Scanner as an Interim position

[Eclipse]

The absolute last reason we should encourage people to become Observers is to obtain funding and really it shouldn't even enter the equation.  That just sends the message that we really don't care about developing high quality crewmembers.   

So...

Now scanners don't know anything, don't do anything, and aren't as "high-quality" as MPs and MO's.

Nice.

Mission pilots drive.

Mission observers talk and point.

Mission scanners actually do the work of the mission.

None is more or less important than the others - don't bother trying to make the argument, it won't "fly", unless over-tasked aircrew doing more than they should just to make the point that they can is a "good" idea.   

I'll make a deal with you guys - keep the wings in trade for losing the elitist attitude just because you sit in the front seats.

[N Harmon]

I don't understand the issue now.

I think I am starting to. I think I am beginning to understand that there exists an institutionalized indifference to the job of mission scanner. Think about it. This is the one aircrew position for which we may not even activate an air branch but to utilize it; and yet the training and recognition we see for this position is nowhere near proportional to its importance.

The best I can figure is that the job of mission scanner just isn't as "cool" as mission pilot or mission observer/navigator/commander. And thus, nobody really respects it or expects much of it. I think subtle things like incorporating aircrew wings for these positions would go a long way to change that attitudes, but it alone won't do the job.

(previous 3 replies slipped in as I hit the "post" button)

[RiverAux]

The absolute last reason we should encourage people to become Observers is to obtain funding and really it shouldn't even enter the equation.  That just sends the message that we really don't care about developing high quality crewmembers.   

So...

Now scanners don't know anything, don't do anything, and aren't as "high-quality" as MPs and MO's.

Nice.

Mission pilots drive.

Mission observers talk and point.

Mission scanners actually do the work of the mission.

None is more or less important than the others - don't bother trying to make the argument, it won't "fly", unless over-tasked aircrew doing more than they should just to make the point that they can is a "good" idea.   

I'll make a deal with you guys - keep the wings in trade for losing the elitist attitude just because you sit in the front seats.

You might want to remember that I started this thread as a defense of the Scanner job as an important position in its own right.

[Eclipse]

You might want to remember that I started this thread as a defense of the Scanner job as an important position in its own right.

Point taken, but it seems to have walked away from there back into the typical us/them nonsense.

[SJFedor]

The absolute last reason we should encourage people to become Observers is to obtain funding and really it shouldn't even enter the equation.  That just sends the message that we really don't care about developing high quality crewmembers.   

So...

Now scanners don't know anything, don't do anything, and aren't as "high-quality" as MPs and MO's.

Nice.

Mission pilots drive.

Mission observers talk and point.

Mission scanners actually do the work of the mission.

Mission observers talk and point to/from the grid. In the container, they're primary role is to be a mission scanner as well. Many MO's forget that their primary job is still that of a visual search.

[Short Field]

Then it is just because someone was too LAZY to properly document their revailidations as MP/MO or they decided they did not want a Scanner Ops Qual.   Read 60-3 about revalidations and equivilant sorties.

[Short Field]

The absolute last reason we should encourage people to become Observers is to obtain funding and really it shouldn't even enter the equation.  That just sends the message that we really don't care about developing high quality crewmembers.   

Please don't quote me as saying things that other people said.

[SarDragon]

Agreed. That bit of prose came from RiverAux.

[JB_407]

All,

I am interested in hearing how the Scanner position is used in your operational and SAREX missions. In the two squadrons I am currently involved with they have no role.

One squadron flies almost exclusively with a crew of two MPs the other doesn't allow scanners on opertional or graded excersises.

JB

[Short Field]

One squadron flies almost exclusively with a crew of two MPs the other doesn't allow scanners on opertional or graded excersises.

Is that a crew of ONLY two MPs in the airplane or do they have a person in the backseat? 

[Eclipse]

One squadron flies almost exclusively with a crew of two MPs the other doesn't allow scanners on opertional or graded exercises.

I'm surprised CAP-USAF hasn't made an issue out of this - for starters there are either safety issues if the pilot is searching instead of
flying, or efficacy issues if the pilot isn't searching.

As a primary function mission scanners are the left-side eyes of the aircraft and take the photographs / video / run SDIS, etc.  Without
a scanner, mission effectiveness is severely degraded because someone is doing double work for no reason.

How this is lost or allowed to continue is beyond me.  Its one thing for a single unit or aircrew to be misinformed, but when they show up to missions this should be corrected by people who know better.

[a2capt]

Graded? Sounds like hand picked crews and GOB activity to me. Thats night right at all.

If they think the training is no good, then they need to run that up the chain. But by excluding folks because "no one can do it as good as we can", isn't the answer and will backfire in the future when those that are "the only ones capable of doing the mission" burn out, or otherwise don't get their way at some point when they are used to getting nothing but their way, and they take their ball and go home.

Been there, done that, felt the effects of  it. One more reason Cadet Programs and Aerospace Education look a lot more interesting every day, than dealing with all the GOBs and politics.

