Mission Pilot/Observer

[airdale]

Taken to the extreme, that logic would mean the owner of a corporate jet would have no authority to decide his own destination.

It's not logic.  It's the law.  Once the airplane is in the air, the PIC is the one that determines the destination.  Now he'd be a short-time employee if he did not involve his employer in the decision, but the law is clear.  The PIC is the final authority.  He decides to divert, he diverts.  No consultation or committee action is required.

Said another way, if the PIC runs out of fuel, a defense like "The aircraft owner told me not to divert." would be laughed out of the hearing room.  Ditto, "The Incident Commander told me to try to make it back." or "The Mission Observer said there was enough fuel."

[Auxpilot]

I have been sitting back and monitoring this topic for a little while now and it does not take a psychologist to see some really dangerous attitudes here. Perhaps a review of dangerous attitudes for aircrew is on order.

Hearing things like "two pilots are less safe that one", come on, does anyone actually believe that? I have never been in a situation where I feel less safe with another pilot in the right seat during a mission. Of course being "more safe" does not mean that the mission will be "more successful", just that my chances of coming home in one piece are generally better.

For the record I am a MP, MO, MS, AOBD, and MCP and have heard this macho crap before. Observers don't like being told what to do so they play the "mission commander" card, pilots think that they are God's gift so they look down at non-pilot MO's........

Bottom line is this – in general there are two types of MO's – those who are pilots, and those who are not. Within those groups are a subset – those who can do the job and those who can't. I don't give a rats butt which one I am flying with as long as both of us understand in advance who is best qualified to do what. If the MO can take some load off of me while enroute, that's great, if I can safely help him during the mission phase, that's great too. It's called CRM for a reason – we have resources to help us, no matter how inexperienced they are they can always be of some help.

Many MO's do not have the experience in the cockpit that pilots do, simply because they do not get in the air as much, which puts them at a disadvantage going in. Nothing against them, that is just a fact.

When I do a F91 on a MP, he has to do everything that a MO is required to do except scan. The fact that someone qualified him as a MS prior to the F91 should have already tested that skill.

A MP has to have the ability to train and supervise MO's and thus needs to be capable of doing that job.

[heliodoc]

HEY I got an idea

Let's let the NHQ gods at Stan Eval weigh in on this one!!!!!

WOW Maybe let's require a REAL curriculum and make sure all these know it alls about MP and MS/MO are put into leadership and mentorship positions and required to teach what they know and STOP all the [darn] bickerting

[heliodoc]

It is also real obvious with this amount of bickering a REAL CRM session is needed for AAALLLLLLLLL CAP aircrews

Goofy zippersuited sun gods..

[Trung Si Ma]

Goofy zippersuited sun gods..

Hey - you got zippers on your golf shirt???  I want some.

Please note that this is a childish attempt to insert some levity.  Y'all may now go back to your regularly scheduled bashing.

[dbarbee]

Taken to the extreme, that logic would mean the owner of a corporate jet would have no authority to decide his own destination.

It's not logic.  It's the law.  Once the airplane is in the air, the PIC is the one that determines the destination.  Now he'd be a short-time employee if he did not involve his employer in the decision, but the law is clear.  The PIC is the final authority.  He decides to divert, he diverts.  No consultation or committee action is required.

Said another way, if the PIC runs out of fuel, a defense like "The aircraft owner told me not to divert." would be laughed out of the hearing room.  Ditto, "The Incident Commander told me to try to make it back." or "The Mission Observer said there was enough fuel."

I think the part of my quote that you left out covers that: "the PIC decides if he and the airplane can safely complete the flight."

[airdale]

ROFL ....  In the immortal words of aveighter:

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.

There are no words that limit this to emergencies.  To the extent that when PIC I want the MO to "run the mission" and also pick up PNF duties, to the FAA that is simply a delegation of my authority.

The previous example of an MP who cancelled a grid search and converted to an ELT search, the situation is simple.  Upon return, CAP can convene a tribunal and rip the pilot's wings off his golf shirt, but the FAA is uninterested.  He acted within his authority as PIC.

If he doesn't want you to have any peanuts, you don't get peanuts either.

[Short Field]

He can also rent his own airplane in the future.   

[Eclipse]

The previous example of an MP who canceled a grid search and converted to an ELT search, the situation is simple.  Upon return, CAP can convene a tribunal and rip the pilot's wings off his golf shirt, but the FAA is uninterested.  He acted within his authority as PIC.

