CAP Talk

This is something I'm working on an I was wondering why wings aren't issued for it. I mean we have presolo for cadets and solo for everybody so why cant we have a scanner wing?

- If its an aircrew position shouldn't there be wings? If not, get rid of the position. Just seeking some explanation from other aircrew types or current scanners.

What do presolo wings look like? I have never seen these.

GROAN

Not this again.

For the most part, Scanner is an entry level position.  If you want to be a Mission Pilot, you need to first go through Scanner training.  If you want to be an Observer, you first need to be a Scanner.

Scanner isn't meant to be the end point.  It is a stepping stone.  Thus, the bauble is for the end goal.  (Either pilot or observer.)  Very few people stop at Scanner. 

Having wings there will encourage the people that are getting the training just for the wings to be less proficient in the skills needed to staff an aircraft during an actual mission.  (I know... that's not all folks... but... they are out there...)

-Presolo... well... that's even another story... which I won't bother with...

I think we've covered this before.  People have suggested that something similar to solo wings, but I think that would look [happy] and would rather have aircrew wings, and not for just scanners... Something similar to the existing wings with an AC or something else distinctive in the center.  JMO.

Quote from: flyguy06 on January 26, 2007, 03:53:56 AM
What do presolo wings look like? I have never seen these.

Like solo wings, but with nothing inside the triangle.

Quote from: flyguy06 on January 26, 2007, 03:53:56 AM
What do presolo wings look like? I have never seen these.

Linky (http://www.civilairpatrolstore.com/store/view_product.php?product=19566&searchlink=yes&search=PRE%20SOLO&page=1)

I am not in it just to wear wings. However I am a college student and do alot of work in EMS. I am short on time and even shorter on cash for an extra set of flights needed to qualify for the Observer rating.

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on January 26, 2007, 03:12:57 AM
- If its an aircrew position shouldn't there be wings? If not, get rid of the position. 

Um, okayyy....

This is probably a good time to walk away from the computer, take a five minute break, come back and re-read the above.

I have NEVER heard of nor have I ever seen pre-solo wings. How do you qualify for them?

OOOOPs, I just checked CAPR 35-6. This is new WOw. Is there actually a badge for this? CAP is really coddleing cadets. Whats next? A badge for taking one flight? Do not make cadets earn anything anymore? "Just give them a badge, they tried"

Quote from: flyguy06 on January 26, 2007, 06:17:55 AM
OOOOPs, I just checked CAPR 35-6. This is new WOw. Is there actually a badge for this? CAP is really coddleing cadets. Whats next? A badge for taking one flight? Do not make cadets earn anything anymore? "Just give them a badge, they tried"

These wings ... for the most part... stemmed from a safety issue.  There seemed to be pressure on the folks running the National Flight Encampments/Academies to solo cadets... so they could earn their badge...  However, due to weather, lack of hours, etc... NHQ decided to introduce the pre-solo badge to give the cadets wings... supposedly aleviating some of the pressure involved... or something of the like.

You basically need to do a pre-solo flight (a flight where the cadet flies the CFI to determine that the cadet is ready to solo) and be labled as "ready to solo"  or whatnot.  This has to be done at the Wing level or higher... or a National Flight Academy.

Thus, you can't earn them at your squadron, etc.

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on January 26, 2007, 04:14:16 AM
I am not in it just to wear wings. However I am a college student and do alot of work in EMS. I am short on time and even shorter on cash for an extra set of flights needed to qualify for the Observer rating.

Welcome to the American condition.  You'll find similar points made by some people with the highest aptitude but no money to complete their BA/BS degrees as quickly as they'd like.

If you can't afford the flights (I had to wait a YEAR before I could) to finish your observer credentials, then wait 'em out.  Just like if folks who can't afford to complete college until their money circumstances permit them to finish...they have to wait also.

No sense in giving wings or BA/BS degrees out to scanners or frosh/sophomores (respectively) until the "end goal" properly reflects the blood, sweat, and tears.

:)

(Besides, nobody looks up or down to people in CAP with or without wings.  Cross my heart.)

Quote from: TankerT on January 26, 2007, 01:37:37 PM

Quote from: flyguy06 on January 26, 2007, 06:17:55 AM
OOOOPs, I just checked CAPR 35-6. This is new WOw. Is there actually a badge for this? CAP is really coddleing cadets. Whats next? A badge for taking one flight? Do not make cadets earn anything anymore? "Just give them a badge, they tried"

These wings ... for the most part... stemmed from a safety issue.  There seemed to be pressure on the folks running the National Flight Encampments/Academies to solo cadets... so they could earn their badge...  However, due to weather, lack of hours, etc... NHQ decided to introduce the pre-solo badge to give the cadets wings... supposedly aleviating some of the pressure involved... or something of the like.

You basically need to do a pre-solo flight (a flight where the cadet flies the CFI to determine that the cadet is ready to solo) and be labled as "ready to solo"  or whatnot.  This has to be done at the Wing level or higher... or a National Flight Academy.

Thus, you can't earn them at your squadron, etc.

Thats my point. We are appeasing the cadets and saying basically "well, you didnt solo but here, wear these wings anyway" Giving them something tomake them feel good even thought they didnt solo.

Quote from: msmjr2003 on January 26, 2007, 02:05:42 PM

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on January 26, 2007, 04:14:16 AM
I am not in it just to wear wings. However I am a college student and do alot of work in EMS. I am short on time and even shorter on cash for an extra set of flights needed to qualify for the Observer rating.

Welcome to the American condition.  You'll find similar points made by some people with the highest aptitude but no money to complete their BA/BS degrees as quickly as they'd like.

If you can't afford the flights (I had to wait a YEAR before I could) to finish your observer credentials, then wait 'em out.  Just like if folks who can't afford to complete college until their money circumstances permit them to finish...they have to wait also.

No sense in giving wings or BA/BS degrees out to scanners or frosh/sophomores (respectively) until the "end goal" properly reflects the blood, sweat, and tears.

:)

(Besides, nobody looks up or down to people in CAP with or without wings.  Cross my heart.)

The same could be said for these pre-solo wings. Dont wear wings until the end goal is completed.

I have often though ot Mission Scanner Wings.  My perspective is from what I labeled the WHOLE CAP APPROACH.

In this idea we should have a versitile ES program.  One where All Aircrew focus CAP officers have some "on the ground training" (i.e. UDF, Mission Radio Operator or the like) and all Ground Focused people should have a "foot on the plane."  (i.e. Misson Scanner, flightline marshaller or even all out OBSERVER)

According to that doctrine (designed to allow people to avoid down time at SARex et al by wedging into a slot out of their field of focus as needed) Mission Scanner would be the highest air crew position they might wish to obtain.  A badge representing that woudl indicate that this person is primarily a staff or ground person what could be used as a Mission Scanner.

Why not just have this member complete the training to Mission Observer?  Ah...a common rebutal to this idea.  It is basically for the same reason that a Mission Pilot might not want to get a Ground Team qual, its "no their bag."  A Mission Pilot should be UDF..for those times they land at some airport and have to "UDF it...,"  A UDF member might want to fly as A Scanner and then deplane to UDF.  It makes a degree of sense.

However, if a Ground Team member that joined for the Ground Team stuff, but still wants to be an asset to the Aviation section if it is required, Mission Scanner is the perfect role.

That is the only reason I would support a Mission Scanner badge...wings...et al.

Quote from: flyguy06 on January 26, 2007, 04:24:15 PMThe same could be said for these pre-solo wings. Dont wear wings until the end goal is completed.

No arguments from me......

Quote from: msmjr2003 on January 26, 2007, 02:05:42 PM

(Besides, nobody looks up or down to people in CAP with or without wings.  Cross my heart.)

Pilots know they are better than everyone else and also know everyone else secretly wants to be them.

(note to public school grads: the above is just a joke.  sort of)

Quote from: Major Carrales on January 26, 2007, 04:45:30 PM
I have often though ot Mission Scanner Wings.  My perspective is from what I labeled the WHOLE CAP APPROACH.

In this idea we should have a versitile ES program.  One where All Aircrew focus CAP officers have some "on the ground training" (i.e. UDF, Mission Radio Operator or the like) and all Ground Focused people should have a "foot on the plane."  (i.e. Misson Scanner, flightline marshaller or even all out OBSERVER)

According to that doctrine (designed to allow people to avoid down time at SARex et al by wedging into a slot out of their field of focus as needed) Mission Scanner would be the highest air crew position they might wish to obtain.  A badge representing that woudl indicate that this person is primarily a staff or ground person what could be used as a Mission Scanner.

Why not just have this member complete the training to Mission Observer?  Ah...a common rebutal to this idea.  It is basically for the same reason that a Mission Pilot might not want to get a Ground Team qual, its "no their bag."  A Mission Pilot should be UDF..for those times they land at some airport and have to "UDF it...,"  A UDF member might want to fly as A Scanner and then deplane to UDF.  It makes a degree of sense.

However, if a Ground Team member that joined for the Ground Team stuff, but still wants to be an asset to the Aviation section if it is required, Mission Scanner is the perfect role.

That is the only reason I would support a Mission Scanner badge...wings...et al.

I see your point - really I do - but I approach the matter from a different vantage.

First things first - given that a good number of Wings require a flight suit for nearly all flying, the flight suit would be *bling* enough to establish a person as an aircrew member.  I can't recall a soul who saw somebody in a flight suit and thought, "hmm...that guy is a janitor or I'll eat my hat."

Second - and this would directly affect ME - I would go so far as to either (a) take observer wings away from we observers or (b) go the "old school" method and give them half a wing.

Pilots full badge, Observers half badge (or no badge) and Scanners no badge.

No I'm not a pilot and have no "stick" experience; I'm an observer.  However, remember that same hypothetical guy that hasn't made a mistake about the janitor?  He WOULD make that mistake when seeing an observer and think, "hmm...looks like a pilot or I'll eat my hat."

I've seen references on here that indicate that folks would make life harder for whatever reasons, so long as it wouldn't include them (e.g., making grades harder to earn, etc.)  However, I WOULD include myself in this plan, which would strip me of half my observer wings or exclude them completely.

Scanners (and Observers)...wonderful people and wonderful volunteers!  So are >18 year-old cadets who don't have a set of Observer/CAP Pilot wings also...

I personally believe that there are PLENTY of folks in this good 'ole USA that do great things for their fellow man (and woman.)  When push came to shove, here's betting $1000 that when a plane goes down and an aircrew is about to take flight, part of the mission brief will NOT include "I as a Scanner (or Observer) refuse to accept a part of this flight until you let me wear wings.  Think I'm kidding?  I'll walk right now...to heck with the family laying on a mountain somewhere needing locating...yes wings or no ride."

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on January 26, 2007, 04:14:16 AM
I am not in it just to wear wings. However I am a college student and do alot of work in EMS. I am short on time and even shorter on cash for an extra set of flights needed to qualify for the Observer rating.

Your wing doesn't conduct SAR training at all? You shouldn't have to pay for your Mission Observer training, it should be done on an AFAM Training mission.

I don't see any reason to have Scanner Wings.  Then again I don't see any real need for any badges on the uniform of any kind in the first place.  Name, CAP, and Rank and that should be it on flight suits and BDUs.  Bling should only be on the dress-up uniforms.

Quote from: msmjr2003 on January 26, 2007, 07:01:44 PM

Quote from: Major Carrales on January 26, 2007, 04:45:30 PM
I have often though ot Mission Scanner Wings.  My perspective is from what I labeled the WHOLE CAP APPROACH.

In this idea we should have a versitile ES program.  One where All Aircrew focus CAP officers have some "on the ground training" (i.e. UDF, Mission Radio Operator or the like) and all Ground Focused people should have a "foot on the plane."  (i.e. Misson Scanner, flightline marshaller or even all out OBSERVER)

According to that doctrine (designed to allow people to avoid down time at SARex et al by wedging into a slot out of their field of focus as needed) Mission Scanner would be the highest air crew position they might wish to obtain.  A badge representing that woudl indicate that this person is primarily a staff or ground person what could be used as a Mission Scanner.

Why not just have this member complete the training to Mission Observer?  Ah...a common rebutal to this idea.  It is basically for the same reason that a Mission Pilot might not want to get a Ground Team qual, its "no their bag."  A Mission Pilot should be UDF..for those times they land at some airport and have to "UDF it...,"  A UDF member might want to fly as A Scanner and then deplane to UDF.  It makes a degree of sense.

However, if a Ground Team member that joined for the Ground Team stuff, but still wants to be an asset to the Aviation section if it is required, Mission Scanner is the perfect role.

That is the only reason I would support a Mission Scanner badge...wings...et al.

I see your point - really I do - but I approach the matter from a different vantage.

Mike,

What is your unit like?  Big and long established? Small and long established?  Rebuilding?  Urban, Rural...suburban? I am interested in seeing why we have different vantage points.

Quote from: Major Carrales on January 27, 2007, 06:02:35 PMMike,

What is your unit like?  Big and long established? Small and long established?  Rebuilding?  Urban, Rural...suburban? I am interested in seeing why we have different vantage points.

Look me up:

msmjr2003
98567 Stop Trying to Add More Stuff To The Uniform Parkway
Farfromyourtown, USA 12345-6789

;)

(Don't forget that I'm a light-hearted guy!  But seriously...we don't always have to try and be so critical on each other or CAP.  Things on CAPTalk get to be awful dang heavy most of the time...)

Quote from: msmjr2003 on January 27, 2007, 06:44:48 PM

Quote from: Major Carrales on January 27, 2007, 06:02:35 PMMike,

What is your unit like?  Big and long established? Small and long established?  Rebuilding?  Urban, Rural...suburban? I am interested in seeing why we have different vantage points.

Look me up:

msmjr2003
98567 Stop Trying to Add More Stuff To The Uniform Parkway
Farfromyourtown, USA 12345-6789

;)

(Don't forget that I'm a light-hearted guy!  But seriously...we don't always have to try and be so critical on each other or CAP.  Things on CAPTalk get to be awful dang heavy most of the time...)

;)

But, seriously, I think there is a difference worth exploring.  I'm from a relatively rural area with a huge coverage area.  The nearest unit is 150 plus miles away.  We have to be versitile if we are to have a unit...at least at this point.

