Pushing Out Sorties

[Ranger75]

Yesterday, I participated as the Planning Section Chief during my wing's USAF evaluated SAREX.  My section and the wing earned an overall evaluation of excellent at its conclusion.  It appears the factor that dropped us from outstanding to excellent was the extended delay in getting wheels up on our aircraft after passing the mission task to operations.  The complaint of aircrews about sitting around pending a mission tasking and that of wing commanders growing redder in the face as the count of aircraft sitting on the ramp increases are familiar to me from my past experience in CAP over thirty years ago.  It seems little changes with time.

We have implemented a number of management changes internal to the ICP command and staff in an attempt to alleviate common bottlenecks.  We seek to augment the AOBD Section with additional personnel to assure that the individual tracking mission progress on the radio and CAPF 107 is not the same person drawn away to conduct a mission pre-brief or crew back-brief.  Debriefs are conducted by an element of the Plans Section.  Likewise, recovering the aircrew's digital data and manipulating imagery into final form for delivery to the requesting agency falls to plans.  Plans also provides a skeleton of the CAPF 104, with the mission task and search pattern parameters already defined.  The RU,L working for the PSC, attempts to maintain a list of unassigned crewmembers by ES qualifications and special skill sets (mountain quals, HP, SDIS, etc.) to facilitate the assembly of crews appropriate to the assigned task.

Even with these changes, we find the time from defining the air task to getting the aircraft in the air to be widely variable and inevitably a source of frustration.   Out of safety concerns, Mission Commander are not directed a specific NLT for takeoff.  Rather, once briefed, they are permitted as much planning and crew preparation time as they demand.  The result is one crew will be in the air within thirty minutes of their briefing, another will be exceeding the available crew day before they head out to their aircraft.  What I'm seeking from forum members is twofold.  First, do your own wings assign an expected TOT during the air mission brief?  If so, how is this enforced, without compromising an environment of safety first?    Second, any suggestions from your own experience that we might implement to address the challenge would be welcomed?

[es_g0d]

Its a great question, an old problem, but first and foremost: congratulations on your EXCELLENT rating!  They're not easily won.  If you're worried about the difference between excellent and outstanding, then you (and your wing) likely have your feces properly assembled.

But now on to the matter at hand.  There has always been difficulty in getting crews out the door and into the air from the word "GO!".  This has become more and more difficult as more and more requirements and paperwork is being required of our volunteer aircrews.  There aren't any magical solutions, but there are a few coping strategies that have been helpful.

It sounds as though your wing has done a good job of streamlining the processing of paperwork as much as possible and created a logical system that, in your words, "eliminates bottlenecks."  So you can't improve much more there.  So where does that leave you?

There are 3 things you can do.  1) Pre-plan, preflight, and pre-process paperwork, 2) launch an aircrew early and re-task inflight, and 3) train with a sense of urgency.

1) Pre-plan, preflight, and pre-process paperwork.  There's no rule that says we can't have our crews put together, assigned to an aircraft, and have everything possible filled out on the forms prior to assembling in the morning.  That way only the mission specific items need to be filled in and the crew can launch in minimum time.  Weather, NOTAMs, etc should already be pre-obtained.  The PIC should preflight and preload the aircraft -- all he or she needs to do next is crawl in and cry "clear!".  You can accomplish some of this the night before, and much of it on the same day PRIOR to the beginning of flight operations.

