Using A-12 funded missions for Aircrew Quals.

[DrJbdm]

 I can't seem to find the answer to this question. For a MS trainee who is redoing his expired MS rating, can a flight as an A-12 mission flying an approved profile, such as Profile#3 (ELT search) or Profile #9 (Low Level Route) count for the Mission Scanner Trainee Exercise # 2 ride?

I'm a Mission Pilot who gave another Pilot a scanner flight during an A-12 mission. I am an M.O., M.S., & M.P. SET and want to sign that flight off as the required flight. His Commander who happens to be a friend of mine, told me that only actual missions or SAREX training flights count for that requirement. Essentially, A-12 missions can not be used to sign people off on quals, that they can only receive the training for the tasks.

Whats the scoop, is he correct? I can't seem to locate anything that says an A-12 mission can't qualify since it has a mission number.

Thanks for the help.

[etodd]

His Commander who happens to be a friend of mine, told me that only actual missions or SAREX training flights count for that requirement. Essentially, A-12 missions can not be used to sign people off on quals, that they can only receive the training for the tasks.

Whoa .... where is that written?  Having to wait months for an actual Mission or SAREX and then not be able to get off work, or be sick, and then have to wait months again? We would never get folks signed off.

Most of our EVAL flights for any position wind up being C-12 flights. Member pays to 'get it done'.

[Eclipse]

I can't seem to find the answer to this question. For a MS trainee who is redoing his expired MS rating, can a flight as an A-12 mission flying an approved profile, such as Profile#3 (ELT search) or Profile #9 (Low Level Route) count for the Mission Scanner Trainee Exercise # 2 ride?

Yes.  Your CC is mistaken.

An A-12 is a mission, in fact it's an AFAM.

You may wish to refer him to CAPR 60-3 as below:
https://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R060_003_075A4369FBA8E.pdf

Page 22:
"d. Events creditable toward training, qualification, and currency include both Air Force
and CAP Corporate training activities. For all events that are expected to be reimbursed with Air
Force training funds, the wing commander or designee, must approve the activity in advance
using WMIRS. "

Page 25:
c. Finally, after completing familiarization and preparatory training, supervised trainees
must complete advanced training and participate satisfactorily in two missions before a CAPF
101 is approved and a member is considered "Qualified." Advanced training covers the
remainder of the tasks required for specialty qualification. On actual missions, it is expected that
these tasks could be accomplished by the trainee's supervisor or other fully trained members if
they became critical. These tasks do not have to be completed in a mission setting though. It is
acceptable for these tasks to be accomplished with similar familiarization and preparatory tasks
during routine unit training or in a formal school like the National Emergency Services
Academy. Prior approval and additional risk mitigation measures will be required by the
mission approval authority in order for these personnel to participate in a mission. Because all
trainees are properly supervised at all times, trainees are allowed to learn these "on the job."
These two "missions" do not have to be on different mission numbers, be AFAMs, or be
completed after all other advanced training is complete, but personnel must have completed all
familiarization and preparatory training in order to receive credit for these sorties. These sorties
must be complete sorties and/or operating periods where the member participates in all aspects of
their assigned mission specialty. It is possible to participate in more than one specialty on a
given mission or day.

[DrJbdm]

Thank you, that is exactly what I was needing.  I will pass the information to him so that he doesn't unnecessarily hold back his squadron members from getting qualified.

I agree with the idea of making training and qualifications easier to obtain by increasing the training availability, and C-12 and especially, A-12 missions can provide that. We should never decrease the standards to gain qualification, but instead increase the availability of training to receive and practice this training.

[disamuel]

I rarely wade in to these conversations, but I have to (gently) disagree here with Eclipse. The A12 mission is defined by CAP/USAF as Proficiency only, but it really depends on the profile that you are flying. For example, no training activity takes place in Profile #4, which is the most popular for our pilots. My source for this is multiple discussions with my LR (CAP/USAF liason) in that "Proficiency" as defined by the Air Force is for honing existing skills, that CAP/USAF does not want that money spent for re-qualification. In my wing we do not allow that money to be used for anything but Proficiency and is only to be released with fully qualified members. In fact we are so strict with that mission that it is the only circumstance in which we have limited the FROs who can release flights. I can only speak for my first-hand knowledge of my wing and region, I can't provide guidance for the rest of the county. (I think however that the A12 can be used to regain night currency). Please ask your Wing DO to have a conversation with your CAP/USAF LR and get clarification.

