Mission Pilot/Observer

[KyCAP]

He would be a second mission pilot in the aircrew.

That would lessen the number of eyeballs by one half.  You're either a pilot or not.  I've seen phenomenal mission pilots who were so-so observers.  I've seen crappy mission pilots who were pretty darned good observers.  But to tell you the truth, I've never seen anyone who was top notch as both.

When I plan a mission, I do it to make the best use of light, available eyeballs, winds, and tactics.  I coordinate with the pilot and tell him what I need for the mission and how I plan to prosecute it.  He will tell me if I'm planning anything outside the capabilities of the aircraft, outside of FARs, or just plain dumb.  If he wants to do something else, I have him explain why it's better.  If we can't come to a compromise (has only happened once), then I go back to the AOBD and get another pilot.  I rely on the pilot to get the eyeballs over the target, at the correct speed and altitude, and keep us out of the dirt. 

I know  about sun angles, documenting photo missions, whether or not spendler (sp?) turns are necessary, and how to coordinate with multiple ground teams. All of these things are necessary to be an effective observer and they're things that I've done from the beginning.  When I'm not sitting in the right seat, I can't access the radios, I can't work the DF equipment, I can't monitor a myriad of things that are necessary.  I know what a carrier-only signal sounds and looks like on the equipment.  I know where the signal null is when we pass over it.  I know how to direct an aircraft on an aural search.  All of this has taken a long time to get good at.

An aircrew member can be a good pilot or a good observer.  Both require a great deal of practice and study.  You can't do both well.  Pick one and get really good at it.  Training is difficult to get for observers, especially since pilots get first dibs (way too often) to the right seat.  Don't be the type of guy who bumps a full time observer out of the way.  Those of us who train them have to train twice as many since about the second mission where they get bumped, they say "shove it" to CAP. (If you're wondering why there's so often hard feelings with pilots, that's why).

Your assumption is that the Observer or Scanner  (and eyeballs) are actually needed for the mission.   If you check the ORM you actually get a BETTER ORM score for the second pilot vs. Observer or Scanner.   It's not as "cut and dried" as you are assuming.   A perfect example would be a transport mission in IMC conditions.   (I am not saying that a second pilot is always the better choice either).   

[Eclipse]

A transport mission in IMC conditions is going to have a higher ORM anyway, and shoudl likey be using a TMP, not an MP.

Further, that's going to be one of the few cases where flying is the mission, so an MO/MS would be irrelevant and probably in the way.

[Gunner C]

And that's the whole point of the drill:  Pilot mentality says that flying IS  the mission.  I go back to the old movie 12 O'Clock High. A navigator is being berated by the 2-star commander of Bomber Command for missing a checkpoint that got the group over the target three minutes late, causing heavy casualties.  He says there's nine guys on a bomber whose mission is to get the bombardier over the target.  The pilot's job is to get the scanner and the observer over the target.  The observer's job is to plan the search, communicate with the mission base, use the mark 1 eyeball, collect the intell, manage the scanner's duties, and make sure the folks who are lost get found.  The scanner's job is to use the mark 1 eyeball, keep a log, use the camera when necessary, and find the target.

What's so hard about that?  If everyone trains for their position, then everyone will be better trained.  Pilots can't and shouldn't do it all.  Just learn to fly perfect grids and let the crew do the rest.  But stay out of my seat.

[Gunner C]

He would be a second mission pilot in the aircrew.

Your assumption is that the Observer or Scanner  (and eyeballs) are actually needed for the mission.   If you check the ORM you actually get a BETTER ORM score for the second pilot vs. Observer or Scanner.   It's not as "cut and dried" as you are assuming.   A perfect example would be a transport mission in IMC conditions.   (I am not saying that a second pilot is always the better choice either).   

When I was in NCWG, every accident they had (there were enough to get the wing king fired) had two pilots. (Actually, I exaggerated, there was one accident where the pilot refused to allow the observer to call out the checklist - he landed with the wheels up).  When you have two pilots in the cockpit, two things happen - less scanning/observing occurs, and there is flying by committee.  Unless there was IMC, I refused to allow two pilots on one sortie.  But if we're in IMC, there's precious little eyeball work going on.  If there's a transport mission going on, fine.  Don't burn up a MP, use a TMP, as was suggested above.

Yep, having two pilots on board looks better . . . on paper.  Experience tells me something else.

[Flying Pig]

Maybe someone should get a hold of the airlines and tell them to yank that second pilot.   

It has nothing to do with 2 pilots on board.  It has everything to do with the quality of the 2 pilots.

[Gunner C]

Those are two pilot aircraft.  C172s, C182s, and C206s are single pilot aircraft.  The complexity of operating them isn't even in the same ballpark.  The pilot's job is providing a platform.  Do it well and stay out of my seat.

[Eclipse]

Maybe someone should get a hold of the airlines and tell them to yank that second pilot.   