2) Launch and aircrew early and re-task inflight.  I've never been a big fan of highbird operations, even though I realize they're necessary in some instances.  I have been known to launch a highbird first thing in the morning, BEFORE any other briefings or other time-consuming nonsense.  When the first time-sensitive tasking comes up, I'll then re-task the aircrew inflight to tackle the target.  This means you're sending more of an A-team aircrew up in the highbird: someone who can think on her feet and and accept a re-tasking without a problem.  I know who we usually send up in the highbird ... and this technique isn't them.  Its a gamesmanship outlook at an evaluated mission, but it works.  Of special note here is that the traditional "morning briefing" should be challenged.  Other organizations who do large-scale flying shift work for emergency service (ie Wildland Fire) have a morning briefing, but only include their key players.  The "workers" down to the pilot / observer / scanner level do NOT typically attend--their managers do.  I think this is fine, so long as the pertinent information gets passed to each aircrew (and MBS / GT member, for that matter).  Think about what we're simulating at a SAREX: typically its the morning of day 2 or 3 of a Type II (state-wide scale) search.  Most folks will have a pretty good idea of what's going on by that point, so a mass-briefing is really not terribly useful.  The other option is to hold your briefing earlier, and tell your evaluators that you'll be ready to begin the scenario(s) at the conclusion of your briefing.  The bottom line is that I challenge the mass-briefing-requirement on the same day of flying.

3) Last, but certainly not least, is for aircrews to train with a sense of urgency.  Urgency must be tempered with safety, but the more one practices being quick and efficient -- but still within the bounds of safety -- the shorter amount of time it takes.  I've seen aircrews take more than an hour and a half to launch AFTER THEY'VE LEFT THE BRIEFING TABLE.  That might be just fine for a flight to a pancake breakfast (although with that type of pacing, they'd better hope it was a pancake supper).  Training FAA-trained aviators into mission aircrew is one of the most challenging aspects of CAP aircrew training.  The mission mindset is difficult to bestow!  The important thing is to practice urgency, but always tempered with safety--even when doing it for real.

To answer your OTHER question, I don't believe a hard no-later-than time for takeoff will really work.  A positive incentive -- such as recognition of crews who most closely estimated their takeoff times -- might help, but a TOT (which stands for time over target, BTW) isn't by itself going to help crews be faster.

Great question, good progress, and an EXCELLENT is something to be proud of!!!

[arajca]

What I have seen work on a SAREX is to have some crews arrive the night before. They get the general briefing at that time. They know what a/c they'll be in - not always possible with same day arrivals. They know who is their crew and can hammer who does what out overnight. They come in, get their detailed briefing and get out.

This plan works. One SAREX, we had 10 a/c off the ground by 0830.

Another issue is the Planning section duty day. The PS duty day should start at an obscene hour, like say, 0300, or work the night before. That give them the opportunity to work with minimal distractions and have everything ready for when the IC walks in. The PS is typically working on the next operational period, not the current one. Some of the details should be left to the Ops section, like who is on what crew/team. Briefing/debriefing should be done in the PS, not Ops, despite what the AOBD may think. IMO, the AOBD should be implementing the plan, not making the plan up as they go.

[Short Field]

We use the IMU - that changes a few things as you can get bogged down with the computer if you are not careful.   Once you decide on a crew/aircraft combo, you can get that word out ASAP verbally.  Let the paperwork follow.  Next, as soon as you decide on a task, give it to the crew to start mission planning.  A quick briefing to the crew on the tasking lets them get working.  Again, let the paperwork follow.  When it comes to the "crew briefing", it is really the crew briefing the AOBD/briefer on how they will be executing the mission they have been tasked with.  That insures they have all the infomation they need, understood the tasking, and can safely execute it.  They should be getting their tasking before the final briefing - not at the briefing and then start to flight plan.  Once that briefing is completed (and all the paperwork should have caught up by then), the crew should be flight released and walking to the airplane.

I still don't know why it  takes some crews 30-45 mins or more to launch after they  depart for the airplane.  It sort of implies the crew didn't really have the airplane pre-flighted and all their gear stored aboard except for what they needed to plan the mission.       

Mass briefings are ok, but not a subsitute for giving a specific crew a specific task.

[Eclipse]

Crew should be waiting for tasking - making sure that's happening is an AOBD/GBD job.

By waiting I mean composed, credentials checked, 104 / 109's started, gear assembled in the vehicles and all parties itching to leave.

All that's left then is briefing the leaders, an bugging out, which shouldn't take more then 15 minutes or so.

