Mission Pilot/Observer

[Eclipse]

The last SAR I worked, the PIC decided that the terrain (Sierra Nevada) was too rough, the trees too thick, the snow too deep, etc, for the MO and MS to see anything on the ground.  How did the PIC come to this determination - well he was looking as well and could concentrate on the ground as well as the MO and MS.  So the PIC decided to cancel the grid search and convert into a ELT search at a few thousand feet higher altitude.   This came out in the debrief - not in  a call to mission base for permission to do it.  This was not a safety issue, this was a PIC with NO ops quals outside of MP/MO/MS deciding he knew better where and how to search than the IC/OSC/PSC/AOBD.  Remember - he was PIC so he was in Command and could make those decisions.

There is no question that the PIC is the ultimate authority in regards to flying the airplane, however there are consequences to unilateral actions, and the rest of the known CAP universe doesn't simply bow down to the whim of an MP because the plane was airborne at the time a goober decision was made flying.

The only option in a circumstance where the crew does not agree with the actions of the pilot is for the airplane to RTB (assuming for some reason that a decision can't be reached via the radio).

Once on the ground, all parties involved will have to answer for their actions and attitudes, and the MP will find himself with considerably less mojo while sitting at the debriefing desk or in front of the AOBD or IC, not to mention when he gets home and finds himself suspended pending the investigation.

[dbarbee]

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

Wow. I read a lot of nonsense here but that is right up there with the best. Are you a pilot?

I'm a pilot and I don't think it's nonsense. I've flown along on numerous 141 flights where the pilot flying and pilot not flying, along with duties & responsibilities of each, are clearly communicated before the flight. 141 and 135 pilots receive extensive training (and practice) in CRM, not a 10 minute online course.

Now contrast that with 2 pilots that never (or rarely) fly together and each have different ideas of what CRM means and neither have actually practiced it with anyone on the ground with a standardized method. Things either get missed because they both thought the other was going to do it, or, things get done without the PIC's knowledge. Think it doesn't happen? Try flying with a high-time pilot or CFI that's used to flying with low-time students. He'll be reaching for switches, levers, and controls without even thinking about it, or you noticing it.

I certainly don't agree pilots should not be allowed to fly together, but there is some truth to airdale's comment. If the two pilots don't agree before-hand what their roles and expectations are, it could degrade safety.

[dbarbee]

This is a matter of Federal Regulation, period.  A concept that non-pilots frequently have difficulty grasping as shown in the attempt to equate operating the van with flying the plane.  This understanding of PIC responsibilities is complete through out the military and the airlines where CRM is enforced and refined to a high science.  The buck stops with the PIC.  Perhaps a naval analogy is more understandable.  A USN or USCG vessel has many crew upon which the captain depends, each with their own area of command responsibility and performance.  The ultimate in CRM perhaps.  The captain retains ultimate authority and is held accountable for the operation of the ship in all it's aspects.  Our aircraft ate the same albeit on a far smaller scale.

Part 91.3(a): "The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft."

That's operation of the aircraft, not the conduct of the mission. While may be open to debate over who is responsible for the mission per CAP regulations, it is not defined by the FAA. The FAA couldn't care less as long as the PIC is operating the aircraft safely and within regulations.

The Navy/USCG analogy doesn't work because the Captain of a USN ship ~IS~ directly responsible for the operation of the vessel AND the mission. That is clearly defined by Navy regulations.

[airdale]

If the two pilots don't agree before-hand what their roles and expectations are, it could degrade safety.

Absolutely.  A two-pilot cockpit can be done well, it can be done less well, and I'm sure there are even cases where it actually is less safe.  I also agree about instructors; the do tend to meddle unless the issue is dealt with.  But the blanket statement that "Gunner C" made is preposterous.  (From the unanswered question and reading his posts, I think he is not a pilot, just a passenger with an opinion.)

I agree also that better training would be desirable.  I like to have a MO who is a pilot as well just because it is easier.  "You read the checklists and handle the radios.  Let me know if you see anything that might be a problem."  This works easily with a pilot, less so with an MO without a lot of experience.  But keeping the "amateur PNF" from actually doing the checklist is less certain until it is explained.  Also, some pilots are uncomfortable talking to ATC for clearances, flight following, etc.  All of that can be included in MO training as well.

Re the MO running the sortie, the more the MO can do the happier I am.  When I am not feeling lazy, I like the right seat.  When I'm feeling lazy, the left.  But as has been pointed out, to the FAA there are only two kinds of people in our airplanes:  PICs and passengers.

[dbarbee]

Here's what I did as a commander:  kept track of who was flying and talked to them about sharing the flight time with an observer and a scanner.  They shared expenses, making flying much more economical and keeping training at a higher level.  We made sure that either a training ELT was out or gave them a training photo mission.  Observers worked on ELT tactics and navigation and scanners worked on photo tasks.  It worked darned well.  Pilots got more flight time and so did observers and scanners.  This led into pilots, observers, and scanners working together habitually as crews, building espirit de corps and causing subtle competition between the crews.  Retention went up, aircraft hours went up, skills and proficiency went up.