I imaging, in a large more ubran/populated area where there are proximate units, that one could have a more "specialist" function.  Thus, one could survive as a pure aircrew guy because there are plenty of pure ground team guys in the unit or at least proximate.

Thus, we have a universal function where a Scanner/UDF might be looked on with more substance than merely a stepping stone.

Quote from: RiverAux on January 26, 2007, 09:51:01 PM
I don't see any reason to have Scanner Wings.

Agree. Not against it, actually rather ambivalent. And I'm currently working on scanner rating.

QuoteThen again I don't see any real need for any badges on the uniform of any kind in the first place.  Name, CAP, and Rank and that should be it on flight suits and BDUs. Bling should only be on the dress-up uniforms.

It's not bling when it tells you the persons qualifications. There is a major difference between a set of pilots wings, and a pre-solo badge. One is a mission usable qualification, the other, on a mission, is completely worthless.

I can see benefits to a ground team member wearing a Hawk Mountain patch. Tells me that he/she spent some money, went somewhere, and learned something. Of course, their garish belts, T-shirts, ascots and white gloves should probably be ditched altogether. To me, those items seem a little in poor taste.

Most of the colors are loud, but things worn on BDU's should either identify you, your unit, or indicate some type of proficiency. Anything else is unecessary.

I think we should encourage only the proficiency items for field work on the BDU, or maybe just start eliminating some of those extraneous patches. I don't need to know that the cadet on the radio went to Space Command familiarization, or that the senior in Ops participated in "Membership 2000" . That's useless info to me. That's where it becomes bling.

Quote from: Major Carrales on January 27, 2007, 06:56:33 PM
;)

But, seriously, I think there is a difference worth exploring.  I'm from a relatively rural area with a huge coverage area.  The nearest unit is 150 plus miles away.  We have to be versitile if we are to have a unit...at least at this point.

I imaging, in a large more ubran/populated area where there are proximate units, that one could have a more "specialist" function.  Thus, one could survive as a pure aircrew guy because there are plenty of pure ground team guys in the unit or at least proximate.

Thus, we have a universal function where a Scanner/UDF might be looked on with more substance than merely a stepping stone.

I live in CA but hail from Dixie - so I can surely speak for rural as well as urban.....

.....and locales have nothing to do with establishing a precedent of service because of service (with bling as an after-thought) or service because of bling (with service as an after-thought.)

(Here's where folks like you and LordMonar would hate me...y'all are generally for more stuff whereas I'm not.)

We can write (and at times, *have*) PAGES upon PAGES in these threads and all such pages would be are coats upon coats of the object of discussion - the heart of the matter.  And that would be?  Wearing a cool badge.

Color it how you want, toss *PhD* towels over the shoulders of the fact; the discussion is actually the SAME talk I'd expect from a cadet, just with a lot more words and expression.

Cadet: "I wanna wear shoulder cords"
This thread (for seniors): "I wanna wear wings" or "I wanna wear metal grade on my AF-style service dress."

I'd pay a moderator $5 just for ONCE to see him/her *immediately* answer yet another thread of "should we have (insert new bling idea here)" by saying "no" and closing the thread.

(I have Paypal!)

Watch all the grown men and women whine JUST LIKE A little tyke would.  "But Mom (er, I mean "moderator") WHYYYYYYYYYY did you CLOOOOOOOSE our THEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAD?  I REEEEEAAAALLY LIIIIIIIIKED (sob) (sob) (sob) it........"   :P

Seriously...and to nobody in particular.....when will the bling ideas simmer down?  Once we've completely lost all traces of free space that show any of the actual jacket's material?

What we have works.  Please....stop....with....the...."we need this" stuff!  Otherwise, folks are going to think CAP has become too vane in itself (if they've not already.)

Does anybody sense that folks are starting to make fun of some in CAP for their obsession with all things new for the uniform?

Just my personal druthers......

:)

Quote from: msmjr2003 on January 27, 2007, 07:22:15 PM

Quote from: Major Carrales on January 27, 2007, 06:56:33 PM
;)

But, seriously, I think there is a difference worth exploring.  I'm from a relatively rural area with a huge coverage area.  The nearest unit is 150 plus miles away.  We have to be versitile if we are to have a unit...at least at this point.

I imaging, in a large more ubran/populated area where there are proximate units, that one could have a more "specialist" function.  Thus, one could survive as a pure aircrew guy because there are plenty of pure ground team guys in the unit or at least proximate.

Thus, we have a universal function where a Scanner/UDF might be looked on with more substance than merely a stepping stone.

I live in CA but hail from Dixie - so I can surely speak for rural as well as urban.....

.....and locales have nothing to do with establishing a precedent of service because of service (with bling as an after-thought) or service because of bling (with service as an after-thought.)

(Here's where folks like you and LordMonar would hate me...y'all are generally for more stuff whereas I'm not.)

We can write (and at times, *have*) PAGES upon PAGES in these threads and all such pages would be are coats upon coats of the object of discussion - the heart of the matter.  And that would be?  Wearing a cool badge.

Color it how you want, toss *PhD* towels over the shoulders of the fact; the discussion is actually the SAME talk I'd expect from a cadet, just with a lot more words and expression.

Cadet: "I wanna wear shoulder cords"
This thread (for seniors): "I wanna wear wings" or "I wanna wear metal grade on my AF-style service dress."

I'd pay a moderator $5 just for ONCE to see him/her *immediately* answer yet another thread of "should we have (insert new bling idea here)" by saying "no" and closing the thread.

(I have Paypal!)

Watch all the grown men and women whine JUST LIKE A little tyke would.  "But Mom (er, I mean "moderator") WHYYYYYYYYYY did you CLOOOOOOOSE our THEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAD?  I REEEEEAAAALLY LIIIIIIIIKED (sob) (sob) (sob) it........"   :P

Seriously...and to nobody in particular.....when will the bling ideas simmer down?  Once we've completely lost all traces of free space that show any of the actual jacket's material?

What we have works.  Please....stop....with....the...."we need this" stuff!  Otherwise, folks are going to think CAP has become too vane in itself (if they've not already.)

Does anybody sense that folks are starting to make fun of some in CAP for their obsession with all things new for the uniform?

Just my personal druthers......

:)

Actually, I made a thread like that and got hammered.  All I put was a sort of chart showing the number of Safety Topics versus the Uniform Topics and said "Nuff Said."  The began the flaming.

People told me all manners of gruff comments, from "post more safety topics, then" to "if you don't like the threads...don't read them!"  Me thinks they protest too much...but, anyhow, if you are going to fight that battle have at it.  But BEWARE!!!

Quote from: msmjr2003 on January 27, 2007, 07:22:15 PM
I'd pay a moderator $5 just for ONCE to see him/her *immediately* answer yet another thread of "should we have (insert new bling idea here)" by saying "no" and closing the thread.

(I have Paypal!)

:D I shall take you up on that offer at the next opportunity.  :D

Quote from: MIKE on January 27, 2007, 07:58:24 PM

Quote from: msmjr2003 on January 27, 2007, 07:22:15 PM
I'd pay a moderator $5 just for ONCE to see him/her *immediately* answer yet another thread of "should we have (insert new bling idea here)" by saying "no" and closing the thread.

(I have Paypal!)

:D I shall take you up on that offer at the next opportunity.  :D

Friend, you're ON!  :)

Quote from: Major Carrales on January 27, 2007, 07:29:59 PMActually, I made a thread like that and got hammered.  All I put was a sort of chart showing the number of Safety Topics versus the Uniform Topics and said "Nuff Said."  The began the flaming.

People told me all manners of gruff comments, from "post more safety topics, then" to "if you don't like the threads...don't read them!"  Me thinks they protest too much...but, anyhow, if you are going to fight that battle have at it.  But BEWARE!!!

I followed that thread...where I think you might have gone astray is you didn't speak in the general sense.  Whereas an "ease up on all this uniform" thread might have gone over just fine, you seemingly questioned folks dedication to safety in contrast to their dedication to uniforms.  Eek!

(Of course, this interpretation is coming from a guy that just accused some unnamed possible posters of crying like a "tyke" so, take my thoughts on tact with many grains of salt....)

;D

Quote from: msmjr2003 on January 27, 2007, 08:03:57 PM
I followed that thread...where I think you might have gone astray is you didn't speak in the general sense.  Whereas an "ease up on all this uniform" thread might have gone over just fine, you seemingly questioned folks dedication to safety in contrast to their dedication to uniforms.  Eek!

I pretty much got the same idea....

Since the Stewardess wings (ie half wing) are no longer issued, let scanners wear those. And they are already authorized so it's not a new item required AF approval. I can see wings for scanners since they are part of the aircrew.

Quote from: BillB on January 27, 2007, 09:07:03 PM
Since the Stewardess wings (ie half wing) are no longer issued, let scanners wear those. And they are already authorized so it's not a new item required AF approval. I can see wings for scanners since they are part of the aircrew.

If the half wings are no longer issued, how can scanners get a hold of them to wear them?  And are you sure they're authorized?  I've never seen them mentioned in the 39-1. 

Quote from: Guardrail on January 27, 2007, 10:07:26 PM

Quote from: BillB on January 27, 2007, 09:07:03 PM
Since the Stewardess wings (ie half wing) are no longer issued, let scanners wear those. And they are already authorized so it's not a new item required AF approval. I can see wings for scanners since they are part of the aircrew.

If the half wings are no longer issued, how can scanners get a hold of them to wear them?  And are you sure they're authorized?  I've never seen them mentioned in the 39-1. 

He likely mean authorized by the USAF...not the CAP power that be,

Quote from: BillB on January 27, 2007, 09:07:03 PM
Since the Stewardess wings (IE half wing) are no longer issued, let scanners wear those. And they are already authorized so it's not a new item required AF approval. I can see wings for scanners since they are part of the aircrew.

I'm not saying I love this idea,
and I'm not trying to get bling on my uniform. BUT I do think its a possibility. (Personally Ive never seen "half wings")
I was an Eagle Scout, but I NEVER wore the sash with my crap. Just the brown shirt, the eagle badge and the flag.
What I was intending was almost exactly what was said above. I am a ground team member, and wouldn't mind being a GT EMS type. My purpose for getting scanner is just so that I may be ready to assist if needed.
Scanner is as high as Ill go in the Aviation-Misson world. But how do I show that I have the skill on a misson? - Thus my request for Scanner wings.
I know It will be on the 101, BUT if an IC glances at a guy and sees wings on his BDUs hes not going to want to look at my 101.

Maybe CAP could come up with scanner wings that look like the observer wings but have only a half circle on them.  Or maybe they could have an "S" inscribed in front of the CAP prop and triangle on the center of the wings.  I think that would look way better and more Air Force like than the half wings.

As a pilot, aircrew member, and observer with a bunch of missions under my belt, I think you guys are putting the wrong emphasis on the wrong part. It's almost like you're saying you want scanner training so you can have your wings? I'm sure many MPs and MO's will echo this, the best scanner you can have in that back seat is someone who is another MP or MO. Scanner is baseline, look out the window, take notes, and call out what you see training. Maybe you don't want to take the extra time and training to earn your MO, but if you want the wings, getting your wings is incentive for your MO.

It's just like if I want to wear a star or a star and a wreath on my GT badge, I have to become a GTL/GBD, not rewrite the rules so that I can have some extra blingage. Take the time, do the training, you'll be an even better person for it.

I don't think it would be so bad if they were Aircrew Wings instead of Scanner Wings that would be applicable to self-loading baggage type crew positions other than the pilot or observer.  Maybe you have some sort of sensor operator in the back who doesn't fit into one of the existing qualifications.

I've sat at meetings and at the airport and talked about flying, as well as aircrew duties.

Could we have some wings for doing that?

/Chairborne Wings!

There's already some nice designs around (not 50s stewardess wings that are no longer authorized by AF). The issue is generally as it's structured right now thre isn't a good reason for them, & it's a dis-incentive.

The jump from scanner to observer ain't that big. I wouldn't rush out & order leather namepatches with scanner wings if I'd be up for observer in the next few months. And lets be honest, a lot of people are in it for the wings in the first place. If they get scanner, a lot of them won't continue on to Observer. You don't gain a lot functionally, maybe a few more headaches, but nothing exciting.

Now, with the way the technology has evolved, it's been discussed that maybe the definitions should be adjusted. That being to take all the training for scanner & observer & make it three levels of aircrew (scanner) wings. Then to take the mission commander role & all the technical toys & lay them across the navigator/observer rating. That way there's a legit reason to have aircrew/scanner wings, AND there's incentive to continue on to navigator/observer cause that's the only place where you get to play with the cool stuff. Unless you're converting the program in such a way, scanner wings are a bad idea. Just take it as incentive to hurry up & finish your training.

So...make OBSERVER a requirement to work in CD or with Archer?

I'm pretty sure observer is a requirement to work in CD. They don't take anyone you know, just well experienced aircrew - unless there's some special qualifying circumstance.

But in answer to your question, yes. Under that change what we consider a basic observer now would be upper level aircrew (scanner), while the navigator/observer rating would require more operational experience prior to learning a higher skill set. That's the point where you can become on-scene commander directing units around on targets, and train to use the increasing spectrum of hi-tech gear. These aren't the same ratings we have now. It's all the formal scanner/observer stuff slid down into basic-senior-command aircrew, & all the advanced & new stuff that there are no currently ratings for gets covered under navigator/observer. I think it's a neat little solution myself, but it's not something we need to tackle right away.

Fair enough.
We ought to get Mother Blue to give us more respect and through the new respect more missions FIRST.

well yeah, but that's a different topic. And really the focus thre has to be what causes their lack of respect... some of that is PR that needs to be addressed aggressively & persistently, but much of it relates to legitimate complaints that we need to address, let me let's say, agressively & persistently. That's the kind of stuff you'll see me talking about most of the time.

DNall,  where did you get the idea that AF no longer authorizes the Stewardess wings? I've seen a couple of former cadets, one of which is a LtCol now, wear them. The Wings were a CAP specific design and AF said OK forty years ago. As far as availability, The Booksore probably turned over a box of Stewardess Wings to Vanguard at the switch.

