flies a particular pattern (you'll notice the pilot's tasks in those profiles really don't vary).  What the other people in the aircraft are doing really determines what type of mission it is. 

That said, aircrew proficiency is always a concern, especially when funding for training is limited.  From a mission pilot perspective, I've also started a somewhat related thread as it relates to the pilots ability to fly patterns in the glass cockpits (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1040.msg12804#msg12804) as changes in the tools we use will require new solutions and more training to be proficient.  This is a major concern as the fleet is slowly updated.