Please take a look at the newest approved A12 Proficiency Profiles:

https://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/Pilot_Proficiency_Profiles_AF_Appro_D76AC441E6A48.pdf

Separately, I was a bit bummed out to read this:

His Commander who happens to be a friend of mine, told me that only actual missions or SAREX training flights count for that requirement.

It is so unfair to limit members receiving qualifications to only actual missions or SAREXs which may only happen a few times a year. Your Wing should look into a funded monthly training mission that would allow a trained SET pilot to go up with an MO or MS trainee when they are able to train, and sign off on tasks. If there is an IC who is willing to supervise the activity the trainee can receive sortie credit assuming that they were tasked. The idea of asking a member to fund a C12 flight to get an MS or MO rating is just sad and probably unneeded.

I'd be happy discuss more detail via PM.

[Eclipse]

Please take a look at the newest approved A12 Proficiency Profiles:

https://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/Pilot_Proficiency_Profiles_AF_Appro_D76AC441E6A48.pdf

There is no prohibition, comment in regard, or definition of "proficiency" in the program outline above.

There is this:
"The following flight profiles authorized by CAPR 60-1 are to be used in accordance with the
instructions at the beginning of each profile. While designed for pilot proficiency, other aircrew
members may also be on board the flight if compatible training can be accomplished
concurrently..."

If a respective wing chooses to artificially limit who can fly in an A12 sortie, so be it, but there is no
such limit within the program itself.  LR-ADO's are like Whitman Samplers - all different and you never know quite
what you're going to get until you squeeze them, however with only 8 (or maybe today less) in the country
they tend to be on the same page, and ours has said literally the opposite.

In regards to "not A12" if you're going to self-fund, the preference would be to request a B12 so that the crew still
have FECA.  This has been communicated for years as the preference.  A C12 might seem "easier", but affords
only corporate insurance with no injury benefits.

Also, while the program hinges on aircrews, ground teams can also participate.

[Eclipse]

For example, no training activity takes place in Profile #4, which is the most popular for our pilots.

Cite please.

There is time for a >lot< of training in a 2.5 hour flight, especially for Observers.

Sure while doing some of the more advanced approach and navigation you need sterile cockpit, but that's not
the same as "no training", especially in what is actually a ripe training environment.

If you accidentally learning something on the sortie do you have to file a 78?

[Storm Chaser]

The CAPR 60-1 Air Force Approved Proficiency Flight Profiles document, dated 1 February 2016, state the following:

While designed for pilot proficiency, other aircrew members may also be on board the flight if compatible training can be accomplished concurrently. For example, on Profile #1, Visual Search Mission Profile, a Scanner or Observer trainee with instructor may accompany the flight to fulfill Scanner or Observer training tasks. Proficiency flights are designed to prepare crews to fly Air Force missions and should include a mission observer and scanner as appropriate, and though routine flight procedures can be practiced, the majority of a proficiency flight must be focused on the training outlined in the profiles below.

MO and MS training can be conducted during a proficiency flight as long as it's compatible with the training outlined on the profile being flown.

[Eclipse]

The CAPR 60-1 Air Force Approved Proficiency Flight Profiles document, dated 1 February 2016, state the following:

While designed for pilot proficiency, other aircrew members may also be on board the flight if compatible training can be accomplished concurrently. For example, on Profile #1, Visual Search Mission Profile, a Scanner or Observer trainee with instructor may accompany the flight to fulfill Scanner or Observer training tasks. Proficiency flights are designed to prepare crews to fly Air Force missions and should include a mission observer and scanner as appropriate, and though routine flight procedures can be practiced, the majority of a proficiency flight must be focused on the training outlined in the profiles below.

MO and MS training can be conducted during a proficiency flight as long as it's compatible with the training outlined on the profile being flown.

Agreed - but in dsamuel's wing apparently you can't use a-12's for initials in anything.

[Storm Chaser]

Unfortunately, that's up to the wing and/or LR. That said, any prohibitions or limitations are self imposed and not based on regulation.

[Eclipse]

Unfortunately, that's up to the wing and/or LR. That said, any prohibitions or limitations are self imposed and not based on regulation.

Agreed - I have honest doubts about the LR being that involved, concerned, or even aware of the training status of
the individuals involved.  I know when we started using A12 about 5 years ago, the LR was excited about another
way to get people trained and involved that had very little spin time or bureaucratic overhead.

Got an hour and a crew?  Go train.

[sardak]

Our LR-ADO would look at the monthly reports and ask why are all these members flying C-12, they should be flying A-12 and B-12.