They're not now listed in 39-1. Items aren't generally de-authorized individually. They may come in that way between regs, but that's no thow they go out. When a new reg is put together, AF reviews & approves their sections. That becomes the ONLY things authorized at that point. Hence they are not authorized, just as many other CAP & AF items that were once okay & are now obselete. Any stock that was transfered is available for sale as a historical item.

Anyway, AF approval is a very easy process. The problem we routinely have is creating things w/o legitimate justification, that run significantly afowl of the AF-way to the extent the board is uncomfortable with it. You also have to time it to the AETC board or else you're wasting a general's time & the standards for it getting done now versus the normal process are higher.

I would agree if it's not in 39-1 it's not authorized.  But National seems to think that CAP started in 1964, and forget all the items that were authorized prior to that. An example is the Cadet COP ribbon, National admits they forgot to list it and it's still authorized. As to the Stewardess wings, they are still authorized for wear, but are no longer issued since all of the Stewardess schools Cadet special actities are no longer conducted. At least two Wings are considering doing a Wing level Stewardess School in cooperation with two major airlines, but since they can't award the Stewardess wings, are not pushing forward on this strongly.
Basically the only insignia National has dropped has been ribbons and the suspense date was published when the ribbons were newly designed or dropped.

I understand what you're saying, but the uniform must be updated over time, and obselete items should be eliminated or converted for those that previously earned them. In the case of the Stewardess wing, just because it was once authorized by AF doesn't mean it now is, and it should not be worn, nor should the policy change to allow it to be worn. If you were a WWII AAF pilot, you'd need to wear modern Army wings (maybe AF? not sure actually), not the ones authorized when you were on active duty. In the case of the cadet COP ribbon, I'm of the oppinion that it should not be worn. Not that it shouldn't be recognized, but it should be converted to the modern equiv cadet ribbon & there should be a conversion chart avail for items like that in the back of the reg.

I don't personally believe it's appropriate to have a stewardess badge or activity. A tour of their facility & breif/demo of the emergency proceedures might be fun, but we should be pushing our kids, especially young girls, to go to school & drive the thing, not hang out in back keeping the cattle quiet.

Ref'ing the above... if you did convert the whole current scanner & observer ratings down into basic-senior-master aircrew, thereby making it a meaningful & lasting rating, and laid the advanced skills & new technology stuff (functions: on-scene mission commander, CD & HLD/S; & tech: high-bird, ARCHER, FLIR, Radmon/CRBNE, etc) up on navigator observer... that being the point at which I support aircrew wings, and revamp all the wings while you're at it... I still got the designs I did before on this if anyone wants them posted.

Friends,

I know I said it back on Page 2, but I think it bears repeating...

There's nothing *wrong* with the way we have it now.  If we think about the pros and cons, what's really gained outside of egos by creating revamped badges?

-ego
-someone stated that ICs won't check 101 cards (that's a bad IC right there)

It bears repeating...CAP does, in fact, have a reputation with some in the Air Force for being a bit too bling happy.  Please don't ask me to reveal sources; suffice it to say, it's not anybody I know at high levels but rather, regular 'ole Joes and Jackies.

Please...all...consider that the system we have is sufficient for our purposes and for the purposes of well-grounded individuals, who happen to secure in themselves.  (Everybody is entitled to an opinion...the sentiment I've relayed, however, tends to be a common theme in many of my blue-suited officer comrades 'n associates.)

The same sort that many want to be like....

Pick your poison: establishing service for the sake of service first (with bling as an distant afterthought) or establishing service for the sake of bling first (with service as an distant afterthought.)

:)

As an aside,  I beleive that there are only four places badges can be worn on a uniform...so, what would it matter how many options there would be to choose from?

Quote from: msmjr2003 on January 28, 2007, 04:11:55 PM
Friends,

I know I said it back on Page 2, but I think it bears repeating...

There's nothing *wrong* with the way we have it now.  If we think about the pros and cons, what's really gained outside of egos by creating revamped badges?

-ego
-someone stated that ICs won't check 101 cards (that's a bad IC right there)

It bears repeating...CAP does, in fact, have a reputation with some in the Air Force for being a bit too bling happy.  Please don't ask me to reveal sources; suffice it to say, it's not anybody I know at high levels but rather, regular 'ole Joes and Jackies.

Please...all...consider that the system we have is sufficient for our purposes and for the purposes of well-grounded individuals, who happen to secure in themselves.  (Everybody is entitled to an opinion...the sentiment I've relayed, however, tends to be a common theme in many of my blue-suited officer comrades 'n associates.)

The same sort that many want to be like....

Pick your poison: establishing service for the sake of service first (with bling as an distant afterthought) or establishing service for the sake of bling first (with service as an distant afterthought.)

I'm not disagreeing with you, in fact I agree completely. What we have now does work for now.

You can also make a case to change the standards for the observer wings to align with those of the GT badge. That being scanner gets the basic wings, observer gets senior, & AOBD gets master. You could do the same w/ pilot (TMP, MP, AOBD), but that's a whole extra fight I'm not interested in. I'm not making that case, but it does make some sense.

Then there's my version.... Forget the badges, I don't care about them accept in terms of professional appearance, appropriateness, incentive to train, and indicator of operational skill level; and, all that is an afterthought to the practical. So put that out of your mind for a moment.

The scanner/observer field has & is changing significantly. There's a huge difference between A) looking out the window, assisting a PIC thru a grid, and helping w/ radios; and, B) assuming overall on-scene command of air & ground ops in a target area, operating ARCHER, FLIR, radmon/CRBNE, etc, and the nature of CD & HLD/S missions. Looking forward, we can only expect this divide & the skill sets to continue widening, and we don't have a unified progression of training for that or a quick refernce badge for the base staff to grab & reassign you w/o pouring over paperwork at sign in.

What I'd like to see is two NEW ratings in place of the one we have now:
A) "Aircrew" which covers the in three levels (basic, senior, master) the skills from entry level scanner thru observer. Spread out the training & task guides for both & add on additional experience requirements to move thru the progression. And,
B) "Navigator/Observer" which STARTS at the advanced observer level & covers all those items I mentione dabove in a unified training program that take you thru the basic & senior level wings, and AOBD at the command level wings.

That's not about badges at all, it's about a real & practical simplification & structuring of training that's right now a mess & will just get worse as we move along. Considering the AF has officer & enlisted aircrew wings, and navigator wings in addition to a few others, I don't think they're going to have a big problem with us following in their example as we fix our program.

I'd hate to bring this threat to its original topic, but... I'm not particularly fond of flying (former MX airman) and I'm doing scanner training to supplement my understanding of ground missions.

Having said that... If I'm going to get into an aircraft, get myself rated, do the work and fulfill the mission as a member of an aircrew, WHY AM I NOT RECOGNIZED AS AIRCREW? 

If you all look at the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy you'll see that they all issue wings to all rated airmen. ALL. Even flight med techs get them. There's no issue of what one could upgrade to if they decided to one day because that's not what the wings are for. They are for rating. To denote those that FLY for a living and accept the dangers and the extra training involved in it. I'm sorry, but if one of our aircraft goes down and all 3 aircrew members die, are the pilot and observer buried with honors while the scanner is tossed into a random ditch because he "failed to qualify for observer?" It's time to look at all members of aircrews as equals who simply perform different tasks.

Scanners provide a real, vital mission to CAP and the Air Force and go through a lot of training to perform this mission and I don't see any of the previous arguments valid enough to not recognize these members as true, valuable, and essential members of aircrews. Remember, wearing the bag is necessary because of safety, not recognition.

Now, if you have problems with members not moving up to Observer, perhaps you ought to tackle that on its own and review WHY they don't do it as often as you'd like.

Hey, if you wanted cadets to become seniors when they turn 21, would you take away their cadet status and insignia and give them nothing to encourage that? Would that satisfy the program requirements? 

I for one think the idea of having Pilot and Aircrew wings is great. Basic Aircrew wings can be for current scanner requirements, Senior for current Observer requirements, and Master can be for those who are ARCHER/CD/HS trained and qualified observers with say some minimum hours of operation.

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 29, 2007, 12:00:03 AM
I'd hate to bring this threat to its original topic, but... I'm not particularly fond of flying (former MX airman) and I'm doing scanner training to supplement my understanding of ground missions.

Having said that... If I'm going to get into an aircraft, get myself rated, do the work and fulfill the mission as a member of an aircrew, WHY AM I NOT RECOGNIZED AS AIRCREW? 

If you all look at the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy you'll see that they all issue wings to all rated airmen. ALL. Even flight med techs get them. There's no issue of what one could upgrade to if they decided to one day because that's not what the wings are for. They are for rating. To denote those that FLY for a living and accept the dangers and the extra training involved in it. I'm sorry, but if one of our aircraft goes down and all 3 aircrew members die, are the pilot and observer buried with honors while the scanner is tossed into a random ditch because he "failed to qualify for observer?" It's time to look at all members of aircrews as equals who simply perform different tasks.

Scanners provide a real, vital mission to CAP and the Air Force and go through a lot of training to perform this mission and I don't see any of the previous arguments valid enough to not recognize these members as true, valuable, and essential members of aircrews. Remember, wearing the bag is necessary because of safety, not recognition.

Now, if you have problems with members not moving up to Observer, perhaps you ought to tackle that on its own and review WHY they don't do it as often as you'd like.

Hey, if you wanted cadets to become seniors when they turn 21, would you take away their cadet status and insignia and give them nothing to encourage that? Would that satisfy the program requirements? 

I for one think the idea of having Pilot and Aircrew wings is great. Basic Aircrew wings can be for current scanner requirements, Senior for current Observer requirements, and Master can be for those who are ARCHER/CD/HS trained and qualified observers with say some minimum hours of operation.

Very well put. I also like this idea of revamping the pilot scanner/observer positions into 2 new sets of ratings.
Though with the new tech you almost want to call Senior AC a Navigator/ Payload Specialist   

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on January 29, 2007, 02:19:53 AM

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 29, 2007, 12:00:03 AM
I'd hate to bring this threat to its original topic, but... I'm not particularly fond of flying (former MX airman) and I'm doing scanner training to supplement my understanding of ground missions.

Having said that... If I'm going to get into an aircraft, get myself rated, do the work and fulfill the mission as a member of an aircrew, WHY AM I NOT RECOGNIZED AS AIRCREW? 

If you all look at the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy you'll see that they all issue wings to all rated airmen. ALL. Even flight med techs get them. There's no issue of what one could upgrade to if they decided to one day because that's not what the wings are for. They are for rating. To denote those that FLY for a living and accept the dangers and the extra training involved in it. I'm sorry, but if one of our aircraft goes down and all 3 aircrew members die, are the pilot and observer buried with honors while the scanner is tossed into a random ditch because he "failed to qualify for observer?" It's time to look at all members of aircrews as equals who simply perform different tasks.

Scanners provide a real, vital mission to CAP and the Air Force and go through a lot of training to perform this mission and I don't see any of the previous arguments valid enough to not recognize these members as true, valuable, and essential members of aircrews. Remember, wearing the bag is necessary because of safety, not recognition.

Now, if you have problems with members not moving up to Observer, perhaps you ought to tackle that on its own and review WHY they don't do it as often as you'd like.

Hey, if you wanted cadets to become seniors when they turn 21, would you take away their cadet status and insignia and give them nothing to encourage that? Would that satisfy the program requirements? 

I for one think the idea of having Pilot and Aircrew wings is great. Basic Aircrew wings can be for current scanner requirements, Senior for current Observer requirements, and Master can be for those who are ARCHER/CD/HS trained and qualified observers with say some minimum hours of operation.

Very well put. I also like this idea of revamping the pilot scanner/observer positions into 2 new sets of ratings.
Though with the new tech you almost want to call Senior AC a Navigator/ Payload Specialist   

Perhaps we can draw on the Air Force Officer Aircrew wings?

By request, here's the wings I did before....
(http://www.geocities.com/dnall885/wings.jpg)
Don't mind the Astronaut wings, that was directed at an AE program to recognize NASA astronauts working w/ CAP AE programs & getting more of them involved. Again, I don't support adding a badge for scanner unless the program is changed as I mentioned above. These were designed for that, and as a part of an overall resdisign effort for retention, recognition, & professional image. I'm not of the opinion that we should change any of this now. There will be a point in a couple more years where the stated revision & simplificaiton of the tracks is more of a priority. When that happens, this is an idea to kick around.

Id prefer if they were not in color. So as to keep with the AF standard and AWAY from the corporate trend.

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on January 29, 2007, 04:02:35 AM
Id prefer if they were not in color. So as to keep with the AF standard and AWAY from the corporate trend.

Love the aircrew/scanner wings.. reminds me of enlisted aircrew wings in USAF.

Yeah.. the color thing's a little bit... childish and unprofessional... especially when you consider that enamel will chip and discolor. I think the wings are quite distinctive even if in all metal with their three prop design. What's the worst that can happen? Some Air Force pilot confuses us for CAP (we wear distinctive uniforms, remember?) aircrew? Wait... that's what we are! If they cry to their CCs that our wings are too similar to theirs, they can be sent for an eye exam because they're not the same... ours have a CAP distinctive design.

The center shield of course is the same one off the cadet chevrons. I heard these complaints on the color issue before. It was all about being distinctive so as to use the AF outter wings & wreath on the other operational badges so as to be more in line w/ them. On a mini badge w/o color it could be hard to tell. For Blues & BDUs you'd hope they'd figure it out from the other stuff, but toss on a green flight suit, and you might have a problem. Hell I've been saluted before by people that took a quick glance at the flight hat & thought the device was LtCol & had the hand moving before they figured it out. The original plan was just to drill out AF wings & put a red prop device thru them the way they used to do w/ the sheild on older cadet chevrons.

I think that must have been before my time s a cadet. Both seem a tad unprofessional. If the AF guy walking down the street cant tell the difference between our wings and his thats his problem..all he has to do is look at our epulets or cover.
If we are in a flight suit..all he has to do is look at the tarmac to see that we are walking towards a Cessna not an Eagle.

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on January 29, 2007, 07:42:39 AM
I think that must have been before my time s a cadet. Both seem a tad unprofessional. If the AF guy walking down the street cant tell the difference between our wings and his thats his problem..all he has to do is look at our epulets or cover.
If we are in a flight suit..all he has to do is look at the tarmac to see that we are walking towards a Cessna not an Eagle.