It's doable.  Was there grumbling?  Sure - the guys in the golf shirts who wanted $100 hamburgers had their style cramped a bit, but the folks who were serious about SAR found it to be a pretty good system.  Within a few months time when our group was called out, we could have a complete crew ready to crank within 60 minutes of notification.  Not bad.

As a "guy in a golf shirt"  I applaud your efforts to get everyone involved in the flying!

(No offense taken, I know the type you're talking about)

[arajca]

Something I have seen too frequently is the MP who refuse to fly with anything other than a pilot in the right seat. Although this tendancy is decreasing as IC's and AOBD's start treating pilots as mortals and have sent a few home - without the CAP a/c they arrived in. Aircrews are assigned by the incident staff (sometimes AOBD, sometimes Planning, sometimes IC), not by the MP.

Typically, after the one pilot is sent home, the rest become very cooperative and team oriented for some mysterious reason.

[Gunner C]

I think he is not a pilot, just a passenger with an opinion.)

Which shows just what you think of MOs - a passenger.  I've trained close to 75 MOs to the national standard.  They could do everything in the SQTR.  They had strenuous check rides.  These MOs were good.  Then pilots who would rather have a pencil-whipped PP in the right seat push completely qualified non-pilot MOs out of the way.  They quit after being treated so dismissively by your type.  I've watched really good MOs walk out the door after being treated that way one last time.  BTW, the expenditure of training funds left with them.

I'd have to total up my last couple of log book pages but I've got way over 600 hours of MO time - there aren't too many master observers out there . . . most of us get run off by pilots who called them "passengers" one too many times.  I'm a bit more thick skinned.  BTW, I was probably in pilot training while you were in knee pants. 

[airdale]

ROFL.  When you were in school did you major in leaping to conclusions and in constructing oversimplified generalizations or are you a natural?

[Eclipse]

I agree also that better training would be desirable.  I like to have a MO who is a pilot as well just because it is easier.  "You read the checklists and handle the radios.  Let me know if you see anything that might be a problem."  This works easily with a pilot, less so with an MO without a lot of experience.  But keeping the "amateur PNF" from actually doing the checklist is less certain until it is explained.  Also, some pilots are uncomfortable talking to ATC for clearances, flight following, etc.  All of that can be included in MO training as well.

So the justification for booting a qualified Observer is because the MP is incapable of doing his job?
What kind of a pilot, with the 200+ hours necessary for MP, is uncomfortable talking to ATC?
The MO's job has nothing to do with aircraft checklists or the ATC radio - if they're doing that, they are likely not  doing something they're supposed to be doing - like monitoring the CAP radio.

But as has been pointed out, to the FAA there are only two kinds of people in our airplanes:  PICs and passengers.

We've already stipulated that in terms of flying the aircraft, the pilot is the final authority.

This is not about the flying, this is about the mission, without which, there would be no flying.

[Flying Pig]

Holy cow.  I certainly hope we dont have Mission Pilots who are uncompfortable asking for clearances from ATC.  But why would the pilot expect the Observer to do it?  Im hoping that was a mis statement?

[Trung Si Ma]

The summary of this thread seems to be that the MO's who got bumped for whatever reasons believe that MP's are conceited and arrogant and out of touch with the modern way of running a mission.  MP's that have worked with know-it-all, "I have been sanctified by graduating from (insert school of choice)" observers feel that MO's are there to assist them in the performance of their duties.  Like all good doctrinal arguments, each side can point to obscure, fuzzy, or open-to-interpretation regulatory quotes or school training aids.

Don't have as many observer hours (in CAP) as Gunner, but got my MO in AKWG in 1979 (it was a lot harder to get the 5 years time than the 200 hours of REDCAP time) and added the pilot rating in 2005.  Not going to get my MP since my current wing has lots of pilots, but am working on getting my MC back.  Yeah, I know it's called an IC now, but some old habits die hard.  When all I did was fly as an MO, I habitually split the cost of training flying with my MP so that I had a say in what training we were going to do so that I could stay proficient in my MO skills as well.

Personally, I like the crew concept where MP, MO, and MS fly together regularly and learn how to work together as a crew.  Only through regular association and practice do you go from three qualified individuals to an effective and efficient crew.  Then you can synergistically use the strengths of the individuals to heighten the capabilities of the crew.  You can also figure out that there are some perfectly qualified individuals who just don't get along.