And therin lies the rub, my dear Mr. Hempel, he certainly did, and he won't have to worry about all that CRM "nonsense" in CAP anymore - he'll have plenty of time on the weekends to fly his own airplane at double the price with half the "hassle".

[Flying Pig]

I will offer this, in law enforcement we fly with a pilot and observer.  There is never any question as to what roles we play in the aircraft or on the mission.  Even with 2 pilot crews.  Also something to think about is that ALL of our pilots spent years as observers before becoming unit pilots.  So in our cases, the pilot was a very seasoned and respected observer, which is what got them selected to pilot training to begin with.  However, rarely if ever, do we step on each others toes.  The sole reason for the helicopter or the airplane and its pilots is to carry the observer and his equipment ie. FLIR, Spot light, Rescue Gear, etc. to the target.  The pilot is the PIC of the aircraft, however, the Observer directs the actions and its up to the pilot to keep the observer in a position to allow him to do the job.  Its not up to the pilot to say "Ahhh...were done here."  The Observer would respond back, "No, we arent.  Keep orbiting until Im finished."  Baring any safety of flight issues.  Provided the flight is still proceeding in a safe manner, in a half joking, half serious tone, I have responded as an observer "Just sit over there and be quiet, and keep your fingers off of my radios."   If a pilot ever cancelled a call or cleared it, over riding the observer, it better be because the observer had completely lost his mind and was screwing the pooch.  Short of that......
Again keeping in mind that the pilot has ALWAYS been in the Observers shoes before sliding over, so they know what used to irritate them as observers. 

[Eclipse]

The sole reason for the helicopter or the airplane and its pilots is to carry the observer and his equipment ie. FLIR, Spot light, Rescue Gear, etc. to the target.

That sentence, edited for a CAP context, should be on the cover of 60-1.

[Short Field]

The previous example of an MP who canceled a grid search and converted to an ELT search, the situation is simple.  Upon return, CAP can convene a tribunal and rip the pilot's wings off his golf shirt, but the FAA is uninterested.  He acted within his authority as PIC.

And therin lies the rub, my dear Mr. Hempel, he certainly did, and he won't have to worry about all that CRM "nonsense" in CAP anymore - he'll have plenty of time on the weekends to fly his own airplane at double the price with half the "hassle".

Too bad I am the only IC who will not fly him.  I raised it to wing staff and their view was that "well, he is one of our better pilots - we don't want to do anything to lose him.".    GOBs still rule.

[Auxpilot]

In the case of the pilot that switched from a grid to an ELT search:

Not knowing all of the details behind this it is easy to say that the answer here is to strip him of his wings (as was proposed a few posts ago). My guess is he made a call that he thought was correct. Perhaps a little training may be in order before he gets the boot??

It's sooooo easy to sit here and post what you would have done in a situation that you did not find yourself in. The Wing staff said that he is one of the better pilots - is that maybe the case, or is he just one of the GOB's as is alleged.

Reminds me of the town that I live in - good people have worked hard for years for no personal gain to help run the town and as soon as a new crowd moved in those fine folks were labled GOB's like they were part of the mob or something.

My personal experience has been that most Good ole' Boys have more good in them than they are given credit for. It's the my way or the highway crowd that causes the most damage to an organization like CAP. If the guy is a maverick and can't play well with others that is one thing but if he just needs a little direction lets give it to him before we get out the torches and pitch forks.

[LittleIronPilot]

Taken to the extreme, that logic would mean the owner of a corporate jet would have no authority to decide his own destination.

It's not logic.  It's the law.  Once the airplane is in the air, the PIC is the one that determines the destination.  Now he'd be a short-time employee if he did not involve his employer in the decision, but the law is clear.  The PIC is the final authority.  He decides to divert, he diverts.  No consultation or committee action is required.

Said another way, if the PIC runs out of fuel, a defense like "The aircraft owner told me not to divert." would be laughed out of the hearing room.  Ditto, "The Incident Commander told me to try to make it back." or "The Mission Observer said there was enough fuel."

Totally different and you know it.

I AM a pilot and I have no problem with the MISSION being commanded by the MO. The responsibility of the aircraft is on the pilot, but the mission CAN be commanded by someone else.

Hell look at the space shuttle, the PILOT is NOT always the Mission Commander. That is just one example.

I love being a pilot, worked hard to become one, and take my PIC duties deadly serious. However I have no ego in this...if an MO is the Mission Commander I have no beef, so what is it about some pilots that do?