It has nothing to do with 2 pilots on board.  It has everything to do with the quality of the 2 pilots.

I agree with the sentiment, but not a really relevant comparison considering that the entire mission of
an airline is transportation, not some "other" function in the air.

[sparks]

The problem isn't too many pilots but not being able to function as a crew. Each crewman has an assigned task that needs to be nailed down before takeoff. If you have a crew that has trained together that should help. If the crew can't agree on duties the mission is in trouble before it begins.  I have heard of MP's who wanted to do it all including running the Becker/Tracker demoting the observer to ballast and eyeballs. Not a good use of resources. The opposite side of the coin would be an Observer trying to do the pilot's job, also a bad situation. I expect the Observer to help with checklists, run the CAP radio, Tracker/Becker, keep logs and navigate as appropriate to the mission.

[aveighter]

Bob has some valid points but he, along with gunner, makes some galactic sized generalizations regarding the sub-par pilot performance. 

The concept of CRM is critical to safe and effective flight in the things we do.  As is typical of CAP as a whole, the quality of training and oversight and professionalism can vary tremendously from one area to the next (even within a given wing).

Mustang and Stephen are forceful in their rebuttal but remain essentially correct.  The bottom line is this:  While crew training and integration and skills utilization is critical and of the greatest importance in the planning and conduct of the mission, the Pilot-In-Command holds a federal license and is by law responsible and held accountable for ALL aspects of aircraft operation.

Until that is changed I will divest zero authority to another crewman over any aspect of the aircraft and its operation.  I will consult, I will integrate, I will participate and I will retain the final word over all if tasked as PIC.

[Short Field]

Sounds like you would get along great with one of our IC3/MPs.  He tells the MO to look out the right window for traffic and stuff on the ground, the MS to look out the left window for traffic and stuff on the ground, and don't do anything else or say anything unless it has to do with traffic or stuff on the ground.  CRM  = the only one who can tell war stories while flying is the PIC....

[Eclipse]

Until that is changed I will divest zero authority to another crewman over any aspect of the aircraft and its operation.  I will consult, I will integrate, I will participate and I will retain the final word over all if tasked as PIC.

You are 100% correct with regards to the flying, you are mistaken with regards to the mission, and I guarantee you that the FAA is completely silent in regards to Civil Air Patrol mission procedures.

The MP doesn't participate in the actual work of the mission, any more that the MO or MS fly the aircraft.  Unless its a transport sortie, in which case there might not be any "crew", just passengers or cargo.

Drivers of ground vehicles and boats are just as responsible for the safe operation of their vehicles, but the driver of a CAP van, by simple virtue of being at the wheel, isn't any more (or less) in charge of the mission.

[Gunner C]

 :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[PHall]

Sounds like you would get along great with one of our IC3/MPs.  He tells the MO to look out the right window for traffic and stuff on the ground, the MS to look out the left window for traffic and stuff on the ground, and don't do anything else or say anything unless it has to do with traffic or stuff on the ground.  CRM  = the only one who can tell war stories while flying is the PIC....

Nothing wrong with that, it's called utilizing your resources.

Mostly from habits the Air Force beat into me I always clear my side of the aircraft.

I also try to have the guy(s) in the back seat try to clear behind us since it's usually easier for them to look out the rear windows.

[Short Field]

So you agree that only the PIC should be working the CAP radios, Becker,  etc?

[SJFedor]

The MP doesn't participate in the actual work of the mission, any more that the MO or MS fly the aircraft.  Unless its a transport sortie, in which case there might not be any "crew", just passengers or cargo.

Drivers of ground vehicles and boats are just as responsible for the safe operation of their vehicles, but the driver of a CAP van, by simple virtue of being at the wheel, isn't any more (or less) in charge of the mission.

Apples and oranges. Driving a CAP van and flying an aircraft on a sortie have nothing to do with one another. 

Though I do agree, in a perfect world every MO would be trained to a level where the MP can delegate the tasks, the MP is ultimately in charge of that aircraft and EVERYTHING that goes on with it, including completing the mission. And an MP has to know a lot more then just how to drive the bus, because who do you think does the OTJ training and supervision while an MO is training? Or what happens if we're fresh out of MO's and just have a plane load of MS's? (which is permissable, nothing says it has to be MP/MO, it just has to be an MP and another qualified aircrew member). The MP can't just say "didn't have an MO, so we didn't bother to do any of our radio check in's".

And I'm one of those people that trains all my crews that the MO should be running the panel and the MP should be driving and delegating tasks to that MO. I'm a big proponent of it. But, I also train my MP's to be able to do it on their own, because just like you might have some MPs that want to do EVERYTHING, there's MO's out there that want to do NOTHING.

[PHall]

So you agree that only the PIC should be working the CAP radios, Becker,  etc?

Did I say that? Don't think I did.

The radios and the Becker/l-Per should be operated by the occupant of the right front seat, unless they are flying the airplane.