Mike

[DrJbdm]

 Thanks everyone for the valuable input. I flew an A-12 mission (Profile #1) this past weekend and signed off a member for his scanner re-qual for the one sortie flight that he needed to become qualified again as a scanner. He emailed me a few days later saying his Commander (same CC as discussed before) denied the scanner rating because the flight sortie was not flown as part of a WLE (Wing Led Exercise) or distributed SAREX or during an actual mission.  He told the member that he would need to take that flight during an actual formal training environment such as what I listed above. He said the training is fine, just that the sortie flights can not be flown and counted during anything but those above listed activities.

When the CC was asked about it by this members Deputy CC, the CC stated that there was a Wing ICL or email that addresses this but has been unable to show that letter. A check of the wing webpage failed to show any such ICL or wing wide email addressing this.  Unfortunately, it appears that this member will just have to comply with his commanders orders and find the time and a location within driving distance to make this happen.

[EMT-83]

Another self-important CAP "leader" throwing up roadblocks.

[Eclipse]

Another self-important CAP "leader" throwing up roadblocks.

Wow - you captured that perfectly.  Well said.

I literally wrote about 4 different much less respectful things and then closed out because I couldn't grasp the idea properly.

The above says it all.  This person values his "idea" over his members' experience or even his unit's readiness,
despite plenty of evidence to the contrary, and an inability to support his own position.

Unit Commanders are supposed to lower the coefficient of drag, not be one.

[Spaceman3750]

All commanders and staff officers are supposed to lower the coefficient of drag, not be one.

FTFY

This stuff is so rediculous. Can you articulate the difference between looking out the window on an A12 vs A5? I can't. The ground looks the same.

Not only is not taking full advantage of appropriated funds wasteful, you are disenfranchising motivated members who seek out any training opportunity, and those are the ones we really need to stick around.

[Spaceman3750]

All commanders and staff officers are supposed to lower the coefficient of drag, not be one.

FTFY

This stuff is so rediculous. Can you articulate the difference between looking out the window on an A12 vs A5? I can't. The ground looks the same.

Not only is not taking full advantage of appropriated funds wasteful, you are disenfranchising motivated members who seek out any training opportunity, and those are the ones we really need to stick around.

[Eclipse]

So correct it needed to be said twice!

And I agree - I have a couple of motivated members who are swimming against the tide of
the calendar, MX, other priorities, and their own lives trying to get some O-Rides in and a TOPS
flight before both the cadets and teacher need to go back to school.

When you see the brute force effort it can take just to get access to a plane, telling a member who did the
whole deed "no soup for you" because of "reasons" border on FWA.

[Spam]

Allow me to present an alternate viewpoint based on crediting training based on the type of proficiency desired/demonstrated, at the level of training fidelity required to ensure that we have a balanced training program. (*Yeah, I know. Blah blah blah. Yet, a plan based on real needs is better than a spasm of signoffs based on emotional opinions, so suspend your emotional reactions here, and step through the intent of our training process with me, and lets look at what makes sense - and then work to fix our somewhat broken plans and apply them correctly in the mean time).


Source: FEMA IS120A Intro to Exercises
The FEMA customer directs a building block approach starting with seminars, then workshops, then tabletop exercises, then games, drills, functional exercises, then full scale exercises. The Building Block Approach in CAP would then plan and execute exercises of increasing complexity:

Seminars/Workshops

• Individual training on specialties
• No time pressures – focus on techniques
• CAP version: SQTR training/testing

Tabletop Exercises (TTX)

• Mission staff exercise (missing in most CAP Wings)
• Slow paced, teaches new concepts
• Useful in walking through planning for major exercises before hand

Drills (CAP: FTXs/ATXs - Field Training and Aircrew Training Exercises)

• Tests specific ops for a single agency
• Learn tactics/techniques/procedures (TTPs)
• Learn plans and CONOPS

Functional Exercises

• Single or multi agency exercise
• Simulated deployments

Full Scale Exercises (CAP version: SAREXs/DREXs - Search and Rescue and Disaster Relief Exercises)

• Single or multi agency exercise
• Actual deployments
• Scripted scenario, based on a PLAN, with very stressful ops and pacing, and realistic "problems" to stress and practice response to chaotic real life scenarios that would not be found in individual training

So, then, "a mission is not a mission is not a mission", right?  As we move trainees from crawl to walk to run, we sign people off as having experienced levels of training and having demonstrated ability to meet standards at these different levels, using the SQTR task signoffs at one level, and the "mission" signoffs at a broader level:

Individual Training

• Train individuals to SQTR standards (task sign offs)
• Complete top half SQTR prerequisite tasks enabling SAR/DREX sorties