What I've seen too much of is crews who wait for their mission to start spin-up, or do the prep but then get bored and wander off, accept a job, elsewhere, etc.  Neither is acceptable if you expect to do things quickly.

In large-scale exercises, crews should expect and be ready to launch on arrival.

The "game" we're playing is that people are literally dying and waiting for us to come and save them, our expediency and urgency have to be basedon that idea.

[sparks]

Filling out forms in advance would be great if we knew what the crew compliment was going to be and what airplane would be used. Arriving with a complete crew in an airplane is no guarantee that's what you will assigned to on a mission.

Much of the 104 can't be done unless more specifics are known nor can the weight & balance be computed or the ORM form. Same goes for preflighting until the aircraft is assigned. More briefers might help expedite the process.

[c172drv]

First, this is a GREAT discussion.

There are a few ideas that need to be explored.  Planning for missions and their execution fall into a couple of broad categories in my opinion; planned and reactionary missions.  Planned missions are often DR or HLS missions that involve a known event and that will have defined expectations early on in the process.  Reactionary missions are often our SAR missions that involve little warning and require an initial effort to be launched.  These missions will almost inevitably rely heavily on the crew for preparation and therefore take a long time to get into field.  Even our SAR missions get to a planned stage as resources increase and information develops. 

What we can look at is the planned parts of missions.  We need to utilize the 24 hour cycle.  Generally we will have 12 hours of active flying and ground team utilization.  This will dwindle during the night.  What can be done during that time is to go into a heavy planning cycle.  Especially with those using the IMU, information can be brought together and resources outside the Mission Base could be used to conduct planning for the following day.
 
My premise is that the load can be distributed amongst members with experience that are unable to travel and support the mission directly due to outside commitments.  Obviously it doesn't require the IMU to due this but just email and some organization.  The planning load could be put out onto Mission Pilots, Observers and Scanners plus Ground Team Leaders to put together the task.   They could further develop the 104's and 109's fully so that they mission taskings are fully developed and only require review by the crew or ground team.

Another area to be looked at is the distribution of responsibility within the ICS structure.  Operations often takes on both the planning and current operations duties.  If we can separate and have dedicated planning then they can take the load off.  What we should look at and evaluate is who does the planning and briefing and debriefing.  In my experience, in a few different wings, there is often a view that planning just creates the paperwork for the mission.  I believe that there should be a change and move to planning driving the direction of the mission, though not directing the folks in the field.  Planning should drive the functional briefing and debriefing of the taskings.  Operations would then conduct operational briefing and release of the crew or ground team.  The difference being the functional briefing is what should be accomplished and the operational briefing is what will affect the mission.

Operations would then also be more focused on current operations.  This would increase safety by their focusing on who is where and plus other factors such as weather.  They would be able to get the feedback from crews pass it along to planning and react to information better.   Currently I feel they are often drawn apart by the brief and debrief of aircraft and ground teams.   They would also be able to focus their efforts on monitoring crews and helping them get out to the door and in the air or on the road.

One other area that might be reviewed to support planning and help new members get into the ES program is to place them in Planning.  Speaking to a friend of mine who is active USAF, I learned that they conduct their planning with their new folks with the guidance of a senior member of the unit.  This, he said, gives the new members insight into what happens on missions and what is involved.  They later take this to the air flying missions they have planned.  I believe this would be a great idea for us to take folks that have completed F&P training for flight crews and place them in Planning to help the process along.

OK, that is a major brain dump on my part.  Thoughts on the ideas I put forth are welcome. 

[arajca]

Filling out forms in advance would be great if we knew what the crew compliment was going to be and what airplane would be used. Arriving with a complete crew in an airplane is no guarantee that's what you will assigned to on a mission.

Much of the 104 can't be done unless more specifics are known nor can the weight & balance be computed or the ORM form. Same goes for preflighting until the aircraft is assigned. More briefers might help expedite the process.