Extremely Logical...

What's unprofessional looking?

I don't particularly like the red prop on AF wings idea, neither did anyone else, that's why it got dropped. The above redesigns came next. A CAP specific shield that we have a long tradition with surronded by AF-style wings, what exactly is wrong with that?

And far as AF telling what the wings are. First of all you could be a CAP member that used to be an AF pilot, and that would be meaningful to them. Second, the tarmac is not alaways in the picture, you could just as easily be walking thru base before or after landing, at a meeting or activity. The only reason they care about CAP being distinctive is so their people can tell immediately that they don't need to take anything we say as an order, that & international/federal law, plus not wanting their warfighters to feel insulted that some guy w/a PPL gets wings that look like the ones he had to work two years for.

I always did like your design, Dennis.  I think the color center seal does two things:

1.  Makes it very clear who's who... you don't have to get up-close-and-personal to differentiate the wings, and...

2.  Is sufficiently different from the USAF so that Big Mother Blue will find them acceptable.

I also REALLY like the idea of Astronaut wings, but I'm here near The Cape, and the space program is an important cultural feature of Brevard County society.

Quote from: DNall on January 29, 2007, 03:55:15 PM
What's unprofessional looking?

I don't particularly like the red prop on AF wings idea, neither did anyone else, that's why it got dropped. The above redesigns came next. A CAP specific shield that we have a long tradition with surronded by AF-style wings, what exactly is wrong with that?

And far as AF telling what the wings are. First of all you could be a CAP member that used to be an AF pilot, and that would be meaningful to them. Second, the tarmac is not alaways in the picture, you could just as easily be walking thru base before or after landing, at a meeting or activity. The only reason they care about CAP being distinctive is so their people can tell immediately that they don't need to take anything we say as an order, that & international/federal law, plus not wanting their warfighters to feel insulted that some guy w/a PPL gets wings that look like the ones he had to work two years for.

Are you suggesting that Air Force officers don't know who to take orders from and who not to? That they can't tell a CAP uniform from a regular USAF one? That they don't know their chain of command?

Wings aren't for recognition of orders; they're for recognition of flight duty status. They were created to distinguish rated personnel from non-rated... the pilots in the Army from the ground pounders. It's still what they're there for, nothing more, nothing less. Our aircrew are no less aircrew than theirs... we just use different aircraft and perform different missions. Remember, different isn't better or worse, it's just different.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 29, 2007, 04:02:38 PM
I always did like your design, Dennis.  I think the color center seal does two things:

1.  Makes it very clear who's who... you don't have to get up-close-and-personal to differentiate the wings, and...

2.  Is sufficiently different from the USAF so that Big Mother Blue will find them acceptable.

I also REALLY like the idea of Astronaut wings, but I'm here near The Cape, and the space program is an important cultural feature of Brevard County society.

They won't find them any more acceptable than all metal ones because when transferred to leather flight patch, they will once again be monotone. If the Air Force will sign off on that, it'll sign off on all metal wings.

By the way, I always felt that all metal career field badges were better than color ones we use today in CAP anyway. Why not create a movement toward all metal instead of the other way around?

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 29, 2007, 04:35:49 PM

Quote from: DNall on January 29, 2007, 03:55:15 PM
What's unprofessional looking?

I don't particularly like the red prop on AF wings idea, neither did anyone else, that's why it got dropped. The above redesigns came next. A CAP specific shield that we have a long tradition with surronded by AF-style wings, what exactly is wrong with that?

And far as AF telling what the wings are. First of all you could be a CAP member that used to be an AF pilot, and that would be meaningful to them. Second, the tarmac is not alaways in the picture, you could just as easily be walking thru base before or after landing, at a meeting or activity. The only reason they care about CAP being distinctive is so their people can tell immediately that they don't need to take anything we say as an order, that & international/federal law, plus not wanting their warfighters to feel insulted that some guy w/a PPL gets wings that look like the ones he had to work two years for.

Are you suggesting that Air Force officers don't know who to take orders from and who not to? That they can't tell a CAP uniform from a regular USAF one? That they don't know their chain of command?

Wings aren't for recognition of orders; they're for recognition of flight duty status. They were created to distinguish rated personnel from non-rated... the pilots in the Army from the ground pounders. It's still what they're there for, nothing more, nothing less. Our aircrew are no less aircrew than theirs... we just use different aircraft and perform different missions. Remember, different isn't better or worse, it's just different.

The distinctive part of our uniform in general are about making sure real mil doesn't mix us up w/ legal officers & still they make mistakes sometimes cause they aren't looking for differences. The issue w/ wings is there end. They don't want us wearing something that could get mixed up w/ theirs. Remember they have to approve this. We can't just make stuff up & hope they learn to deal with it. It's their call & they'll make their decisions w/ their own bias & own views about CAP. We have to be tactful & play their game so we can be on the smae team w/o pissing them off.

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 29, 2007, 04:39:29 PM
By the way, I always felt that all metal career field badges were better than color ones we use today in CAP anyway. Why not create a movement toward all metal instead of the other way around?

Only way they went to all those badges is they're the same stock metal item w/ just dif painted faces. If they tried to make a seperate metal design for each, even drill & tap, it would be excessively expensive, maybe prohibatively so. Otherwise I agree with you.

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 29, 2007, 04:39:29 PM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 29, 2007, 04:02:38 PM
I always did like your design, Dennis.  I think the color center seal does two things:

1.  Makes it very clear who's who... you don't have to get up-close-and-personal to differentiate the wings, and...

2.  Is sufficiently different from the USAF so that Big Mother Blue will find them acceptable.

I also REALLY like the idea of Astronaut wings, but I'm here near The Cape, and the space program is an important cultural feature of Brevard County society.

They won't find them any more acceptable than all metal ones because when transferred to leather flight patch, they will once again be monotone. If the Air Force will sign off on that, it'll sign off on all metal wings.

By the way, I always felt that all metal career field badges were better than color ones we use today in CAP anyway. Why not create a movement toward all metal instead of the other way around?

The wing design is different, and closer to the USAF wings.  As such, some obvious differentiation is called for.  On the leather name badge, name, rank, and "CAP" are pretty prominent under the wings.

You're beating a dead horse. CAP has tried at least twice to get the USAF style wings with CAP center section design and been turned down twice by USAF. Your design in all metal at first glace resembles to closely the USAF wings. Modifying the current style CAP wings using the center part design probably would get USAF approval. Since the wings are worn on the USAF style uniform, USAF gives approval. Unless of course your design is for the corporate uniform ONLY.

hence the color. Actually the plan before was color on the leather name patches as well, or more likely to have embroidered ones that way. You can't mistake a full color center

Quote from: DNall on January 30, 2007, 03:48:22 AM
hence the color. Actually the plan before was color on the leather name patches as well, or more likely to have embroidered ones that way. You can't mistake a full color center

I know... how about the same wings we have now, but with full color centers like the kind in these wings:

(http://www.ner.cap.gov/images/oldcapwings.jpg)

I think that would be a nice return to CAP's heritage.  Plus, it would be very distinctive and the Air Force would likely approve it.

For Aircrew, maybe a blue "A" could be inscribed in the center.  For navigator, "N" etc.   

I would rather keep what we have now.  I do not care for the enameled wings.

Quote from: Guardrail on January 30, 2007, 04:44:10 AM

Quote from: DNall on January 30, 2007, 03:48:22 AM
hence the color. Actually the plan before was color on the leather name patches as well, or more likely to have embroidered ones that way. You can't mistake a full color center

I know... how about the same wings we have now, but with full color centers like the kind in these wings:

(http://www.ner.cap.gov/images/oldcapwings.jpg)

I think that would be a nice return to CAP's heritage.  Plus, it would be very distinctive and the Air Force would likely approve it.

For Aircrew, maybe a blue "A" could be inscribed in the center.  For navigator, "N" etc.   

I actually saw a guy who rated those wings, back in 1966.  He was an Air Force Lt Col., and had been a CAP pilot in World War II.  He was the USAF advisor to the National Flight Encampment at Elmyra, NY in 1966.  He wore his CAP WWII wings on the right side of his AF uniform.  He was there on the flight line to bid us goodbye after graduation, and I'll never forget the "What the H---?" look the C-47 crew chief gave him.  The crew chief was way too respectful to challenge the Lt. Col., however.

Ok, so I understand many of us are very eager to change the wings, but can someone tell me why?  What's wrong with the basic design of our current wings?  Why don't we just add a scanner wing?

Quote from: Guardrail on January 30, 2007, 04:44:10 AM
...and the Air Force would likely approve it. 

What leads you to that conclusion?  Why do you think the Air Force would approve that design over another?

The Air Force has already approved the 1940's CAP wings. So there is no need to go back and get approval again.

Quote from: Guardrail on January 30, 2007, 04:44:10 AM
I think that would be a nice return to CAP's heritage.  Plus, it would be very distinctive and the Air Force would likely approve it.

For Aircrew, maybe a blue "A" could be inscribed in the center.  For navigator, "N" etc.

How does that help align with the professional image of the AF & encourage both parties to see each other as part of the same team meeting shared risks as aviators to accomplish missions of the AF?

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 30, 2007, 05:33:53 AM
Ok, so I understand many of us are very eager to change the wings, but can someone tell me why?  What's wrong with the basic design of our current wings?  Why don't we just add a scanner wing?

Just answered that.

Quote from: BillB on January 30, 2007, 01:16:30 PM
The Air Force has already approved the 1940's CAP wings. So there is no need to go back and get approval again.

Again, because something was once approved does not mean it is now. Past items not in the current version of 39-1 are NOT approved by the AF & CAP cannot freely put them back w/o going back to AF. Between reg changes are approved individually, regs are approved as a package (if there's changes requiring additional approval). Things that get left out are at that point de-authorized by AF. I'd also caution you that they do care what you put on their uniform & they aren't willing to approve a lot of things that were once authorized.

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 30, 2007, 05:33:53 AM
Ok, so I understand many of us are very eager to change the wings, but can someone tell me why?  What's wrong with the basic design of our current wings?  Why don't we just add a scanner wing?

George:

While I like Dennis' designs, there is also nothing wrong wih your suggestion. 

Developing a scanner wing based on the design of the solo badge is probably appropriate, since "Scanner" is a training qualification for folks enroute to the "Observer" rating.

Personally, I think we should break out the "Observer" qualification into two categories:

1.  Observer/Navigator.  The O/N rating would be the "Assistant Pilot" that we have now.  He would ride front right, handle the comm and the nav. as well as engage the target using the Mk-1 eyeball.

2.  Technical Observer.  The TO would be the expert on the wizard hardware, ARCHER, FLIR, Radiological monitoring, etc.

If it were mine to do, I'd re-design the pilot wing to be our current wing design with a shield center and the CAP symbol on the shield.  The O/N wings would be our current pilot wing, and the TO wing would be our current observer wing.  I'm sure we could come up with a design for the scanner badge.

I see the posts about reinstating the original pilots wings, but there is a major reason why they were done away with.

I collect various military insignia, and actually have an original set of CAP pilot wings in my collection. I've shown them to people not familiar with CAP, and some fellow members. The first thing that a large majority have said is "They look like a Nazi badge."

I'm sure that wasn't the only reason why they were done away with, but it is a very compelling one. CAP and the Air Force had no desire to use an insignia reminding people of the atrocities that occurred in Germany in that time period.

The orignal CAP wings were called the luftwaffe wings by members at the time.  It wasn't until after World War II that the change was made to the droop wings. I still have my luftwaffe wings from when I was a cadet.

 My humble take on things:
1)STAY AWAY FROM ENAMEL.
2) Keep current obsever/nav wing design (ae- non color), same shape etc...
3)  Add a 'P' or a 'T' to the observer wing to signify "payload" / "technical" specialist. An 'S' for scanner and just leave the badge as is or add an 'O' or 'N' for the basic level observer/navigator

If we end up being a test bed for the new Air Force Ray gun, add the insignia from StarFleet or just add a "G" to the observer wings for Gunner.  ;D

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on January 30, 2007, 09:23:33 PM
My humble take on things:
1)STAY AWAY FROM ENAMEL.
2) Keep current obsever/nav wing design (ae- non color), same shape etc...
3)  Add a 'P' or a 'T' to the observer wing to signify "payload" / "technical" specialist. An 'S' for scanner and just leave the badge as is or add an 'O' or 'N' for the basic level observer/navigator

If we end up being a test bed for the new Air Force Ray gun, add the insignia from StarFleet or just add a "G" to the observer wings for Gunner.  ;D

or "B" for ballast.   :D

What the hell? ^  ???

Anyway... the cheap way, which is what they'll actually do, is one set of molds for astronaut, pilot, & nav/obs that has a blank shield to which you apply paint & clear coat - EXACTLY like the current spec badges. I'm sure I could remake the aircrew design I have above to fit that shield also rather than the enlisted aircrew style, but I do like it the way it's drawn above.

The only reason wings would be created that cover scanner is if the scanner & observer track is tossed & two new tracks created; the first one (aircrew) covering scanner thru observer, that makes scanner not a training rating & on the same set of wing w/ observer; the second covering a whole new track for the on-scene command & control function & advanced function & gear.

John, I appreciate what you're saying, but the people that train for the advanced gear & functions need to FIRST have the basic aircrew (scanner thru observer) skills & need to have some experience proving they are the senior people we need in the forefront.

The main reason to change the other wings is part of revamping the overall program. Going closer to the AF style is about a joint accpetance as team mebers w/ shared risks as aviators working to a shared mission-set. Sounds nice on the justification part of the document anyway right. I jus think it looks better personally. Our current wings look more like the Army.

Quote from: DNall on January 30, 2007, 10:17:05 PM
What the hell? ^  ???

Ballast....as in "something heavy, as bags of sand, placed in the car of a balloon for control of altitude and, less often, of attitude, or placed in an aircraft to control the position of the center of gravity."

I'm trying to think of creative ways to get scanner wings for our badge lovers out there! ;) ;D

(Obviously I'm kidding)

Though......that is EXACTLY how I started my scanner training awhile ago.  "Monty, we need you in the back for weight and balance reasons.  The front seats are VERY full.  Busy?"

