Scanner as an Interim position

[JB_407]

The point is that there is no MS but besides that yes expanding square, sector search, spiral search and modified grid searches all work. Seems that most search patterns can be modified easily to accommodate right turns only.

As far as the tandems I was speaking of both are PA-18s. There is an Aeronca in CAP colors but I have never seen it in a search might be a member aircraft for all I know. While not a tandem there is a C-170 here that appears to be a wing aircraft but again could be a member aircraft.

As far as your list of aircraft go I don't think there is an age issue its just not all inclusive. It fails to mention the C185's and DHC-2s we fly here and I am certain they are corporate.

[davidsinn]

The point is that there is no MS but besides that yes expanding square, sector search, spiral search and modified grid searches all work. Seems that most search patterns can be modified easily to accommodate right turns only.

As far as the tandems I was speaking of both are PA-18s. There is an Aeronca in CAP colors but I have never seen it in a search might be a member aircraft for all I know. While not a tandem there is a C-170 here that appears to be a wing aircraft but again could be a member aircraft.

As far as your list of aircraft go I don't think there is an age issue its just not all inclusive. It fails to mention the C185's and DHC-2s we fly here and I am certain they are corporate.

As of today:

A/C Type                                                                C-172                                                                                                 205                                                                                     C-182                                                                            309                                                                                                          C-206                                                       21                                        A185F                                  4                                        DHC2                                  7                                        GA-8                                    0                                        MT-7-235                                  4                                          P68TC                                    0 Total 550 Only changes I made were to add FMC, PMC and NMC categories together. I notice it does not have any GA-8s listed yet we own 16 of them according to the ARCHER status.

[Eclipse]

The point is that there is no MS but besides that yes expanding square, sector search, spiral search and modified grid searches all work. Seems that most search patterns can be modified easily to accommodate right turns only.

Why would you?  CAP has a very fine, workable aircrew program that assume 3-4 people in the aircraft.

Rather than perpetuate the mentality of MP's who think they can do it all by re-writing the program, how about we just work
on letting some scanners fly, too?

[RiverAux]

The point is that there is no MS but besides that yes expanding square, sector search, spiral search and modified grid searches all work. Seems that most search patterns can be modified easily to accommodate right turns only.

Just because the plane keeps turning to the right doesn't mean that you're searching as much area as you would with two people in that plane doing that pattern.  An expanding square with an observer and a scanner is still going to be twice as efficient as an expanding square with just an observer.

[a2capt]

Exactly.


This isn't UPS, left turns don't hurt us in the air. Work on busting the GOB networks.

[Eclipse]

Further - anyone who has ever actually looked for a downed aircraft, especially in heavy canopy, etc., knows that literally the blink of an eye or
a slightly different angle can make the difference.

A pilot has to be checking course, other traffic, and various instruments to say safe, which means his attention it divided at best.

Pick your argument - flight safety is compromised or mission effectiveness.

Either way there is no good reason or excuse to go up with less than three aircrew.

[a2capt]

I've looked down and saw, and then looked to the scanner log to annotate only to completely loose what I saw. Many times. Or flown ever the same thing time and time again and never saw it. 

Lighting, angle, reflection. They are all huge factors. Very huge.

[JB_407]

The point is that there is no MS but besides that yes expanding square, sector search, spiral search and modified grid searches all work. Seems that most search patterns can be modified easily to accommodate right turns only.

Just because the plane keeps turning to the right doesn't mean that you're searching as much area as you would with two people in that plane doing that pattern.  An expanding square with an observer and a scanner is still going to be twice as efficient as an expanding square with just an observer.

Dont get me wrong I am not an advocate of flying without a scanner in fact the point of this post is to gain them a more active role. However that being said adding a scanner does not make the search twice as efficient.

[RiverAux]

You might want to check your math.   You will end up searching twice as much ground with two lookers in the plane in the same amount of time as you will with only 1 person looking out the window.  Yes, you can search that amount of ground with 1 person, but it will take twice as long. 

[lordmonar]

You might want to check your math.   You will end up searching twice as much ground with two lookers in the plane in the same amount of time as you will with only 1 person looking out the window.  Yes, you can search that amount of ground with 1 person, but it will take twice as long.

The math is not linear.

Look at the POD table.  If you search a grid with a POD of 50%...then search it again with a POD of 50%...your cumulative POD does not jump to 100%, it only goes up to 70%.

Same thing with a two searcher sector.  The will not overlap 100% and they both may miss the same area.

[lordmonar]

On the issue of the OP.

IMHO Scanner needs to changed to BAQ (Basic Aircrew Qualification).

It is the entry level qualification to train to one of the mission ratings.

The duties of the guy in the back seat (the scanner) is just a job.

Should it be filled?  Heck yea!  Every seat that can be safely filled should be filled for each flight!

Do they "HAVE TO" be filled?  Well a lot of that depends of the circumstances.

If you have a weight issue or power issue then no.

If you have a manpower issue then no.

Each flight (IMHO) must have an MP and a BAQ rated member (no solo SARs!), but there are legitmate reason for not filling a seat.

Adding more eyes to search increases your POD and/or allows you to increase your track spacing, which means you can finish your grid faster.

[RiverAux]

The math is not linear.

Uh, yes it is.  If you have to fly an area twice with one looker to cover all the ground that would have been covered wtih one flight with 2 people looking out the window you actually aren't searching the same area twice.  You are searcing what would have been seen on the right side of the aircraft on the first fly through and when you come around you search what was missed on that first pass.  So, to get the equivalent of that 50% POD you actually have to fly it twice. 

[Short Field]

Yes, it is linear because he was talking total area searched.  POD and area searched are two separate things.  While not directly related to area searched, the search width effectively doubles if you have people looking out both sides of the airplane.  Search width is related to POD as it is selected to optimize the POD.  It would take 8 passes to search the same size area to the same POD with one searcher and only 4 passes with two searchers.

[lordmonar]

Oops....I thought we were talking about two people looking out the same side of the plane.

Yes....an observer and scanner make the flight shorter by allowing the pilot to increase the track spacing.

[JB_407]

Yes, it is linear because he was talking total area searched.  POD and area searched are two separate things.  While not directly related to area searched, the search width effectively doubles if you have people looking out both sides of the airplane.  Search width is related to POD as it is selected to optimize the POD.  It would take 8 passes to search the same size area to the same POD with one searcher and only 4 passes with two searchers.

If efficiency is simply number of passes per ground covered you are correct.

[JB_407]

Further - anyone who has ever actually looked for a downed aircraft, especially in heavy canopy, etc., knows that literally the blink of an eye or
a slightly different angle can make the difference.

A pilot has to be checking course, other traffic, and various instruments to say safe, which means his attention it divided at best.

Pick your argument - flight safety is compromised or mission effectiveness.

Either way there is no good reason or excuse to go up with less than three aircrew.

Youve not done weight and balance for our 185 then.

[Eclipse]

Youve not done weight and balance for our 185 then.

Not sure how that's relevant.

[SarDragon]

The three person crew would be to heavy for the 60 hp rule?

[a2capt]

What 60 hp rule?

[bosshawk]

Dave: I believe that the famous 60 hp rule was in a PAC Region Supplement, which was allowed to expire, therefore no longer in force.  For those of you interested, it meant that a 182 was a three person airplane: 60 divided into 230 hp=3 people.

I understand that the new G1000 airplanes are really two CAP people airplanes: assuming that a lot of CAP aircrew are in the 225+ category.