The division of duties is something you need to talk about before you step to the airplane. If you have a MP who thinks they have to do it all, and you can't convince them otherwise, then don't fly with them. Simple as that.

I have no desire to be a smoking hole in the ground because of somebodies else's ego.

[SJFedor]

So you agree that only the PIC should be working the CAP radios, Becker,  etc?

Did I say that? Don't think I did.

The radios and the Becker/l-Per should be operated by the occupant of the right front seat, unless they are flying the airplane.

The division of duties is something you need to talk about before you step to the airplane. If you have a MP who thinks they have to do it all, and you can't convince them otherwise, then don't fly with them. Simple as that.

I have no desire to be a smoking hole in the ground because of somebodies else's ego.

I think you two missed each other's points. Short Field was saying there's an MP that essentially treats the rest of his crew like self loading baggage, and ONLY lets them look outside on the ground and for traffic, and do nothing else for the mission.

[Mustang]

Which brings me to another point: why is there no checkride for MOs or MSs?  Huge oversight, IMHO.

But there is.  You must fly 2 missions, as per the SQTR.

That's not a checkride, that's "initial operating experience" (for lack of a better term).  MPs, however, are subject to such scrutiny via a Form 91 checkride every two years, in addition to their annual Form 5 checkride.  Mission scanners and observers should have a similar requirement.

The observer's job is to plan the search,

Um, no. The observer's job is to assist with said planning, not conduct it themselves.  Check the SQTR.

I don't need to cite a reg, its common sense.

Apparently not.

The reason that "crap" was started, was specifically because of mission pilots who don't realize that we're actually supposed to do something with the airplanes besides just provide them cheap(er) proficiency hours.

Sounds like a local training problem to me. I sure haven't encountered that attitude in the wings I've been associated with.

Your defining it as "crap" is more evidence of the same mentality that left Mission Scanners sitting on the ramp without even getting a briefing for their photo run - sometimes to the point where the aircraft was on the ramp with the prop spinning before the front-seat guys (MP and MP #2 pretending to be an MO) realized they had no way to actually accomplish the mission.

We actually agree here. Unless the pilot in the right seat is training or evaluating the one in the left, I don't believe we should be sending up two-pilot crews.  General aviation pilots are trained to operate single-pilot, period.  We're not trained to be co-pilots or first officers. I am a firm believer that unless and until CAP has some sort of formal training for conducting two-pilot operations such as the airlines and the military do, operating with two pilots is actually LESS safe.  Such operating standards would include iron-clad delineations as to who does what, "flying pilot" vs "non-flying pilot", just as virtually all two-pilot crew operators do.  In CAP, if it's done at all, it's on an ad-hoc basis, which is a recipe for trouble.

The MP has ONE JOB - bus driver.  Nothing more, nothing less.  The indignation you're feeling right now is the same that the rest of the aircrew feels when the insinuation is made that they are somehow ancillary to the MP - neither can do their job without the other, and the sooner we all accept that, let everyone do their jobs, and lose the zippered-sun-god mentality, the better off we will all be.

Again, other than communicating with the mission base, putting those Mk I eyeballs on the ground, and "managing" the scanner (whatever that means), the observer's job is to ASSIST the pilot with whatever the pilot requires. Again, look at the MP and MO SQTRs. "Perform ELT searches" is an MP task (O-2006).  "Assist in ELT searches" is an MO task (O-2108). That's true for most of the MO tasks. If that's not an ancillary role, I don't know what is.

Sadly, SJFedor's interpretation appears to be correct - no wonder we continue to have issues at missions, our MP's can maintain their qualifications without actually going to any missions.

Clearly, you're unfamiliar with the content of a Form 91 checkride.  It's far more comprehensive than what any MO or MS is required to do to retain their qualifications.

[SJFedor]

^----  :clap: :clap: :clap:

[RiverAux]

While I don't think that MPs should automatically get credit for being an MO simply because they're an MP, I also find no evidence in any CAP regulation, policy, or procedure for the idea that MOs are some sort of "Mission Commander".  Sure, they sometimes ask the pilot to fly this way or that on searches, but thats no different than the Scanner asking the pilot to do the same when they are trying to take photos. 

If Observers were really meant to function as commander of a particular sortie then our training would very specifically say so since given the pilot's legal and CAP-responsibilities there is a very fine line that would have to be discussed in detail outlining exactly what that person is commanding. 

Should we have a system where Observers are some sort of sortie commander/mission commander?  Possibly.  Personally, I would rather have the pilot concentrate totally on flying the plane and let the others worry about the rest. 

However, CAP does not and probably will not allocate enough flight time to ensure that its Observers gain the experience necessary to really perform to that level.  We have a hard enough time keeping our pilots current in our airplanes and with maybe 3 times as many Observers as pilots, getting each of them enough airtime to be really proficient (especially in the new 182s where they need to run the MFD) is going to be expensive.