How long does it take to do a W&B and ORM? Much of the information on the left can be prefilled. The current 104 is dated 1984. Much has changed since then. Most CAP a/c are standardized as far as equipment. Everything on the left from Mission Objective through Code Words, excluding current weather, can be filled out by the Planning folks prior to the briefing. A few items on the right can be as well. The header information can be prefilled. Experienced MPs and MOs should be encouraged to help staff the Planning section to provide expertise in planning.

A common occurance is the pilot is given a blank 104, fills out the aircrew and aircraft sections, then the rest gets filled out during or after the briefing.

[Gunner C]

What I've seen before that works:

1.  Aircrews leave home station as complete aircrews - MP, MO, MS.

2.  Inbound aircrews are either tasked before takeoff or while inbound.  A crew that is tasked this way can be over the search area at first light thus adding at least one additional sortie to each grid that is originally tasked. This also gives the AOBD the time and space to assign the second set or sorties to crews waiting on the ground.  They can meet the aircraft at the flight line while the original crew is shutting down.  After refueling, the aircraft is off to sortie #2 and the 1st sortie crew is debriefing.

3.  Crews that drive in can also be tasked by phone before departing their home station.  If they are given an arrival time that is approx 1 hour before the first sorties are due to arrive, they can be inprocessed and ready to leave on their sortie when the first sorties arrive as stated above.

I've seen this work before, however discipline is needed to make sure that no one decides to show up when they "feel like it."  The secret is keeping people either in the starting blocks, in the air, or debriefing.

[Short Field]

Based on a lot of SAR and SAREX experience in the past couple of years using the IMU, there should be no delays in getting the crews planning their missions once the taskings are identified.   By identifing taskings, I mean walking up to the map board and seeing where you want to send the crews.  In a multi-state SAR (like we had last month), coordinating the taskings is critical to deconflict your airspace.  That can take time.  However, as soon as you have a search task, it needs to be given to the crew to start mission planning. 

I find I have no problem formalizing the tasking in the IMU and having a completed 104 ready when the crew is ready to brief.  I tend to be waiting for the crew to get finished with their planning. 

Building crews in advance is nice - but only on paper.  It is amazing the number of crew changes you need to make prior to launch.  Again, building a crew in the IMU only takes a couple of minutes - less time than trying to change one.

I question farming out building the taskings to people who are not working under the direct supervision of a PSC.  Remember, a PSC is a fully qualifed GTM, MP/MO, and either a AOBD or GBD - at a minimum.    The OSC is a fully qualified PSC.  I also question rushing sorties out the door just for the sake of launching sorties.  We are out there trying to find someone - a little more time spent planning so we do a better search increases the odds of finding them. 

If you are not getting engine start within minutes of the time it takes the crew to walk to the airplane, there is a problem in the pre-flight process. 

I have ran too many SARs with just me and a radio operator at mission base to not be concerned about chokepoints.   If you have the manpower - get a qualified observer ( to look over the shoulder of the crews to find what is taking so long.  It may be a training issue specific to certain crews.

[Short Field]

Pushing out aircrews gets to be a lot like herding cats.....

[Ranger75]

It's interesting to note the commonality among our TTPs.  My wing has incorporated the majority of the practices that have been put forward during this exchange.  It is our SOP to establish a skeleton staff within the ICP the late afternoon/early evening prior to the main event.  The primary responsibility of this group is to layout the ICP, establish the required communications infrastructure, and plan and issue inbound missions to all participating aircrews and ground teams.  The initial operating period is also established to permit the incoming incident command and staff sufficient time to arrive, establish their individual work areas, and complete the handover briefing between ICs and staff elements before deploying assets depart home station and the ops tempo builds

As PSC, my focus was providing the OSC prioritized mission tasks (draft 104/108s), maintain situational awareness of available resources, conduct crew/team debriefs, and tracking the closure of mission tasks with the requesting agency.  I personally fall somewhere between working off of paper or relying upon IMU.  Rather, I have developed a number of presentation charts in MSWord that I utilize to track tasks (acceptance and completion); the commitment of available resources to include aircraft, aircrews, and ground teams; and a series of checklists for use in drawing out necessary information from requesting agencies (overdue aircraft, imagery mission, missing person) and to process clues.  The presentation charts have also been enlarged as hard copies and covered with acetate to be used in the case of a loss of power.  My computer is hooked up to a video projector and displayed against the opposing wall to allow others to track my work or to refer to during scheduled staff briefings.  The system worked.  At no time did the Ops section have less than three prioritized mission tasks prepared for the next available aircraft and crew. 