I don't care if they are all pilots and they rotate one seat to the left for every flight or whether or not just the MO and the MS exchange seats.  We – the crew – get the mission.  We – the crew – get the bird ready to go fly the assigned mission. And We – the crew – do post flight and debrief together.  It worked well for me in several wings.  The drawback of this is that MOs from units with no MPs can rightfully complain about not getting as much seat time as those who are normally crewed.  Never did figure out the best way to approach that, but in a "train as you fight" environment, I want to spend training dollars on folks who will be available as crews for the real thing.



Hey Gunner – remember the old CAPM 50-5 with the five required certification flights?  If I remember correctly, we had to do all five in each two or three year period to stay current.  I'm looking for somewhere to get recurrent in ARM, but so far no joy.

[airdale]

Holy cow.  I certainly hope we dont have Mission Pilots who are uncompfortable asking for clearances from ATC.

Sure, but not a big deal.  I was thinking of instrument clearances and communications when I said that.  Non instrument rated pilots or guys who are rated but fly little or no IFR are often uncomfortable.  I once listened to a 30+ year CAP instructor who didn't understand how to deal with a void time clearance.

But why would the pilot expect the Observer to do it?  Im hoping that was a mis statement?

No misstatement.  AFIK that's the most common division of labor.  PNF (pilot not flying) tunes, talks, and reads the checklists.  Obviously, doing that is easier for someone with a rating but there is no reason that a non-pilot observer couldn't learn to do the basics anyway.  For instrument operations, maybe not talk, but the MO could be a big help as a second pair of ears listening to vectors and altitude assignments.  Again, a little training would make that possible.  I don't think any of this interferes with the MO's mission responsibilities; much of it happens during transit to and from.  As I said (but Gunner C chooses not to acknowledge) I'm all for the MO doing as much as possible to run the mission side of things plus act as PNF to the maximum extent possible.

[Eclipse]

I'll acknowledge you basically are on board with our statements, but one thing you've got wrong is this idea of the MO not being on the CAP radios, and its what causes us a lot of problems.

Radios work in both ways, mission base, a ground team, another aircraft, etc., may well be trying to raise your aircraft while you've got the panel switched over to ATC.

[airdale]

this idea of the MO not being on the CAP radios

Huh?  When did I say that?

while you've got the panel switched over to ATC.

That's why audio panels switch the mic separately from the monitor functions.  It's easy enough to listen to both.   If things get busy for the MO on the CAP radio, he drops dealing with ATC and the PF drops monitoring the CAP radio and just handles ATC.  Regardless, the PF is always monitoring ATC and the MO is always the one talking on the CAP radio.  I don't see that this is difficult.

[aveighter]

Part 91.3(a): "The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft."

That's operation of the aircraft, not the conduct of the mission. While may be open to debate over who is responsible for the mission per CAP regulations, it is not defined by the FAA. The FAA couldn't care less as long as the PIC is operating the aircraft safely and within regulations.

The Navy/USCG analogy doesn't work because the Captain of a USN ship ~IS~ directly responsible for the operation of the vessel AND the mission. That is clearly defined by Navy regulations.

Thank you.  I am vaguely familiar with Part 91.

I feel like if I turned around real quick I would catch Rod Serling over in the corner chuckling.

If you have somehow managed to separate the prosecution of the mission from the operation of the aircraft during those missions that involve the airplane in the prosecution of the mission then I guess you're right and that whole navy/cg analogy thing is moot.

In this universe, however, we have not managed that feat so despite repeated yet unsuccessful attempts to agree that CRM is the bomb and a well trained aircrew (that means all seat occupying sentient beings) is the key to victory and glory, the PIC remains ultimate authority and responsible person for that aircraft and anything that involves that aircraft.  If there is a mission somewhere in that mix and the airplane is involved, well sorry.  Go complain to the FAA. Sue the universe.  Get a pilots license, refuse to wear shoes and bathe regularly.  Maybe that will help.

The analogy stands.

[flynd94]

Man, can we please let this die.  This whole MP vs. MO (mission commander) doesn't matter.  Until, CAPHq changes the regs, this is nothing more than a NESA concept.  Nowhere in the current 60 series does it state that the MO is the commander of the mission.

We have gone round and round with Bob on this.  He has a deep seated hatred towards pilots.  I don't know why but, the problems he has with pilots must be unique to Northern ILL.  I haven't seen them in the wings I have been in (ND, CA TX).  I will tell you about Southern ILL after I find a unit to join   

I value my MO/MS and encourage them to join in mission planning but, its the MP that is ultimately responsible for the outcome of the sortie.  If we want this peeing contest to continue, I can regale you with stories of flying with MO's who didn't know diddly about their job.  I can also say the same of MP's that I was giving a F91 to, please for Gosh Darn sake can we please let this die.

[Short Field]

Saw a 206 take off on one of our missions recently.  The crew consisted of three mission pilots and one scanner.   Hard to train MO/MS when there are no seats for training and even harder to keep them active when they never get to fly.

