Mission Observer: Whats in a name

[Trung Si Ma]

Back in the dark ages when I was active as a CAP Observer, I often split the costs with select mission pilots while doing proficiency flights.  I know that this was pretty uncommon and I only did it with select pilots that I had a good, professional relationship with.  In every wing that I was an observer, I would only fly with pilots that I trusted and respected, pretty much in that order.

In hindsight, I believe that we operated as an integrated crew utilizing each of our strengths while working on improving our team.  I believe that being an Army Aerial Observer (OH-58A/C), an FAA Certificated Ground Instructor, and a National SAR school graduate helped with both my ability to contribute and my credibility.

I am now considering MP qualification.  If I do pursue qualification, I intend to fly with the same two or three observers on missions after my training period is over.  Some will think this is unfair (and maybe impractical sometimes), but I believe that the familiarity will increase crew safety and effectiveness.

I do have the advantage of being the only pilot in my squadron and we only have one observer in the unit right now with two others thinking about going through the training.  The nearest CAP aircraft is 35 minutes away in my 172 so we can launch as a crew, perform as a crew, and then return home as a crew.

[jayleswo]

Man, can we beat a topic to death. The original question and proposal from flyguy was:

So, how can we suggest to the hireup a name change to the current title mission observer. This in fact does not reflect his true duties.

Based on my experience, as a Mission Observer for 24 years, Master Observer, current Mission Pilot, etc. is... no, we should not change the name of the Mission Observer ES or aero rating. The skills and experience of our Mission Observers is too varied to conclude that everyone can function as a Mission Commander. Even the MART says that the Mission Observer MAY function as Mission Commander, not WILL or DOES.

What I would absolutely agree with is that The Mission Pilot, who is also functioning as Pilot-in-Command, should default to functioning in the role of Mission Commander - unless she has a highly experienced Mission Observer who may then function as Mission Commander instead. So, Mission Commander is a role, not an aircrew title and the most appropriate aircrew member can function in that role.

This has nothing to do with prima-donna pilots, "flying clubs" or any of the usual inflammatory terms we like to throw around on cap-talk to light people up. I've flown with a *lot* of CAP Pilots, probably more than most of the people who have contributed to this topic, and it is exceedingly rare to find one who fits the negative image that has been commented on. I have found almost all (95+%) to be respectful, safe, team oriented and well qualified.

-- John

[KyCAP]

Gen X is already IN leadership of CAP...
http://earlyxer.com/atschool.aspx

I had the Star Wars lunch box... preparing for my imperial march.

[Eclipse]

This has nothing to do with prima-donna pilots, "flying clubs" or any of the usual inflammatory terms we like to throw around on cap-talk to light people up. I've flown with a *lot* of CAP Pilots, probably more than most of the people who have contributed to this topic, and it is exceedingly rare to find one who fits the negative image that has been commented on. I have found almost all (95+%) to be respectful, safe, team oriented and well qualified.

You forgot the /sarcasm tags that belong with that sentence... 

The unfortunate reality is that way too many of our pilots define that stereotype. In some cases it is not all their fault because they were recruited by someone with the same attitude and told "come and fly for free", etc., but the fact remains that there are way too many pilots who think the reason for the sortie is 1 take off, 1 hour in sky, and 1 landing, don't know how to operate anything right of center on the instrument panel, and get incredibly offended when you ask them to clean the plane, help at mission base, or do anything that does not involve them surrounded by an airplane.

[jayleswo]

You forgot the /sarcasm tags that belong with that sentence... 

The unfortunate reality is that way too many of our pilots define that stereotype. In some cases it is not all their fault because they were recruited by someone with the same attitude and told "come and fly for free", etc., but the fact remains that there are way too many pilots who think the reason for the sortie is 1 take off, 1 hour in sky, and 1 landing, don't know how to operate anything right of center on the instrument panel, and get incredibly offended when you ask them to clean the plane, help at mission base, or do anything that does not involve them surrounded by an airplane.

So, what dos that statement have to do with what we call Mission Observers? Anyway, I didn't forget the sarcasm quotes. Yes I have flown with a flew prima donna pilots. Most haven't been. That's my reality. Sorry it sucks so bad out where you are. I honestly hope it improves because that's not the CAP I believe in.

Ask me how many scanners and observers I have flown with who don't know how to operate anything on *either* side of the panel, throw up all over the airplane, bring 50 lbs of gear, etc. There are two sides to the coin - and I've been on both.... More training is needed and it is sometimes hard to get. Better yet, an appreciation of what everyone brings to the table, respect for each other and teamwork. Let's start there.

-- John

[Eclipse]

Better yet, an appreciation of what everyone brings to the table, respect for each other and teamwork. Let's start there.

Works for me...

[NavLT]

I think NASA got it right with Pilot and Mission Commander.

The Pilot has one absolute responsibility the safe operation of the Craft.

What the Craft does as a mission is a shared role of the aircrew but the most qualified peson shoud direct the mission.  Saying a newbie MO should tell a MO Qualified MP with 50 searches that they are in charge is crazy.  We need to rely more on judgment then titles.  If that is in confusion train members more on judgment and less on medals, ribbons and titles.

V/R
Lt J.

[davidsinn]

I think NASA got it right with Pilot and Mission Commander.

The Pilot has one absolute responsibility the safe operation of the Craft.

Funny thing is the Commander usually drives. Look at Apollo XI Armstrong flew the lander and Aldrin monitored the gauges.