Team Training (Task Driven Training)

• Train crews tactically as crews: Aircrews/GTs/mission staff - could be done on A12 missions
• Complete remaining SQTR tasks requiring team field interaction
• Teach Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs)
• Venues:
  On line training (e.g. GES)
  1 on 1 mentoring/testing
  Training Exercises (numbered/funded or not):
  TTX (staff tabletop ex)
  FTXs (field tng. ex)
  ATX (aircrew tng. ex)
  

Combined Training (Scenario Driven Training)

• Train crews together: staff + aircrew + GTs
• "The full integration and application of two or more arms or elements of one Military Service into an operation". (Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. US Department of Defense 2005).
• (Venues: SAREXs and DREXs with outside agencies (per FEMA)) - this should be a full up AFAM mission, not an A12 mission, to meet the "two mission" requirement at the bottom of a given SQTR

Therefore, from this perspective, what does an "AFAM" or "mission credit" mean? In terms of the broader training plan, a certain type of "AFAM" mission is merely a way to get funding to aircrews and ground teams to make sure that we can use training funds to get them affordably into the field/into the air to accomplish individual and team training (to sign off tasks). Then, a full up SAREX/DREX AFAM would be appropriate to sign off combined team training as part of a full up scenario drill - with everyone, not just a one plane afternoon. If both your "training missions" are A type missions with no scenario, no stress of time pressures, no sign ins and general mission base environment, then no, I don't think a new trainee has really been through adequate preparation for a specialty rating, given the operational context.

I therefore can understand - and would support - a Wing DO/DOS position that requires that initial qual trainees experience up through that full mission exercise level, and that at least one of the two missions listed be a full SAREX/DREX, in order to meet the intent of our training program and that of our customers. Otherwise, we end up with guys who got all their signoffs alone (on an A12, isolated from a realistic training scenario), who on their first actual mission have zero idea how to work in an integrated team, leading to operational and safety problems.

From that, my opinion is that the 60 series regs need a serious update to reflect a more coherent approach, including the "what is a mission" definition. The current version really doesn't explain the rationale, nor does it clarify WHY we require two "missions" and what these "missions' are supposed to accomplish. We can do better - excellence in all we do, including spec and reg writing that is based on and dove tails with our customers training approaches.  In Georgia Wing at least, we're working to do that locally, to push funding down for local unit task training as you suggest, while reserving some FY18 money for Group-based SAREXs, and finally keeping a chunk of FY18 money for a full up Wing level drill where we want to deploy three Groups worth of aircraft/ground teams/staff down to simulated disaster area.


Respectfully Submitted (R/s)
Spam

[Spam]

Thanks everyone for the valuable input. I flew an A-12 mission (Profile #1) this past weekend and signed off a member for his scanner re-qual for the one sortie flight that he needed to become qualified again as a scanner. He emailed me a few days later saying his Commander (same CC as discussed before) denied the scanner rating because the flight sortie was not flown as part of a WLE (Wing Led Exercise) or distributed SAREX or during an actual mission.  He told the member that he would need to take that flight during an actual formal training environment such as what I listed above. He said the training is fine, just that the sortie flights can not be flown and counted during anything but those above listed activities.

When the CC was asked about it by this members Deputy CC, the CC stated that there was a Wing ICL or email that addresses this but has been unable to show that letter. A check of the wing webpage failed to show any such ICL or wing wide email addressing this.  Unfortunately, it appears that this member will just have to comply with his commanders orders and find the time and a location within driving distance to make this happen.

Following on to my above comment, the specific instance you mention is a REQUAL - not an initial qual. I personally feel that, with the assumption that an initial qualification does follow the full spectrum training that I'd laid out, requals shouldn't need to be more than a quick check ride, as you say. 

That is, unless there is some reported comment from an IC or mission check pilot which would lead the DO to recommend a more rigorous eval, or if you as the SET qualified check pilot/check MO felt, after a review, that the guy hadn't been on either a real mission or a full exercise in too long (suggest that at that point, some open kimono discussions with the guy are in order before the flights to really - REALLY - be honest about proficiency). "Don't BS me here, Joe - you haven't flown a single sortie in three years, and never went on a single mission after your initial qual, so I'm requiring you to go fly with an evaluator on a full SAREX rather than go with the minimums here. Its not personal - I just won't go with the minims for a guy who hasn't been flying at all".

The goal is to ensure proficiency on key, core competencies/tasks. So, if possible, give the guy who has been working hard a break and do what makes sense, and ask for more in cases where the guy is rusty. Case by case basis.

V/r
Spam