Scanner Wings

[Major Carrales]

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!

(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!!!"

[JohnKachenmeister]

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.

[Guardrail]

...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.   

[JohnKachenmeister]

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.

[shorning]

...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...)

[DNall]

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.

[afgeo4]

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.

[DNall]

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.

[SAR-EMT1]

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)

[RiverAux]

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. 

[DNall]

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

[SAR-EMT1]

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.

[DNall]

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

[SAR-EMT1]

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

Whenever Astronaut Wings were proposed I guess.

[DNall]

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.

[afgeo4]

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.

[O-Rex]

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.

[O-Rex]

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.

[afgeo4]

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.

[DNall]

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.