Our initial sorties went well as aircraft completed mission tasks prior to first arrival at the staging area/mission base.  The difficulty was in getting a quick turn around of the airframes.  We didn't have the luxury of significantly more qualified crews than airframes, and therefore dependent upon a rapid turn-around of aircraft and a limited number of crews to maintain our initial momentum.  That is where we began to bog down.  It appeared that the Ops Section was getting their crews briefed without significant delay, but, when the crews moved to the aircrew planning tables, time began to slip away.  It is clear that a number of individual MPs are more meticulous than others, demanding more time for crew preparations than others.  Others appeared to lack a sense of mission urgency normally associated with the conduct of a SAR or SAREVAL.  I remain undecided whether to recommend that the wing establish and exercise a set time standard for this phase of a sortie.   

I express my appreciation to all who have participated in this dialogue.  It's good to see that we can engage in a substantive discussion on a topic other than ranger bling or the color of our epaulet slides.   

[Mustang]

Why is it so difficult to have a crew standing by, fully briefed and planning complete, ready and waiting for another crew to return with an aircraft?  I know some of the answers to this already:

• Sorties being launched with two or more pilots aboard
• People with an unwillingness to "let" others use "their" airplane
• Crews not proficient with the sortie planning process, or don't know where/how to check things like weather and NOTAMs efficiently (online)
• Crews not proficient with equipment setup in the airplane; Becker DF, GPS, etc.
• Pilots not sufficiently cross-trained on aircraft types

Now, while some of the AF's recent emphasis items seem a bit misguided and silly (their overemphasis on "time on target", especially during a grid search), they have a right to be angry with underutilization of resources.  Even at the Fossett search, the CAP ramp was always full of airplanes doing nothing. 

I've also seen the problem of where wings have not adequately diversified their pilot groups, making the mistake of getting one core group of pilots (usually the good ol' boys) checked out on the aircraft with peculiar requirements like the GA-8 or Nav III, then being committed to one of those while the other sits.   At one wing's recent guided training exercise, the brand new Nav III-equipped bird sat on the ramp all day because the only guy who could fly it was also an ARCHER operator who was tasked to fly a sortie in the GA-8 (meanwhile the other ARCHER operator on-site sat on the ground).   The AF guys were not pleased with this AT ALL.

As to whether a crew lacks a sufficient sense of urgency in their preflight preparations, this is something that can and should be addressed at the unit level, and evaluated on the CAPF 91 ride.

[es_g0d]

Remember that we ARE part of the Air Force; the total force consists of Active, Reserve, Guard, and Auxiliary.  So saying "AF guys" is a little murky.  But I know what you mean, Mustang! 

I'd like to remind everyone that those "AF guys" who evaluate Civil Air Patrol really know next to nothing about Civil Air Patrol.  If they do know something, its what the "book" said--or more likely, what someone else told them that the book said.

CAP-RAP folks are a lot like battle droids.  They revert to their original programming when confronted with a situation unfamiliar to them.  Since many were Air Force aviators, they revert to what they know -- time on target, for example.  This also applies to paperwork--it must be absolutely complete, and isn't complete until it exceeds the maximum gross weight of the aircraft in question.

My point here is to take some time to educate your evaluators on how Civil Air Patrol really operates.  They're going to revert to their inspector general "where is that written?" mode; it will take some work to get that out of them.  Engage them, get them involved, and teach them!  Preferably well BEFORE your evaluation.

[RiverAux]

The first thing to realize is that a SAREVAL is not designed to simulate an actual mission and often only bares a passing resemblence to a typical SAREX. 