Quote from: msmjr2003 on January 30, 2007, 10:47:54 PM

Quote from: DNall on January 30, 2007, 10:17:05 PM
What the hell? ^  ???

Ballast....as in "something heavy, as bags of sand, placed in the car of a balloon for control of altitude and, less often, of attitude, or placed in an aircraft to control the position of the center of gravity."

I'm trying to think of creative ways to get scanner wings for our badge lovers out there! ;) ;D

(Obviously I'm kidding)

Though......that is EXACTLY how I started my scanner training awhile ago.  "Monty, we need you in the back for weight and balance reasons.  The front seats are VERY full.  Busy?"

Ballast...huh?  IS that your way of asking us if the "Want 'a ROCK!!!" ;)

Quote from: BillB on January 30, 2007, 07:16:04 PM
The orignal CAP wings were called the luftwaffe wings by members at the time.  It wasn't until after World War II that the change was made to the droop wings. I still have my luftwaffe wings from when I was a cadet.

Bill:

You and I have talked about this before.  CAP pilots from WWII would pop the enamel insignia off their Luftwaffe Wings and solder them onto USAAF aircrew/observer wings.  The result is just about what Dennis designed.  Completely unauthorized, but what are you gonna do?  Cut off my hair and make me fly Piper Cubs?

Also, in 1965 and 1966, the memories of World War II were still pretty fresh.  We had a tough time getting a glider training program through then because having teenage cadets fly gliders was seen as reminiscent of the Hitler Youth.

It makes no difference now, of course, since 90 percent of Americans have no knowledge of World War II, or of Hitler, or for that matter, of youth.

Quote from: shorning on January 30, 2007, 05:48:43 AM

Quote from: Guardrail on January 30, 2007, 04:44:10 AM
...and the Air Force would likely approve it. 

What leads you to that conclusion?  Why do you think the Air Force would approve that design over another?

Because they're very distinctive, sir.  There's no mistaking the colored enamel on the wings.  I figure if they can give CAP gray shoulder marks and epaulets, along with ultramarine blue BDU tapes, then wings with colored enamel ain't much of a stretch.   

Quote from: DNall on January 30, 2007, 10:17:05 PM
What the hell? ^  ???

Anyway... the cheap way, which is what they'll actually do, is one set of molds for astronaut, pilot, & nav/obs that has a blank shield to which you apply paint & clear coat - EXACTLY like the current spec badges. I'm sure I could remake the aircrew design I have above to fit that shield also rather than the enlisted aircrew style, but I do like it the way it's drawn above.

The only reason wings would be created that cover scanner is if the scanner & observer track is tossed & two new tracks created; the first one (aircrew) covering scanner thru observer, that makes scanner not a training rating & on the same set of wing w/ observer; the second covering a whole new track for the on-scene command & control function & advanced function & gear.

John, I appreciate what you're saying, but the people that train for the advanced gear & functions need to FIRST have the basic aircrew (scanner thru observer) skills & need to have some experience proving they are the senior people we need in the forefront.

The main reason to change the other wings is part of revamping the overall program. Going closer to the AF style is about a joint accpetance as team mebers w/ shared risks as aviators working to a shared mission-set. Sounds nice on the justification part of the document anyway right. I jus think it looks better personally. Our current wings look more like the Army.

Dennis:

I'm just looking at the amount of skills required to be maintained among folks who have to fit CAP into their lives somewhere with their real jobs.  I think that the technology that CAP can and SHOULD be bringing to the Homeland Defense battle is such that maintaining proficiency in use of aircraft radios (for guys that don't have hundreds of flying hours as PIC), navigation (again, non-pilots), CAP communication procedures, AND all the technological hardware we should be getting is going to be too much.

I would rather split out some skill specialties now, some folks can concentrate on airmanship skills, and some folks to concentrate on technical skills, but not making a person try to stay proficient on both.  I think that would result in him being proficient in neither.

I have already gone that route personally.  I no longer fly as a mission pilot, but I stay current as a ground team leader.  I don't have the time to stay proficient at both.

If you want some commonality and familiarization with both tasks at the scanner level, that would be fine.  They should understand one another's jobs, without trying to stay real good at both.

Quote from: Guardrail on January 31, 2007, 01:03:25 AM

Quote from: shorning on January 30, 2007, 05:48:43 AM

Quote from: Guardrail on January 30, 2007, 04:44:10 AM
...and the Air Force would likely approve it. 

What leads you to that conclusion?  Why do you think the Air Force would approve that design over another?

Because they're very distinctive, sir.  There's no mistaking the colored enamel on the wings.  I figure if they can give CAP gray shoulder marks and epaulets, along with ultramarine blue BDU tapes, then wings with colored enamel ain't much of a stretch.   

Okay...so say CAP wants a metal square to wear in lieu of wings.  It's distinctive, there wouldn't be any mistaking it, and it would be cheap to make.  Do you think the Air Force would be "likely" to approve it over another design?

Bottom line is you can guess what you Air Force is "likely" to do, but you really have no idea.

BTW, the Air Force didn't "give" the gray shoulder marks or nametags to us.  We did that to ourselves.  The white on ultramarine blue insignia is part of Air Force heritage.  CAP just has never stopped wearing it, so it's part of our heritage.  (Funny now people are quick to dump part of their heritage.  Kinda like getting rid of a family heirloom.  YMMV...)

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 31, 2007, 01:35:48 AM

Quote from: DNall on January 30, 2007, 10:17:05 PM
What the hell? ^  ???

Anyway... the cheap way, which is what they'll actually do, is one set of molds for astronaut, pilot, & nav/obs that has a blank shield to which you apply paint & clear coat - EXACTLY like the current spec badges. I'm sure I could remake the aircrew design I have above to fit that shield also rather than the enlisted aircrew style, but I do like it the way it's drawn above.

The only reason wings would be created that cover scanner is if the scanner & observer track is tossed & two new tracks created; the first one (aircrew) covering scanner thru observer, that makes scanner not a training rating & on the same set of wing w/ observer; the second covering a whole new track for the on-scene command & control function & advanced function & gear.

John, I appreciate what you're saying, but the people that train for the advanced gear & functions need to FIRST have the basic aircrew (scanner thru observer) skills & need to have some experience proving they are the senior people we need in the forefront.

The main reason to change the other wings is part of revamping the overall program. Going closer to the AF style is about a joint accpetance as team mebers w/ shared risks as aviators working to a shared mission-set. Sounds nice on the justification part of the document anyway right. I jus think it looks better personally. Our current wings look more like the Army.

Dennis:

I'm just looking at the amount of skills required to be maintained among folks who have to fit CAP into their lives somewhere with their real jobs.  I think that the technology that CAP can and SHOULD be bringing to the Homeland Defense battle is such that maintaining proficiency in use of aircraft radios (for guys that don't have hundreds of flying hours as PIC), navigation (again, non-pilots), CAP communication procedures, AND all the technological hardware we should be getting is going to be too much.

I would rather split out some skill specialties now, some folks can concentrate on airmanship skills, and some folks to concentrate on technical skills, but not making a person try to stay proficient on both.  I think that would result in him being proficient in neither.

I have already gone that route personally.  I no longer fly as a mission pilot, but I stay current as a ground team leader.  I don't have the time to stay proficient at both.

If you want some commonality and familiarization with both tasks at the scanner level, that would be fine.  They should understand one another's jobs, without trying to stay real good at both.

Yeah I understand what you're saying, but it's just not that complicated. The Aircrew covers scanner thru basic observer. Nothing new there, nothing overly complicated, skills everyone on the crew needs as a minimum starting point. The master level of that rating (observer) just means you can work with the radios & assist with radio & GPS nav thru a grid, assist checklists in an emergency. Nothing special, nothing new.

The new rating covers the advanced tasks & gear. That's the on-scene command & control functions, more advanced gear, and higher security missions. It does require a level of technical skill to run gear, but lets look at that for a second. We're mostly talking about imaging systems (ARCHER & FLIR). That means you need the PIC to maintain a flight profile, which means you have to know when he's on the line & when he's screwing it up - observer skills. You also have to be trained for when you look up from the laptop & out the window - scanner skills. The technology itself is all quite simple. ARCHER is the most complicated thing we'd ever do. FLIR is laptop based point & click w/ a joystick, it's not nearly as complicated. The CRBNE varries depending on which system you go with. The cheap easy version is just fly around & if an alarm goes off you report the GPS location & alarm code. The more complex & expensive version is extremely close to how ARCHER works. If CAP uses that at all it would be on a limited number of platforms.

The Navigator Observer rating I'm talking about is like an EWO. You get selected to the basic level, clear a higher security background check basically for CN, then you can learn one tech system at a time, you have to familiarize but not certify w/ each, that's the basic rating. Some experience & moving to the command & control functions is the senior level, command level is AOBD.

There's a progression between these six levels, but the jumps aren't as big as they seem. It's just targeted at systems matrix approach. I think it works. You got good points too though, it's worth debate. The badges are an after thoguht, but they'll be there for appropriate levels.

Dennis,

What tasks? What gear? Do you know what percentage of our aircraft is equipped with advanced electronics like ARCHER? Almost no one in the organization has the opportunity to even begin training on that, so your rate... it'd be practically empty. I see people mentioning Navigators... Navigators? We don't have Navigators. We never will have Navigators! Know why? Because we have glass cockpits. The whole world, military and civillian is moving away from Navigators. That's something we're actually ahead on. FLIR? WE HAVE NO FLIR! And C&C? Of what exactly? Most missions utilize just one bird doing the search and maybe one used as a commo high bird. What are you controlling?

Also, how long does it take for an average person today to train up to Mission Observer? Would you like to schedule aircrews where you have no mission scanners because it'll take these members many more months to get rated as observers? I'm thinking you wouldn't. I don't know why we're trying to fix our system. IS IT REALLY BROKE?  Why not just make an extra set of Observer wings, but put S inside the center? It's not a complicated problem and it doesn't deserve a complicated solution.

hold on now. look at the context....

mission scanners? that wouldn't change at all. That aircrew basic rating IS scanner, then a mid-level of observer, then master level is all of basic observer. Makes it easier to get wings & a clearer progression thru to basic observer. Only thing I'm worried about there is people getting the wings & not progressing thru to observer skills rather than having the bling as motivation.

The next level I'm calling navigator observer... and that comes from the AF certifies people as Nav even though their flight job is not related to nav. The idea is imaging gear requires flight track stability & monitoring in conjunciton w/ the gear. That's about the only reason, what AF moniker do you want me to use? The job is somewhere between officer aircrew & ABM.

The advanced gear we're talking about is not what we have NOW, this is about looking forward. We're looking at getting a bunch of stuff for wider distribution & that means lots of people will be using it, but we need qualified capable experienced observers to choose from. What we need is a clear streamlined progression track to get that training, and to diffrentiate between those that can do things like command & control & those that can't/shouldn't.

It's just a discussion & it's not something to be done right away. It's just an idea for when it might well become necessary in the future, which would be the kind of conditions under which I think it might be worth looking at some kind of badge to signify scanner in the same kind of way we look at GT badges.

If you want a useful moniker to use instead of Navigator/ Observer;
Take a page from NASA and go with Observer/ Payload Specialist. (payload being our special gear: Archer, FLIR -im hopeful- etc)

I'm not terribly worried about providing incentives in the form of wings to get people to become Scanners.  What we need is what we have right now....we provide incentives for people to become Observers which, at least in my area, we are in critical need of.  Yes, we also need Scanners that do more than look out the window like we used to, but people who want to fly will become Scanners no matter what we do and I see no need to recognize them for it. 

payload specialist is the same thing as loadmaster & that's just aircrew.

Quote from: DNall on February 01, 2007, 06:39:49 PM
payload specialist is the same thing as loadmaster & that's just aircrew.

Not to NASA. NASA Payload Specialists are the crew trained to operate the on board mission gear/ experiments, perform the spacewalks etc.
In our case it would be someone trained to operate that which is "non standard gear on a 172/82 ae: ARCHER etc...

Air Force Loadmasters are responsible for weight and balance calculations for cargo and making sure such cargo is strapped down tight to the airframe.

right. So we're becoming the NASA Aux when?

Quote from: DNall on February 02, 2007, 12:51:55 AM
right. So we're becoming the NASA Aux when?

Whenever Astronaut Wings were proposed I guess.

AF issues Astronaut wings. I mentioned above that those pictured were part of the plan for an AE initiative to issue to NASA certified civilian astronauts. The plan actually involved making them AE members free of charge & giving them a set of these wings along with a brief on CAP AE programs & the important part they should be playing in conjunction w/ their NASA job.

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on February 01, 2007, 09:00:49 PM

Quote from: DNall on February 01, 2007, 06:39:49 PM
payload specialist is the same thing as loadmaster & that's just aircrew.

Not to NASA. NASA Payload Specialists are the crew trained to operate the on board mission gear/ experiments, perform the spacewalks etc.
In our case it would be someone trained to operate that which is "non standard gear on a 172/82 ae: ARCHER etc...

Air Force Loadmasters are responsible for weight and balance calculations for cargo and making sure such cargo is strapped down tight to the airframe.

They're also responsible for the "egress" of such cargo, whether on the ground or in the air. Also, don't forget their duties during flights with passenger set-ups.

Navigator/Observer....as opposed to an Observer who can't navigate?

Check the task list- there is a name for Observers who can't navigate: pencil-whipped scanners!

(Sorry guys, this one's not negotiable.)

Even operation of the imaging Gizmo's require rudiments of knowing how to get from point A to point B (ARCHER-track info is superimposed on an electronic VFR sectional..) and if you want effective notes and data that are VITAL to an SDIS debrief, you gotta know how to get around.

It's like being a little bit pregnant: some observers are better than others, but you either are one, or you're not.

Scanner Wings?? big win for Vanguard: buy your scanner wings, and we'll throw in the new UDF badge at no cost.

(That's a joke, folks: please don't reply with "You mean there's a UDF badge too??!!)

CAP aeronautical badges are not "mitzpah" coins: you don't get half the badge for half the training.

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 31, 2007, 08:49:52 PM
I see people mentioning Navigators... Navigators? We don't have Navigators. We never will have Navigators! Know why? Because we have glass cockpits. The whole world, military and civillian is moving away from Navigators.

Really??