[Eclipse]

We have gone round and round with Bob on this. 

I am clearly not the only one who holds this opinions.

He has a deep seated hatred towards pilots.  I don't know why but, the problems he has with pilots must be unique to Northern ILL. 

You're more than welcome to keep comments like the above to yourself, that is in no way my feeling, nor is this a situation that is unique in my wing, as is clear to anyone who actually read the messages in this thread.

This is a legitimate discussion about the appropriate roles of aircrews, and the attitudes and demeanor of some members.

As is SOP for our little tea party, the inconsistency of training at the national level makes this discussion more lively.

[Larry Mangum]

I am like Bob, I don't hate pilot's, but the mentality of a lot of pilot's that just becaue I am a pilot I should automatically be rated as an observer is ludicrous.  A fully qualifed and well trainined Observer, can easily handle the radios (STC\CAP), the Beker\Ltronics and lessen the pilot's load. No one is questioning that the Pilot is the PIC and responsible for all aspects of flying the aircraft safetly.  If he is to do that then he needs to concentrate on that and positioning the aircraft in a manner that allows the Observer and Scanner to effectively scan the terrain.

The concept of the Observer being the Mission Commander is not tied to NESA, but in fact predates NESA and CAPR 60-3.  If you were to dig out an old set of regs (50-15\55-1 ) you would find reference to the Observer supervising the Scanner. It is not a far reach from that to state that he is the mission commander when it comes to searching the grid while the pilot flys the aircraft. At no time does the PIC give up his responsibilty to ensure that the aircraft is flown safely and within FAA regulations.

As an Observer I can tell you that a lot of Observers and Scanners rate pilot's on a scale of 1 to 3. A "1" is a guy who you have complete faith in his flying ability and his utilization of his crew. A "2" is a guy whose flying as safe and utilizes his crew effectively.  A "3" is a pilot who eitehr the crew feels his flying skills are marginal or does not utilize his crew nor respecrts them.  Most crewdogs will fly with a "1" any time, any where and most of them with a "2" the majority of the time. But a "3" is when you play the I'm Safe card or whatever it takes to get out of the sortie. Why, becasue it is your but on the line.  YMMV, but pilot's who want to thump their chest and say me "pilot", you know nothing Observer will always be a  "3".

[dbarbee]

Part 91.3(a): "The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft."

That's operation of the aircraft, not the conduct of the mission. While may be open to debate over who is responsible for the mission per CAP regulations, it is not defined by the FAA. The FAA couldn't care less as long as the PIC is operating the aircraft safely and within regulations.

The Navy/USCG analogy doesn't work because the Captain of a USN ship ~IS~ directly responsible for the operation of the vessel AND the mission. That is clearly defined by Navy regulations.

Thank you.  I am vaguely familiar with Part 91.

I feel like if I turned around real quick I would catch Rod Serling over in the corner chuckling.

If you have somehow managed to separate the prosecution of the mission from the operation of the aircraft during those missions that involve the airplane in the prosecution of the mission then I guess you're right and that whole navy/cg analogy thing is moot.

In this universe, however, we have not managed that feat so despite repeated yet unsuccessful attempts to agree that CRM is the bomb and a well trained aircrew (that means all seat occupying sentient beings) is the key to victory and glory, the PIC remains ultimate authority and responsible person for that aircraft and anything that involves that aircraft.  If there is a mission somewhere in that mix and the airplane is involved, well sorry.  Go complain to the FAA. Sue the universe.  Get a pilots license, refuse to wear shoes and bathe regularly.  Maybe that will help.

The analogy stands.

I'm still not seeing how you get "ultimate authority and responsible person for that aircraft and anything that involves that aircraft" from "directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft"

Taken to the extreme, that logic would mean the owner of a corporate jet would have no authority to decide his own destination. In reality, the owner decides the destination and the PIC decides if he and the airplane can safely complete the flight. The owner has authority over the destination and the PIC has authority over the operation of the airplane, there is no conflict. Now, replace PIC, Owner, & Destination with Mission Pilot, Misson Commander, & Mission. I still see no problem as long as both are qualified.

But, this is not a discussion about whether you or I think the prosecution of the mission is separable from the operation of the airplane, it's about whether Federal Regulations require a MP to be the Mission Commander.

Your original argument was: "This is a matter of Federal Regulation, period." Federal Regulation (aka FAR's) do not define (or care) how CAP conducts it's missions as long as they are safe and within FAA regulations. You will not be in violation of any FAR's if you run a poor mission, the MO runs the mission, or you violate CAP regulations.

I still don't accept the Navy vs CAP analogy. Federal Regulations (aka NAVREG's) clearly define the Captains duties and responsibilities in the operation of the vessel AND the prosecution of the mission. Federal Regulations (aka FAR's) only define the PIC's duties and responsibilities in the operation of the airplane.