Scanner Wings

[O-Rex]

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 . . . .

[RiverAux]

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.   

[O-Rex]

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. 

[DNall]

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.

[RiverAux]

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. 

[DNall]

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.

[arajca]

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.

[SAR-EMT1]

if your aviation environment include regular flights at oxygen altitudes,

Since when has CAP had pressurized aircraft?

[shorning]

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.

[Hawk200]

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?

[lordmonar]

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.

[aveighter]

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.

[RiverAux]

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. 

[aveighter]

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.

[DNall]

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

[aveighter]

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.

[DNall]

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. 

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.

[O-Rex]

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.

[DNall]

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.

[aveighter]

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?