Glass cockpits don't make judgement calls, don't program themselves, and when the annuciator, that Star-Trek-Computer-voice that says "Traffic...Traffic..." starts squawking, someone with a pulse and some wits about them needs to react.  Even the autopilot needs some adult supervsion.

When pursuing the "hundred-dollar hambrger" i.e., flying from field to field, soloing is no problem.  Prosecuting a mission is another animal entirely.  SDIS is a three-man-crew mission: ARCHER is typically four, and EVERYONE stays busy...

There are "mark one eyeball" mission profiles that even with Glass cockpit technology are still a challenge, i.e., offset expanding square searches.

Technology eases the workload, but add even more technology and the net change is zero: you still need skilled folks.

True, navigators on fighters are a thing of the past: the premise upon which fighters are designed, Boyd's E-M theory, require small, nimble aircraft that precludes a crew of two.  However, bombers still have them, as do EW aircraft.  C&C aircraft don't have one navigator: the have two dozen crewmembers who manage a theater-wide aerial battlefield.

Quote from: O-Rex on February 11, 2007, 04:28:22 PM

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 31, 2007, 08:49:52 PM
I see people mentioning Navigators... Navigators? We don't have Navigators. We never will have Navigators! Know why? Because we have glass cockpits. The whole world, military and civillian is moving away from Navigators.

Really??

Glass cockpits don't make judgement calls, don't program themselves, and when the annuciator, that Star-Trek-Computer-voice that says "Traffic...Traffic..." starts squawking, someone with a pulse and some wits about them needs to react.  Even the autopilot needs some adult supervsion.

When pursuing the "hundred-dollar hambrger" i.e., flying from field to field, soloing is no problem.  Prosecuting a mission is another animal entirely.  SDIS is a three-man-crew mission: ARCHER is typically four, and EVERYONE stays busy...

There are "mark one eyeball" mission profiles that even with Glass cockpit technology are still a challenge, i.e., offset expanding square searches.

Technology eases the workload, but add even more technology and the net change is zero: you still need skilled folks.

True, navigators on fighters are a thing of the past: the premise upon which fighters are designed, Boyd's E-M theory, require small, nimble aircraft that precludes a crew of two.  However, bombers still have them, as do EW aircraft.  C&C aircraft don't have one navigator: the have two dozen crewmembers who manage a theater-wide aerial battlefield.

Right... the pilot programs the "glass cockpit" as you put it and the observer's job is to facilitate the running of mission equipment and aircrew. They can assist in navigation, as can anyone else, but that isn't their primary job. Working CAP radios, looking out for traffic, and searching their grid for the target are their primary jobs (followed by many others).

Fighters never had navigators... they had and have weapons officers (back seaters).
New bombers (B-1B and B-2) do not have navigators. The B-1B is staffed by 2 pilots, a defensive electronics warfare officer and an offensive electronics warfare officer. The B-2 just has 2 pilots. Only the B-52 still uses navigators and that's because of their lack of technology. That is also the case in the transport world. The C-17 and the C-130J use just 2 pilots, no flight engineer or navigator. The older C-5s and C-130's do... again... no glass cockpits. Any C-135 based aircraft will have flight engineers and navigators because that's the aircraft set-up and because of lack of navigational equipment (glass cockpit). By the way, the Sentry, JSTARS and Rivet Joints don't employ many navigators... all those people... they're either Air Battle Managers or Linguists/Crypto. Both of those specialties are officer aircrew, but they are not navigators.

The same can be said for commercial aircraft... if you remember, DC-9s and Boeing 727 have flight engineers, while their replacements, the MD-80 (and now Boeing 717) and Boeing 737 do not. They employ the glass cockpit and two pilots.

Face it, the true job of navigator (a man with a map and a protractor) is going away. Computers can navigate more accurately with a GPS and require less man power to do it. Does the workload of the pilot increase? In some ways yes, in some ways it decreases. I just think it changes.

I take the glass cockpit or older GPS to be mission gear the Observer should be responsible for.

Anyway, the idea here was that the current scanner & onsrver training would be completely changed. That Scanner thru Observer would be one set of wings, that require a greater level of practical experience & less possiblity to pencil whip (which is useless cause then you can't figure out how to do observer tasks). Then a second set of wings that covers a whole new advanced level track in which you are familitary with ALL the advanced gear & an expert in one or two systems. Then progressing up to the level of on-scene commander & AOBD. In other words, a MP has to do all the training for the first set of wings then the MP wings, while an oberver has to do all the training for the first set of wings, then progresses to a seperate focus area that the pilot can't do. 

Quote from: afgeo4 on February 11, 2007, 06:04:13 PM
By the way, the Sentry, JSTARS and Rivet Joints don't employ many navigators... all those people... they're either Air Battle Managers or Linguists/Crypto. Both of those specialties are officer aircrew, but they are not navigators.

As for a navigator and a sole job, hasn't been any for a while-true.

the Growing complexity of aerial warfare necessitated multi-tasking for both the pilot and right/back seater..

But I can tell you with a fair amount of confidence that Navigation is a major focus of BN/RIO/WSO/ABM training as well as duties in-flight.

Sentry, Rivet Joint, JSTARS are not all officer aircrew, and save for the linguists, understanding how to get around in the air (and guiding others who do) occupies a condsiderable amount of training.

Back to CAP:

Mission Observer Navigation Duties: check the SQTR's-what do most of the tasks (particularly the advanced ones) employ??

Demonstrate knowledge of how to use a flight computer

Demonstrate knowledge of flight planning

Demostrate ability to plan and conduct a grid search/creeping line search

Demonstrate ability to use GPS, and determine position using VOR, ADF, and GPS

Note that visual seach isn't mentioned anywhere in the SQTR, because they should already have acquired those skills as a scanner.

Any pilot will tell you that a good Observer is worth his or her weight in gold, even moreso since the mission profiles for advanced technology work requires precision flying (ARCHER) or pinpoint detailed info, i.e., target lat/long, aircraft heading, position, etc., that the pilot is to busy to provide, and the SDIS already had his/her hands full with a camera and a laptop. 

I have heard on more than one occasion "we need a pilot or a strong observer for this mission."

Technology is convenient, but also a double-edged sword, and you have to be prepared for contingencies: Ever been on a training/evaluation flight where the pilot and/or evaluator covered up the GPS?  What do you do then? Call it a day, and RTB? (Not if you ever want to fly in the right seat again.)  No, you whip out your stopwatch and E6B, (electronic, or otherwise,) or get the proverbial old map & protractor, and figure out the target Radial/DME's from the nearest VOR's, and drive on, because the pilot doesn't have the time, or another pair of hands to do that.

That's a task that someone wearing earned observer wings should be able to do.

Calculators have been in homes for over 35 years, yet we still learn how to do it on paper the old-fashioned way: same concept.

Instruments, including glass cockpit screens do to fail on occasion . . . .

While I believe Observers should be proficient in the use of the GPS equipment I am much less enthused about expecting them to maintain the same level of proficiency as pilots in "old-fashioned" navigation.  The primary reason is that not very many pilots are going to trust a non-pilot to do that stuff for them and they shouldn't.  Pilots use that stuff much more often and it is a critical part of their job in the airplane so they're good at it. 

Non-pilot observers should focus on maintaining proficiency with their part of the job (air ground coordination, Direction Finding, etc.) which is enough considering that Observers get much less time in the air to maintain their proficiency.  The observer should be able to work with maps, lay out search grids, etc. but flight planning should be left to the pilot.   

Quote from: RiverAux on February 11, 2007, 08:41:29 PM
While I believe Observers should be proficient in the use of the GPS equipment I am much less enthused about expecting them to maintain the same level of proficiency as pilots in "old-fashioned" navigation.  The primary reason is that not very many pilots are going to trust a non-pilot to do that stuff for them and they shouldn't.  Pilots use that stuff much more often and it is a critical part of their job in the airplane so they're good at it. 

Non-pilot observers should focus on maintaining proficiency with their part of the job (air ground coordination, Direction Finding, etc.) which is enough considering that Observers get much less time in the air to maintain their proficiency.  The observer should be able to work with maps, lay out search grids, etc. but flight planning should be left to the pilot.   

I know of alot of pilots who hardly remember how to use an "old-fashioned" non-battery-operated E6B, so they're not using it very often, and they are not good at it as they should be.

What is a "non-pilot-observer?"  If the member is not form-5, they are not a pilot as far as CAP is concerned, and they can't touch the controls any more than I could.  If they are form 5, but not form 91 qualed, then the left seater had better be a mission check-pilot.

Flight planning left to the pilot? to and from the target-sure: it's his or her ticket that's on the line.  In the target area? I'm either involved, or the pilot finds another right seater-Yeah, I'm THAT confident.

I'll admit that I've come across folks who are supposed to be observers. but can hardly recognize an airplane, given two out of three tries, and perhaps thats the reason for the stigma....

Sorry, I came to CAP from a community where the guy or gal in the right or rear seat is a trained professional, got treated like one, and there was not question that they EARNED their wings.  In that former life, I once flew with a pilot who got totally lost, and after I told him how to get home, I dropped a dime on him to the Stan-Eval folks-he had to take a check-ride before he flew again. 

Pilot or no, my momma's baby-little boy is gonna live to fly another day, and will go toe-to-toe with anyone who can potentially jeopardize that.... 

This make a great case-in-point to the rest of you: even if you get your scanner wings, "thinking-about-being-a-scanner-but-not-really-sure" wings, or whatever, Its your level of training and proficiency that makes the difference.  Blingage is one thing, trust, reputation and respect are another. 

Again, the AIRCREW wings being discussed are not Scanner. Scanner would go away. Aircrew would be a progression of basic/sr/master wings that cover all current scanner & observer training with an increased number of flight & profeciency requirements. Both potential pilots & observers would have to go all the way thru this track first. When you get to the end, you are the equiv of what we're currently calling an observer.

The Navigator/Observer wings cover a specialty that exceeds knowledge the pilot will have. This person is in charge of the sortie & can be on-scene commander for combined air/grd ops, they are familiarized with all the varrious advanced technologies we use - to the extent they can direct & verify the flight profile necessary for another operator to run the gear; and expert/current in 1-2 of these so that they can both operate it &/or aid interpretation. That's the basic level. It progresses from there to AOBD.

The discussion is not to have wings for the the current scanner training whipped right thru w/ two training flights.

My point was to discuss exactly what we expect of the Observer position.  If we don't want a true co-pilot (which I don't think anyone does), then we shouldn't be asking them to undertake pilot duties.  Keep in mind that its the pilot's job to fly the plane and do nothing else.  The Observer already has an extremely complicated job of their own and don't need to be doing part of the pilot's job as well.  Pilots fly all the time without anyone helping them with navigation so I don't see why during a mission, when their primary job is to fly the plane to the target area and back, why they need more help then. 

Quote from: RiverAux on February 12, 2007, 03:01:52 AM
Keep in mind that its the pilot's job to fly the plane and do nothing else.  The Observer already has an extremely complicated job of their own and don't need to be doing part of the pilot's job as well.   

What is that exactly? Look out the window? That's scanner. Talk on the CAP radio? Okay great a 12yo can do that & it's not all that much traffic. Watch the DF? Well they or the pilot could do that, either way it's a quite simple. SDIS ain't rocket science either, but you need to know how to read the GPS & know what direction you're looking. Now, if you run ARCHER or we get into FLIR, CRBNE detection (especially rad spectral mapping), or some other similiar things, or some advanced comm applications... then you're talking about a need to verify a precise flight pattern. The pilot has to execute it & the observer has to be checking constantly to know if it's on, while using or directing use of specialized gear.

Observers should have some navigational skills. They should know what the pilot is doing making mark on the sectional. Also, if your aviation environment include regular flights at oxygen altitudes, looking out for cumulo-granite, and trying avoid the boudaries of the sky, it's nice to have someone in the right seat that can help keep you on track with your flight plan.

Quote from: arajca on February 12, 2007, 05:11:21 AM
if your aviation environment include regular flights at oxygen altitudes,

Since when has CAP had pressurized aircraft?

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on February 12, 2007, 08:50:53 AM

Quote from: arajca on February 12, 2007, 05:11:21 AM
if your aviation environment include regular flights at oxygen altitudes,

Since when has CAP had pressurized aircraft?

You don't have to have pressurized aircraft to fly at altitudes that require oxygen.  IIRC, some of the pilots in IDWG used to talk about using oxygen when they'd fly over the mountains to get to the other end of the state.

Quote from: shorning on February 12, 2007, 08:56:51 AM

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on February 12, 2007, 08:50:53 AM

Quote from: arajca on February 12, 2007, 05:11:21 AM
if your aviation environment include regular flights at oxygen altitudes,

Since when has CAP had pressurized aircraft?

You don't have to have pressurized aircraft to fly at altitudes that require oxygen.  IIRC, some of the pilots in IDWG used to talk about using oxygen when they'd fly over the mountains to get to the other end of the state.

I imagine that in parts of Colorado, oxygen would be a consideration for aircrews in certain parts of the state. It's the only one I can think of at the moment with their "Mile High" city. But there certainly has to be other places with high altitudes that would warrant its use. Like some mountainous places in California?

The Observers duties are to help releive the pilot of "heads down" work.

The pilot should be flying the plane.  The observer should be doing as much of the inside workload as the pilot will allow.  Operating radios, tracking the flight on map...checking for way points, working the GPS, DF equiipment and of course.....scanning for targets and watching for traffic.

So observers need to be able to navigate, know how the navaids work, how the DF and GPS work and how the radios work.

Quote from: RiverAux on February 12, 2007, 03:01:52 AM
If we don't want a true co-pilot (which I don't think anyone does), then we shouldn't be asking them to undertake pilot duties.  Keep in mind that its the pilot's job to fly the plane and do nothing else.  The Observer already has an extremely complicated job of their own and don't need to be doing part of the pilot's job as well.  Pilots fly all the time without anyone helping them with navigation so I don't see why during a mission, when their primary job is to fly the plane to the target area and back, why they need more help then. 

Keep in mind that the pilot is aircraft commander and responsible (legally) for all aspects of the flight and mission including the crew.  I'd say thats a bit more than driving the bus and nothing else.  The pilot must be competant with all aspects of the mission and operation of all it's component nav and comm equipment.