On an actual mission you wouldn't start out at 0800 not knowing much of anything about what your mission(s) are going to be that day.  This really puts the onus on planning to figure things out quickly.  And really, there is no way to avoid having crews sit around.  This is even made worse in SAREVALS where the AF guys change your mission every few hours and half the stuff you planned gets thrown out the door.

That being said, I've never heard the phrase "time on target" uttered by any of our AF guys.  I think the only time I've heard of it used in a CAP context was in a Volunteer article on the Olympics where they were talking about re-routing CAP planes that were in the air to check out various targets on the ground. 

But, leaving aside those issues, the biggest problem my wing has seen with the time between when a crew gets a brief about their target and when they get in the air is the experienced crew members taking a bunch of time teaching the inexperienced folks how to do their job.   We generally see that as the sort of training that needs to be done at the squadron level.  When they come to a SAREX or even the SAREVAL, they should be ready to work and no time should be wasted on stuff they should already know how to do.

[davidsinn]

But, leaving aside those issues, the biggest problem my wing has seen with the time between when a crew gets a brief about their target and when they get in the air is the experienced crew members taking a bunch of time teaching the inexperienced folks how to do their job.   We generally see that as the sort of training that needs to be done at the squadron level.  When they come to a SAREX or even the SAREVAL, they should be ready to work and no time should be wasted on stuff they should already know how to do.

How do you propose we get the training if the nearest assets are 2 hours away? I've been trying to get some MS training in for 2 years now. The only airplane in my group is 2 hours by car. My only chance to touch an aircraft is when we have o-rides for the cadets or at a SAREX and I'm usually stuck running the flight line because I'm on a very short list for FLS.

[RiverAux]

There aren't any items on any of the aircrew SQTRs that HAVE to be done at a SAREX.  You can show up at a SAREX already having done every single task and all you need is the experience represented by the two missions.  So, if you want to become an MS, your best bet would be to contact an appropriate mission pilot and observer drive down to that pilots base, spend some time learning and demonstrating the tasks in the air and on the ground and have all that stuff done.  Then, next time a SAREX comes up you are ready to fly. 

Personally, if the nearest airplane is 2 hours away, your liklihood of ever being used in an aircrew role is so limited, I'm not even sure I would bother. 

But, I was just explaining how we try to do things in my Wing rather than giving a prescription for all of CAP. 

[Short Field]

I'm usually stuck running the flight line because I'm on a very short list for FLS.

Just STOP working as FLS until you get your MS rides.  Consider it "tough love".  If you let them fly other people while you are happy working the flight line - they will keep on flying other people and not fly you.  Why should they change what they are doing - it is working well for them now.

[davidsinn]

I'm usually stuck running the flight line because I'm on a very short list for FLS.

Just STOP working as FLS until you get your MS rides.  Consider it "tough love".  If you let them fly other people while you are happy working the flight line - they will keep on flying other people and not fly you.  Why should they change what they are doing - it is working well for them now.

I have already come to that conclusion after I was promised a sortie later in the day that never developed. However I haven't been able to make it to a SAREX since. I can't afford to pay for the fuel to get to the aircraft nor to fuel it. The whole purpose of SAREX's is to train.

[RiverAux]

Yes, but all the flight planning stuff can be done anytime, anywhere and doesn't need to be done at a SAREX.  Heck, a fair number of MS tasks could be done over the phone ("Discuss...." ). 

The thread is about trying to maximize sorties on SAREX day and if an MP is having to teach basic MS skills while trying to get their sortie off the ground it slows down the whole operation. 

Now, a SAREX can certainly be designed for the sole purpose of teaching basic aircrew skills.  Most are designed to simulate actual searches and to train the staff in mission planning with the crews being "props" for that purpose.  However, if you stood up an experienced mission staff with the purpose of getting as many people TRAINED as possible, that can be done as well.  In that situation you hand out all the grid or other assignments to everybody a week or two ahead of time so everyone has time to mostly plan out all their sorties before they even show up.  Then they can take all the time in the world working on individual member skills.