Main Menu

Scanner Wings

Started by SAR-EMT1, January 26, 2007, 03:12:57 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Major Carrales

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.
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

Monty

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...)

Major Carrales

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.
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

Hawk200

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.

Monty

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......

:)

Major Carrales

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!!!
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

MIKE

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
Mike Johnston

Monty

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

Hawk200

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....

BillB

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.
Gil Robb Wilson # 19
Gil Robb Wilson # 104

Guardrail

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. 

Major Carrales

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,
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

SAR-EMT1

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.
C. A. Edgar
AUX USCG Flotilla 8-8
Former CC / GLR-IL-328
Firefighter, Paramedic, Grad Student

Guardrail

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.

SJFedor

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.

Steven Fedor, NREMT-P
Master Ambulance Driver
Former Capt, MP, MCPE, MO, MS, GTL, and various other 3-and-4 letter combinations
NESA MAS Instructor, 2008-2010 (#479)

MIKE

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.
Mike Johnston

TankerT

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!

/Insert Snappy Comment Here

DNall

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.


SAR-EMT1

So...make OBSERVER a requirement to work in CD or with Archer?
C. A. Edgar
AUX USCG Flotilla 8-8
Former CC / GLR-IL-328
Firefighter, Paramedic, Grad Student

DNall

#39
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.