Having said that, if you have attended an mission aircrew school using the mission aircrew reference text, a considerable amount of time was (or should have been) spent on CRM.  Cockpit (or crew) resource management.  This involves picking the right personnel with proper skills and allocating those skills to the several tasks that make up the mission and organizing the terms of engagement, so to speak.

I have advocated an addition to the MO training syllabus to include something along the lines of AOPA's "pinch hitter" course to take the MO to the next level of sophistication and functionality.  I think this makes good sense on several levels.  I sent it up the line about three years ago but I think it went down the memory hole as I never heard a thing in response.

I am very supportive of the pinch hitter training for non-pilot Observers and we should be able to do that in CAP aircraft.  Question is whether that counts as primary flight training for seniors, which is prohibited. 

The answer is no.  It does not constitute flight training per the regulations.  Merely a somewhat more in depth cockpit, operational and safety orientation, in my opinion.

I believe it could easily be incorporated into the MO syllabus.

Quote from: aveighter on February 13, 2007, 02:05:23 AM
I believe it could easily be incorporated into the MO syllabus.

It is locally. In a perfect world observers would have some flight training behind them, maybe a PPL maybe a solo, maybe even less, but some experience. On the other hand, I find an extra pilot who did the scanner stuff to get MP & may have gone on to observer just to do it, I find them to be terrible at the job in most cases. They know the pilot stuff, but they're thinking & acting like a pilot, not doing the observer duties, which usually lands it on a  scanner in back that can find the window & not much more, no one up front is looking for anything but traffic. Just an observation from an old observer. YMMV

My mileage does vary.   The world is never perfect.  The syllabus could incorporate it.

I can't wait for you to return from pilot training.

I got pilot training, I just don't got PILOT training. Spinny thing on top is dif than out front for some reason. I'm sure they'll get around to explaining it.  :D

Seriously though, I've been on missions where a couple old flying buddies take the front seat & they both focus on flying the plane & not the search. It's not at all uncommon in fact. I'm not saying that's everybody, but I prefer a highly experienced observer with any pilot to two highly experienced pilots boring holes in the sky.

Quote from: DNall on February 13, 2007, 02:45:16 AM
On the other hand, I find an extra pilot who did the scanner stuff to get MP & may have gone on to observer just to do it, I find them to be terrible at the job in most cases. They know the pilot stuff, but they're thinking & acting like a pilot, not doing the observer duties, which usually lands it on a  scanner in back that can find the window & not much more, no one up front is looking for anything but traffic.

Many consider the Observer position as a "place holder" for Form 5 Pilots who are building enough hours to take their Form 91.  I've seen training missions with an MP and 'MO/Form 5 pilot onboard that turn into flight training rather than mission training. 

The cover story was "Its a bit dicey up there today, might want another set of hands on the controls."

I reply "If it's that dicey, you don't go."

I've also had the "pleasure" of flying as a scanner with two pilots up front, and as mentioned above: according to the PIC, the Observer/pilot "trumped" me (??) so I was relegated to the back seat (this seems to be an unwritten rule in some CAP communities)  It was an ELT search with a UDF team in a vehicle. Gee, guess who ended up doing the Air/Ground coordination??   On the debrief, I listed myself as the observer.  The comment was made "But you didn't sit up front . . . . ."  So what? You could have strapped me to the wing, I was still the observer.

What makes our Corps of Observers so weak is the "transient" status of MP's-in-waiting.  Then you have your folks who are in it for the wings and the zippered costume who haven't a clue. 

There is a little known pool of "career observers" out there that are former back/right seaters who don't get their due from CAP

Case in point:  Maverick & Goose spend their whole careers flying together, rack up a couple of thou. hrs. of flighttime.  They get out of the service, and join CAP.  Mav takes a form 5, and gets Senior Pilot Wings.  On the other hand, Goose runs the whole CAP Aircrew gamut, and has to fly a hundred hours of CAP missions to become a Senior Observer, because everybody knows that If you're not a pilot, flying four-digits in various theaters of the world doesn't count. 

I tried to champion this cause: prepared a formal proposal-alot of thought and work went into it.  Needless to say It went absolutely nowhere.

Yeah see I don't like that pilots get sr/cmd wings on non-CAP hours. That doesn't tell me anything about their capability as a MP. I'd prefer to be just like observer, and like the proposal here for reworking the observer ratings, I'd hold back the master level to indicate AOBD. If you really want that star on top, wear your mil wings, no one's stopping you, they look better anyway.

Just a point of order here.  MP (Form 91) requires (per 60-3):

To become a qualified SAR/DR Mission Pilot, the member must have at least 200 hours pilot in command time including at least 50 hours of cross-country flying.

So, one does not build hours toward the requirements by sitting in the right seat as non-PIC.  If you have Mission Pilots who used non-PIC time to qualify for the check ride you should report it immediately along with the check pilot that signed off on it.

I'm a little sensitive about the whole pilot bashing thing so lighten up, eh? ;)

Quote from: aveighter on February 14, 2007, 12:18:35 AM
I'm a little sensitive about the whole pilot bashing thing so lighten up, eh? ;)

No problems. My experience may be a bit unique. I'll save you the background on why, but I think most real observers have been thrown into similiar situations a few times at least. That doesn't mean it's anything like the majority of MPs.

Anyway this thread is in this section rather than the uniform section because it talks about reordering the scanner/observer taining, in order to create more of those real observers & get the idiots looking for wings out of the way, or at least give them incentive to drive on to something more meaningful.

When I started this thread, my intent was not so much to direct attention towards better observer qualifications, but rather towards getting something to recognize SCANNER training.

REPLY # 14 by Maj C illistrates my point...

I am a GTL and working on GBD; I am a Ground Ops type. However, I am an advocate of the RealMilitary belief that an Officer should be a generalist and not a specialist.

So... I am taking the Scanner Course so that I have a level of familiarity with the AC side of things, and so that - if needed- I can "pinch hit" as Scanner for a mission. 

However, as I do not intend to advance in AC past Scanner, I would appriciate something to show that Ive put forth the effort.
And that is why I started the thread. .. However, I will say that Ive certainly picked up alot of knowledge in listening to the ideas about MP, Observer and Archer etc...

I'm not real heavy on creating a scanner wing. I don't think it would be a bad idea to create an "aircrew" wing for anyone other than pilots and observers. There are guys that handle the comm equipment in High Birds that fly, and don't really need to be a scanner to do it. I don't really know of any other at the moment, but I imagine that eventually there will be.

Maybe to be distinctive and show that it's an aircrew position of a different type, a  badge similar to the old glider wings or Air Assault badge. Both indicate something related to flight, but different duties.

As I understand it, National is pushing that Observers be in command of the mission including planning and mission decision making, whereas pilots would be in command of the aircraft; this is currently being taught at the National aircrew academy.

This makes sense, but will definately be difficult to implement, especially for the more umm...seasoned pilots who won't like not being in full command. 

Scanner Wings?  Why?  Next there will be a request for a UDF badge.  Both Scanner and UDF are more or less training and familiarization qualifications for the next step.

I'm currently working on the Observer tasks...can't wait to get that JAFO hat  ;D

Quote from: Psicorp on February 14, 2007, 04:46:23 PM
I'm currently working on the Observer tasks...can't wait to get that JAFO hat  ;D

I had a suspicion that I wasn't the only one...  :D

Quote from: Hawk200 on February 14, 2007, 05:29:07 PM

Quote from: Psicorp on February 14, 2007, 04:46:23 PM
I'm currently working on the Observer tasks...can't wait to get that JAFO hat  ;D

I had a suspicion that I wasn't the only one...  :D

No sir, you're definately not  ;)

On a side note, does anyone know if there is a branch of the military who still authorizes the "half wing" wings?    I know some Navigators/GIBs (Guy In Back) used to wear them, but I haven't seen any in quite a while. 

If there is someone here from National who's seriously looking at a Scanner insignia (because the one thing we lack in CAP is insignia), then reviving that might be an option (and I'm not endorsing that by any stretch of the imagination).

You know, Scanners and UDF's do have a "badge".  The "Pluto Patch" or T-34 patch which are awarded for completeing the first specialty qualification after GES.

Quote from: Psicorp on February 14, 2007, 07:57:46 PM
On a side note, does anyone know if there is a branch of the military who still authorizes the "half wing" wings?    I know some Navigators/GIBs (Guy In Back) used to wear them, but I haven't seen any in quite a while. 

I checked a few of the military uniform manuals, and I don't see anything that would really amount to a  "half-wing" with the exception of maybe an Army Pathfinder badge.

QuoteIf there is someone here from National who's seriously looking at a Scanner insignia (because the one thing we lack in CAP is insignia), then reviving that might be an option (and I'm not endorsing that by any stretch of the imagination).

I would think that if the military doesn't have any, that would be all the more reason not to do so.

Quote from: Al Sayre on February 14, 2007, 08:03:41 PM
You know, Scanners and UDF's do have a "badge".  The "Pluto Patch" or T-34 patch which are awarded for completeing the first specialty qualification after GES.

And I still can't tell the difference between a scanner or a UDF'er, unless I ask them. Then again, anything over and above GES gets the patch too.

How about a General ES badge, and a General Aircrew badge?

From what I've seen, the scanners tend to wear the T-34 and the UDF folks tend towards the Pluto Patch.  I realize that's not universal, and that either is an option, but before they get in an airplane someone had better be checking a 101 card anyway...

Quote from: Al Sayre on February 14, 2007, 08:53:45 PM
From what I've seen, the scanners tend to wear the T-34 and the UDF folks tend towards the Pluto Patch.  I realize that's not universal, and that either is an option, but before they get in an airplane someone had better be checking a 101 card anyway...

FWIW I wouldn't get caught dead wearing the Pluto. U-G-L-Y, its history and origins notwithstanding.

YMMV.

Quote from: SarDragon on February 14, 2007, 09:08:43 PM

Quote from: Al Sayre on February 14, 2007, 08:53:45 PM
From what I've seen, the scanners tend to wear the T-34 and the UDF folks tend towards the Pluto Patch.  I realize that's not universal, and that either is an option, but before they get in an airplane someone had better be checking a 101 card anyway...

FWIW I wouldn't get caught dead wearing the Pluto. U-G-L-Y, its history and origins notwithstanding.

YMMV.

No offense, but I would say that the airplane patch is worse then Pluto.

Quote from: SarDragon on February 14, 2007, 09:08:43 PM
FWIW I wouldn't get caught dead wearing the Pluto. U-G-L-Y, its history and origins notwithstanding.

Hmmm, I always actually liked the "Pluto" patch (since it was brought back anyway). Always thought it had "personality".

Quote from: Al Sayre on February 14, 2007, 08:53:45 PM
From what I've seen, the scanners tend to wear the T-34 and the UDF folks tend towards the Pluto Patch.  I realize that's not universal, and that either is an option, but before they get in an airplane someone had better be checking a 101 card anyway...

On the BDU's, either seems alright. I do not like the placement on the flightsuit. I think it looks tacky.

I once saw a guy in California that was wearing it over his leather nametag on the flightsuit. Legality aside, I thought it looked better there than on the pocket. I won't wear one on the flightsuit because I don't care for the placement. Not to mention having "MISSION SCANNER" on the nametag shows you have an ES qual anyway.

Quote from: Psicorp on February 14, 2007, 04:46:23 PM
As I understand it, National is pushing that Observers be in command of the mission including planning and mission decision making, whereas pilots would be in command of the aircraft; this is currently being taught at the National aircrew academy.

This makes sense, but will definitely be difficult to implement, especially for the more umm...seasoned pilots who won't like not being in full command. 

I'm currently working on the Observer tasks...can't wait to get that JAFO hat  ;D

Nor sure what an umm...seasoned pilot is.

Anyway,  you are right in that there is a thought that the observer could operate as a mission director of sorts.  And, I'll say, there is actually some merit to the idea given a MO with a certain level of training and experience.  I think we are a ways from that as a standard today, however.

I must point out again that as the pilot bears legal responsibilities for all aspects and all phases of aircraft operations, the pilot will, indeed must, retain overall command authority of the entirety of the mission profile that involves any aspect of the airplane.  So if you think there is some subtle egomania at work in the "not being in full command" issue (not saying pilots don't have well developed egos) you're wrong.

If I'm going to be issued full responsibility (by law) for adverse outcomes, I'll accept that responsibility only if I have full command authority to affect those outcomes in a positive manner.  I doubt you will find many pilots that will argue with that position.  A well trained MO (pilot or non-pilot) is a necessity given todays more complex equipment and mission profiles and complicated airspace.  But if it all goes poorly, it's the pilot (or his estate) that will pay the price.

The way I've seen it, the Mission Pilot is in overall command of flight operations and the Mission Observer in command, sort of speak, of the tasks of the CAP mission.

By this I mean that every Pilot has a veto power over anything that effects the flying of the Aircraft.   This power I consider to be basically inherent to the pilot at all times while flying.  Including when there has been a "delegation" of responsibilities.

The Pilot should do no scanning nor overly concern himself in the actual Scanning/Observing (there are as many as three sets of eyes doing that); but rather insure that the aircraft is safely flying.  All judgements on where the aircraft goes, conduct in the aircraft and elements that deal with safe flying go to the PIC and should never be out of the PICs realm of control.  The Mission Observer is sort of an "administrator," for the Scanners and for providing Mission Base with intellegence on the Mission.

In a way it is a precarious thing...the pilot may choose to turn some duties over to the Observer for whatever purpose, but should never really lose sight of those delegated powers, for the pilot bears legal responsibilities for all aspects and all phases of aircraft operations.

Am I wrong?   I begin Mission Scanner sorties this weekend.

You are on target Major.  Please don't stop at scanner.  With the exception of SDIS duties in the back seat the real action is up front.  A skilled MO is critical to the success of the aircrew team.  Your term of mission administrator is a good one. 

The skills of a good MO will encompass a fair amount of what one learns in the course of pilot training and are utilized in the ability to integrate the mission plan with the flight plan and then making it all come together in the air.  Especially when being re-tasked while in flight requiring a new plan real quick.  Now throw in a glass cockpit with all it's knobs, buttons, bells and do-dads, communicating with multiple entities...you get the picture.