[heliodoc]

^^^^

You in my Wing??

Pretty prevalent in ALOT of Wings....some GOB's do not want to pass on the knowledge

Poor leadership, poor mentorship, poor forward thinking .......plenty of that to think about for CAP's future if today's "leaders" can not even step up to the plate thinking they are the sole answer to CAP future and its abilities to secure missions, funding, and future respect.

[vento]

All,

I am interested in hearing how the Scanner position is used in your operational and SAREX missions. In the two squadrons I am currently involved with they have no role.

One squadron flies almost exclusively with a crew of two MPs the other doesn't allow scanners on opertional or graded excersises.

JB

In our squadron, we routinely fly with a scanner in the backsit during missions (CD or SAR) and SAREX.

Very often we also fly with two MPs, we are lucky to have quite a few qualified MPs in our squadron. When two MPs fly, the right seat MP acts as an Observer. Many times, an Observer or MP will fly in the back seat and act as an Scanner when a MS is not readily available.

Note that we fly a C-182. In some squadrons that fly the C-172, they may have to trade the backseat for fuel (a payload issue) to get more air endurance time. In that case, they may be forced to unload a MS and take a MP or MO only in the front right seat, I wouldn't take that as a sign of the MS having less significance, but  simply as a constraint of the resources available for the mission. After all, all MPs and MOs are also qualified MSs.

[Eclipse]

Note that we fly a C-182. In some squadrons that fly the C-172, they may have to trade the backseat for fuel (a payload issue) to get more air endurance time. In that case, they may be forced to unload a MS and take a MP or MO only in the front right seat, I wouldn't take that as a sign of the MS having less significance, but  simply as a constraint of the resources available for the mission. After all, all MPs and MOs are also qualified MSs.

A legit point, but proper fuel management generally solves that issue. BTDT.

[vento]

Note that we fly a C-182. In some squadrons that fly the C-172, they may have to trade the backseat for fuel (a payload issue) to get more air endurance time. In that case, they may be forced to unload a MS and take a MP or MO only in the front right seat, I wouldn't take that as a sign of the MS having less significance, but  simply as a constraint of the resources available for the mission. After all, all MPs and MOs are also qualified MSs.

A legit point, but proper fuel management generally solves that issue. BTDT.

Also a legit point in regards to fuel management. Here in CAWG, our members are relatively big and mostly over 200 Lbs in the 205-230 Lbs range. Take that times three aircrew members in a C172 and we end up with anywhere between 20 and 30 gallons of fuel which translates into roughly 2 to 3 hours of total airtime. Much less when taking into consideration the required legal minimum fuel on board, so the fuel available for mission is drastically reduced.

It takes fuel to fly to the grid and back to the base, therefore it's not uncommon to drop an aircrew in order to carry some more fuel and work the mission with minor compromises. Also it can get sort of hot here in SoCal, and very often Density Altitude becomes an issue if the grid is at some elevation and thus forcing us to fly with only two aircrew members.

[Short Field]

You should only be flying two MPs on a mission in a few circumstances.  First would be if you don't have MSs or MOs who are AVAILABLE to fly (note I didn't say qualified - as the MP should be willing to train them).  Second, if one of the MPs needs to have a check ride and the other MP is the check pilot.  Third, if one of the MPs is signed off as qualified but not really safe to fly alone (should be corrected by good leadership).  Otherwise you should fly TWO sorties and give more MSs and MOs a change to fly and train. 

The GOBs might complain about how hard it is to get other pilots to join CAP but the ugly truth is they don't want the competition for the free flying.

[NC Hokie]

Are MPs flying as scanners and observers held to the same crew rest standards as the actual PIC?

[tsrup]

Are MPs flying as scanners and observers held to the same crew rest standards as the actual PIC?

Crew rest standards apply to the whole air crew.

The argument that there needs to be scanner wings is being put forth by a lot of the people that want to burn Vanguard to the ground or want to do away with uniform bling altogether.

Here's the deal, Mission Scanner is an important position, the extra set of eyes is great to have and someone has to operate the camera in our increasing number of photo missions. 
However there are a lot of other mission critical positions that do not have badges, MSA, UDF and MRO to name a few.

The wings we have are to recognize the hours of time put into training in learning the systems or learning to fly the aircraft.  There are knowledges that the MO and MP have that are simply more advanced and are not part of the MS requirements (requirements that a perspective MO and MP have to complete also).

As it stands, the job of the MS is evolving and becoming more complex as our missions change and is becoming a more and more vital part of our aircrew than "flare assistance ballast".  Maybe one day there will be a badge, but let us not be so hasty to give our money to Vanguard.

[JB_407]

One squadron flies almost exclusively with a crew of two MPs the other doesn't allow scanners on opertional or graded excersises.

Is that a crew of ONLY two MPs in the airplane or do they have a person in the backseat?

Crew of two