BTW...simply being Form 91'd does NOT mean you are the end-all-be-all of aircrew and aerial searches...what you ARE is good at flying an airplane to CAP standards that is it.

[airdale]

I have no problem with the MISSION being commanded by the MO

Neither do I.  I prefer it and think it makes sense.  Calm down.  Do not Cap Lock.  Read the thread more carefully.

To have the mission commanded in a CAP sense by the MO does not, however, change the legal situation one whit.  IMHO people here have been confusing the two; hence the comment.

[Eclipse]

To have the mission commanded in a CAP sense by the MO does not, however, change the legal situation one whit. IMHO people here have been confusing the two; hence the comment.

No, for some reason a number of posters are incapable of accepting the above statement as reasonable and workable, instead insisting on making the highest mark on the wall in all cases.

The FAA controls the skies in terms of the airframe and its operation, CAP controls the reason its in the air and the operational aspects of that reason.

Mission pilots who cannot reconcile that to the satisfaction of their local commanders, and the IC of a respective mission, do so at the peril of their involvement in CAP, regardless of what the FAA says.

They are also people no one wants to play with.

[Mustang]

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.

If you agree with this--which is essentially what I said earlier--then why did you say this:

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?

Yes, I am a pilot.  SAR/DR Mission Pilot, Commercial SEL/MEL/IFR, 1000+ hrs, and fly for a living.  Good enough for ya?

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.

And I'm of the school of thought that anything that can potentially result in getting violated by the FAA will not be delegated to any non-pilot.  Anything having to do with ATC--clearances, radios, navigation around controlled or special use airspace, etc, will be done by me, period.  Because if the MO screws anything up, it's my ticket--and my livelihood--on the line, not his/hers.   For MOs and MSs, their screwups are pretty much confined to CAP.  For pilots, the ramifications can be much farther-reaching.  Especially for those of us who make our living as pilots.

[Short Field]

And I'm of the school of thought that anything that can potentially result in getting violated by the FAA will not be delegated to any non-pilot.  Anything having to do with ATC--clearances, radios, navigation around controlled or special use airspace, etc, will be done by me, period. 

I don't believe anyone is seriously proposing otherwise.   

[LittleIronPilot]

I have no problem with the MISSION being commanded by the MO

Neither do I.  I prefer it and think it makes sense.  Calm down.  Do not Cap Lock.  Read the thread more carefully.

To have the mission commanded in a CAP sense by the MO does not, however, change the legal situation one whit.  IMHO people here have been confusing the two; hence the comment.

Not upset so I do not need to calm down. Without inflection caps lock for a single word is meant to convey a stress on that word, not necessarily shouting (as it would be if the whole post were in caps).

There is no "legal" issue here. MO (if Mission Commander) says "go here and do this". The pilot says Roger...if able. If there is a mountain or a cloud deck or airspace restriction or what is asked is not feasible from an airplane/pilot perspective then the pilot can say "I cannot do that due to X, Y, and Z".

Seems to work from both angles. Now a pilot that has been briefed by the AOBD on how to prosecute a mission, who has an experienced MO that is tasked with "running the mission" who overrides both because he is the big PIC and decides to do a sector search instead of an expanding square...well that is a pilot that does not need to fly for CAP, period.

Again...being a pilot is a great achievement and the safety of the aircraft and aircrew are solely in the hands of the pilot...but so long as the tasking/direction IS safe, if the MO were directing what to do from a CAP perspective so what.

Or is it that some pilots hate the idea of being "bus drivers"? 

[heliodoc]

This thread is great!!!

I am a "newer CAP MP"  and you know what??

From my days a skydive pilot...I knew my position in the food chain

"A Glorified Bus Driver"  I also learned that I had to check my ego at the door

All this is coming from a wildland firefighter, former Army 67N, 15T, 67Y, 67V, Acft TI, ALSE Tech, etc etc etc.  I have seen some of the egos and THE best of rotary wing egos

AND to quote my buddy's wife  who flies King Air 200's...""!@!@##$ spinner pilots"  There's the pot calling the kettle black.

When I returned to CAP ...I still check my ego at the door.  CAP pilots ALL got FAA licenses and THAT still says PIC.  CAP MO's, MS, 's and MP's all need a 3 credit course in CRM and I took that class in 1992 when it was first the craze...

YOU CAP folks NEED to take that class

Signed....A Glorified Bus Driver