So, blast thru that scanner business and move to the front of the bus.  You're going to look marvelous in the zippered sun-god suit!

The Ground Teams?  Let them eat dirt whilst we slip those surly bonds!  ;D

Quote from: Psicorp on February 14, 2007, 07:57:46 PM

Quote from: Hawk200 on February 14, 2007, 05:29:07 PM

Quote from: Psicorp on February 14, 2007, 04:46:23 PM
I'm currently working on the Observer tasks...can't wait to get that JAFO hat  ;D

I had a suspicion that I wasn't the only one...  :D

No sir, you're definately not  ;)

On a side note, does anyone know if there is a branch of the military who still authorizes the "half wing" wings?    I know some Navigators/GIBs (Guy In Back) used to wear them, but I haven't seen any in quite a while. 

If there is someone here from National who's seriously looking at a Scanner insignia (because the one thing we lack in CAP is insignia), then reviving that might be an option (and I'm not endorsing that by any stretch of the imagination).

CAP used to have a half-wing for observers back in WWII, and during the 60's there was a "Stewardess" wing for female cadets who went through CAP stewardess training.  (Yes, we had that).

Besides that, the RAF still uses a half-wing for navigator/bombardiers.

That's all that I know about.

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on February 14, 2007, 02:38:15 PM
When I started this thread, my intent was not so much to direct attention towards better observer qualifications, but rather towards getting something to recognize SCANNER training.

REPLY # 14 by Maj C illistrates my point...

I am a GTL and working on GBD; I am a Ground Ops type. However, I am an advocate of the RealMilitary belief that an Officer should be a generalist and not a specialist.

So... I am taking the Scanner Course so that I have a level of familiarity with the AC side of things, and so that - if needed- I can "pinch hit" as Scanner for a mission. 

However, as I do not intend to advance in AC past Scanner, I would appriciate something to show that Ive put forth the effort.
And that is why I started the thread. .. However, I will say that Ive certainly picked up alot of knowledge in listening to the ideas about MP, Observer and Archer etc...

Thats one thing I have noticed about this website, questions tend to drift into a totally different area. ;D

I think people are confusing that in command thing a bit. The pilot is in command of the plane & what's going on inside it. How you break down front seat tasks in pre-flight is ultimately his deal. The observer is in charge of the CAP mission, that is the CAP responsibilities inside the plane, but mostly the responsibilities outside. They are supposed to be directing teh search activity of the scanner & monitoring the crew, and when you get over a GT, the observer is in charge of the scene. The pilot's job is to tfly the plane safely & support what the team is doing.

Both those ES patches are tacky looking on any uniform. They mean nothing & are basically the default. It loos fine sewn on your ruck, but otherwise it's dumb looking.

Let me say again. There will be NO wings for what we call scanner now. Doing so would be counter productive to our ES mission & should not happen under any circumstances.

However, we do need to work on the scanner/oberver track to integrate all the new gear & mission profiles, while pushing up the overall requirements to assume those leadership roles, and making the insignia more meaningful as an indicator of ratings and capability would be nice. The plan discussed here is three levels of aircrew that cover scanner to basic observer w/ 2 flights each, just re-order the task guid to streamline the administrative/logistics process, add a few additonal tasks (overwater, survival, etc) that people take as additional training. Then part two is the Nav/Observer wings that start at a level abover observer, bring in the advanced gear, command & control functions, etc at the basic level... the master level being AOBD.

The statement that the "... Observer is in charge of the CAP mission..." is, in my experience, mostly untrue in reality.  I know this is what they are teaching now and it's in the MART, but in practice many Observers don't have the experience to be in charge of anything more than themselves, particularly if they are not also pilots.

A less experienced MP may depend upon an en experienced CAP Observer to a greater extent. A highly experienced SAR/DR Mission Pilot will take charge of both the flight and the mission. He may, if he has an experienced Observer in the right seat, delegate responsibilities such as Ops Normal checks, verifying navigation and grid assignment, DF gear, CAP comm, air/ground coordination, etc.  It is more common to have a relatively inexperienced Observer on board.

Pre-sortie, the MP may ask the Observer to perform some pre-sortie planning, again, depends on their experience and skillset. Post sortie the MP will usually have the Observer discuss sortie results and POD. I've never seen a CAP Observer be "in charge of the scene" when over the ground team. The GTL is the on-scene commander, while the aircrew will provide support.

So, again,, in my experience, more common for MP to be the aircrew leader and delegate tasks and responsibilities to the Observer and Scanner. FYI, I'm a Master Observer with 20+ years flying right seat. Also a CAP Pilot.

John Aylesworth, Lt Col, CAP
Commander, PCR-CA_151

However, it is very common for two pilots to switch off who is PIC from left to right seat, and that would allow someone to build hours while sitting in the right seat.  Usually this is done during "transport" phases of missions. 

Quote from: RiverAux on February 18, 2007, 02:00:05 AM
However, it is very common for two pilots to switch off who is PIC from left to right seat, and that would allow someone to build hours while sitting in the right seat.  Usually this is done during "transport" phases of missions. 

There was a time when PIC from the right seat was prohibited, but that seems to have been dropped from 60-1 (?)

Quote from: jayleswo on February 16, 2007, 06:34:03 PM
The statement that the "... Observer is in charge of the CAP mission..." is, in my experience, mostly untrue in reality.  I know this is what they are teaching now and it's in the MART, but in practice many Observers don't have the experience to be in charge of anything more than themselves, particularly if they are not also pilots.

A less experienced MP may depend upon an en experienced CAP Observer to a greater extent. A highly experienced SAR/DR Mission Pilot will take charge of both the flight and the mission. He may, if he has an experienced Observer in the right seat, delegate responsibilities such as Ops Normal checks, verifying navigation and grid assignment, DF gear, CAP comm, air/ground coordination, etc.  It is more common to have a relatively inexperienced Observer on board.

Pre-sortie, the MP may ask the Observer to perform some pre-sortie planning, again, depends on their experience and skillset. Post sortie the MP will usually have the Observer discuss sortie results and POD. I've never seen a CAP Observer be "in charge of the scene" when over the ground team. The GTL is the on-scene commander, while the aircrew will provide support.

So, again,, in my experience, more common for MP to be the aircrew leader and delegate tasks and responsibilities to the Observer and Scanner. FYI, I'm a Master Observer with 20+ years flying right seat. Also a CAP Pilot.

John Aylesworth, Lt Col, CAP
Commander, PCR-CA_151

Thats because for the most part, MP's dont have any confidense in the MO so they take charge themselves. The only way to gain real expereince is to do it, make mistakes,learn fromthem and do it again. However MP'swont allow MO's to make mistakes and learn and thats why MO's remain inexpereinced. They are never really givine a chance to be in charge. The MP should humble himself andlet the MO lead and plan missions . They will make misyakes but thats how you learn.

Quote from: flyguy06 on February 18, 2007, 11:42:42 PM
Thats because for the most part, MP's dont have any confidense in the MO so they take charge themselves. The only way to gain real expereince is to do it, make mistakes,learn fromthem and do it again. However MP'swont allow MO's to make mistakes and learn and thats why MO's remain inexpereinced. They are never really givine a chance to be in charge. The MP should humble himself andlet the MO lead and plan missions . They will make misyakes but thats how you learn.

Truly, you must have an astonishing amount of experience with a vast number of MPs over a great number of missions through out the many wings to make such a sweeping and conclusive indictment.

Impressive, quite impressive.  Perhaps you could apply your considerable diagnostic skills to world peace, or perhaps global warming.

Quote from: aveighter on February 19, 2007, 03:53:02 AM

Quote from: flyguy06 on February 18, 2007, 11:42:42 PM
Thats because for the most part, MP's dont have any confidense in the MO so they take charge themselves. The only way to gain real expereince is to do it, make mistakes,learn fromthem and do it again. However MP'swont allow MO's to make mistakes and learn and thats why MO's remain inexpereinced. They are never really givine a chance to be in charge. The MP should humble himself andlet the MO lead and plan missions . They will make misyakes but thats how you learn.

Truly, you must have an astonishing amount of experience with a vast number of MPs over a great number of missions through out the many wings to make such a sweeping and conclusive indictment.

Impressive, quite impressive.  Perhaps you could apply your considerable diagnostic skills to world peace, or perhaps global warming.

I wish. I have onlky been in CAP since 1984 so yu decide how much experience that is.

Quote from: jayleswo on February 16, 2007, 06:34:03 PM
The statement that the "... Observer is in charge of the CAP mission..." is, in my experience, mostly untrue in reality.  I know this is what they are teaching now and it's in the MART, but in practice many Observers don't have the experience to be in charge of anything more than themselves, particularly if they are not also pilots.

A less experienced MP may depend upon an en experienced CAP Observer to a greater extent. A highly experienced SAR/DR Mission Pilot will take charge of both the flight and the mission. He may, if he has an experienced Observer in the right seat, delegate responsibilities such as Ops Normal checks, verifying navigation and grid assignment, DF gear, CAP comm, air/ground coordination, etc.  It is more common to have a relatively inexperienced Observer on board.

Pre-sortie, the MP may ask the Observer to perform some pre-sortie planning, again, depends on their experience and skillset. Post sortie the MP will usually have the Observer discuss sortie results and POD. I've never seen a CAP Observer be "in charge of the scene" when over the ground team. The GTL is the on-scene commander, while the aircrew will provide support.

So, again,, in my experience, more common for MP to be the aircrew leader and delegate tasks and responsibilities to the Observer and Scanner. FYI, I'm a Master Observer with 20+ years flying right seat. Also a CAP Pilot.

Yeah that tends to be the case. If you look back earlier in the thread, you'll see that's part of the justification mentioned in reordering the scanner observer training. Thereby making basic observers into master rated aircrew, & requiring more actual flight time to get that far, while btter breaking down the tasks & admin to make it easier to accomplish at the same standards. Then there would be a whole differet set of wings that kick in over that level for navigator/observer or whatever you want to call it, and that's where you'd get into being in overall command of the mission (ie command & control responsibilities), open up the adanced gear, sensitive misisons, and progression AOBD & such.

Quote from: flyguy06 on February 18, 2007, 11:42:42 PM
Thats because for the most part, MP's dont have any confidense in the MO so they take charge themselves. The only way to gain real expereince is to do it, make mistakes,learn fromthem and do it again. However MP'swont allow MO's to make mistakes and learn and thats why MO's remain inexpereinced. They are never really givine a chance to be in charge. The MP should humble himself andlet the MO lead and plan missions . They will make misyakes but thats how you learn.

I've seen some MO's who went through the motions just to get the badge, and are nearly useless in the cockpit, or alleged high-time Observers who still get "mike-fright."  Unfortunately, the rest of us also have to live with the stigma.  Nonetheless, MO's have reputations too: If you're a good one, word usually gets around, and pilots and/or IC's will actually seek you out.  Usually once MP's see that you demonstrate a degree of competence, they'll loosen up a bit, and let you do your thing. 

I've been very lucky in that nearly all the pilots I've flown with are highly professional and very high-time folks who are either CFI/II's, ATP's, ex-Mil jockeys, or a combination thereof, so not only do they let me "touch stuff," but I usually learn something new every time I fly.  The pilots are usually happy to teach or go over a few practical review exercises-keeps them sharp too, and it also breaks the tedium of a long flight to or from a mission base.

Keep in mind that pilots spend considerable amounts of time, money and effort to get where they are (CAP Mission Pilots even more so.)  Someone whose total flight-related training consists of two days of classroom work and a few flights under their belt isn't going to easily impress them.  As a good MO, you need to study material above & beyond what you learn in your Scanner/Observer training, and review, review, review, because MO skills are just as perishable as a Pilot's, particularly since non-pilot MO's don't typically get to fly as often. 

If you can get your hands on simulator software, like the Apollo GX-55/60, all the better: when you haven't flown in a while, you can still use it with your sectional and "fly" your own missions.   

What you bring with you to the airplane says a lot about your level of training & professionalism: I've seen scanners & observers enter the cockpit empty-handed (?!) expecting the pilot to provide charts.   Personally, I keep a pubs-bag with all kinds of goodies, including gridded sectionals and TCA's for my entire state(you never know where a CN or DR mission will take you.)  I do have a spare sectional for the Scanner, which I lend them with the admonition "next time you need to bring your own."  I am not a Pilot, but the quality of my personal gear is as good as, if not better than a lot of CAP Pilots.  Overkill?  You have a job to do, and you bring the tools you need to do it.   Just because you don't have a pilot-ticket doesn't mean you can't be as conscientious.     

Get involved! I've seen cases where the MP attends a mission brief, then comes back & briefs the crew-No-go: Unless the IC or AOBD says otherwise, you attend the brief.  If the acft is tied down when you and the pilot arrive, start untying.  If your crew is the last to use the plane, help tie it up.  When it's time to refuel, get out there.  These tasks are easy to learn.  It's not about "helping the pilot" as much as part of being one crew working together: depending on the mission, you might be under-the-gun to make a time-on-target deadline. 

Some MO's develop a level of expertise and experience in a particular mission profile that makes them the "go-to" person for certain situations, particularly if your wing or region has certain types of ongoing missions. Being an integral part of a successful mission, or effectively assisting the MP when dodging sudden bad weather or dealing with something equally unpleasant can not only give you added-value as an MO, but can be a bonding experience as well.

In CAP, as well as in other organizations, there is a bit of exclusivity in the flying community, and even pilots need to prove their mettle.  Develop, maintain and demonstrate a high level of competence and professionalism as a Mission Observer: you might not get the "secret handshake" from every pilot, but at least you'll be respected for what you can do. 

Ok, let me work that around in my brain a bit and ask something else:
What would be considered the "bare minimum" amount of charts/gear etc
for a scanner or observer to bring to a sortie/ Mission Base?

At a minimum, I would expect a qualified observer to have:

A headset

Clipboard & Pad

Pens & Highlighters

Flashlight

Some CAPF 104's & CAPF108's and a NASA Safety Reporting Form

Aircrew Flight Guide

Gridded Sectional(s) for the Wing AO
Current Sectional(s) for the Wing AO
Delorme book if availble for the Wing AO

Any other good maps of the local areas that can be used to identify locations visually.

In my opinion, O-Rex's post is the most cogent presentation on the matter yet written.  Well said!