Cadets as Mission Aircrew

[inactive123]

I recently heard that cadets under 18 years old can participate in the air as communications on a High Bird Mission. Is this really true? If so, what qualifications will be needed besides MRO?
Thanks.

[Eclipse]

No.  That is not true.

See below.

[KCPilot17]

Nope. You have to be a MS, MO, or MP to be in an aircraft during a mission. All of those quals require you to be over 18.

[Eclipse]

Nope. You have to be a MS, MO, or MP to be in an aircraft during a mission. All of those quals require you to be over 18.

That part is actually not true, there is no specific requirement that you hold an aircrew position to fly in a CAP plane during a mission.
Pretty much anyone with a legitimate reason to be in the plane can be in there, in fact, I have to back off on my "not true" above.

In typical CAP ambiguity, you have to be 18 to be "aircrew", but I don't see anything that says you have to be 18 to
actually be in the plane, and it is pretty common now to put an MRO in the right seat on highbirds, pending NHQ releasing
the Highbird Radio Operator qualification, which seems to be in perpetual development.

The reality is that it's not likely an AOBD or IC would allow it, but I don't see anything prohibiting it.

[Brad]

Nope. You have to be a MS, MO, or MP to be in an aircraft during a mission. All of those quals require you to be over 18.

O-flights are missions, at least as far as WMIRS is concerned. 

[coudano]

i was transportd to a mission (as cargo) once, when i was a cadet

the argument would be that operating a radio (as an official part of the mission) would be a duty assigned to one of the members of the aircrew, and so to do that on a plane you would need to be an aircrew member, and to do that you need to be 18.

Remember it wasn't that long ago that all there was was MS, MO, and MP.
There wasn't AP or MRO, or etc.  Things are in a state of flux (for the better, imho)

I think that "end state" we should sort of have pilots, and "mission system operators" that encompasses all the various 'mission systems' that we haul around, or might haul around in the future.  The mission system operator would be a wings awarded member of the aircrew.

[a2capt]

The aircrew are the ones responsible for execution of the mission. The cadet in the seat is the reason for the mission. The reason does not have to be 18 or older, just valid, in accordance with our mission statement.

That said, you could read it one way and say that the aircrew operating the highbird is providing a platform for the MRO to operate from. The MRO is not aircrew, but rather payload. A cadet can be a qualified MRO, CUL, etc.

[Panzerbjorn]

As an AOBD, I would never put a cadet MRO in the right seat of a highbird regardless of whether it's allowed.  The reason for that is simple....

It's very common for a highbird to be retasked while in the air, and I need that bird to be capable of being retasked.  If I have a cadet in thr right seat of that aircraft, I completely lose the ability to retask that bird.  This is, of course, assuming that the cadet in question is under 18 and not MO qualified.  If the cadet is over 18, I would require that right-seater to be a qualified MO or an MO-trainee in a highbird for a situation where I need to retask that bird.  An MP/MS crew is not a useful crew IMHO.

There are plenty of opportunities to get cadets up in the air on transport sorties without burning their O-rides.  It doesn't even require all that much creativity to do it.

[a2capt]

OTOH .. if that high bird being there allows you to task additional aircraft capacity to search, and all you had was a cadet MRO, do you not put it up because you couldn't re-task it?

Not arguing the point in a way that I wouldn't consider it, just saying it works both ways. The pilot, crew member or fuel load will require service at some point. It's gotta come back.. you can always swap a crew member then.

[Eclipse]

You >don't< "retask" a highbird.  It's the safety link between the ICP and the rest of the mission, presumably
and especially the ground teams.

The assumption that this is viable option has stalled or stopped more SARExs then I can count.
When you pull a highbird off station, you effectively stop the rest of the mission, as the ground assets
will now have to fall back to reestablish communications, stand in place, etc.

A highbird is a Comm asset, not a SAR asset.  It has a real job to do that can't be dismissed for expediency.
Pulling it off station will cause all sorts of ripples and unforseen consequences.

This is one of the reasons the HRO rating is in the works - to remove this idea from the lexicon.

[coudano]

When you pull a highbird off station, you effectively stop the rest of the mission, as the ground assets
will now have to fall back to reestablish communications, stand in place, etc.

Or, you know...   text mission base from their cell phones.
Which is what we do anyway, between formality highbird calls.
Ground teams aren't stupid lemmings who can't operate without umbilical to mission base... (i hope)
We have a semi-autonomous capability.

(I know I don't have to explain this to you)

This is one of the reasons the HRO rating is in the works - to remove this idea from the lexicon.

I've been confused about this.  The only highbird stuff i've seen lately, has just been programming the radio in the dash, and flying a racetrack.

Are there still people sitting up there on a mic doing manual relay?

[coudano]

An MP/MS crew is not a useful crew IMHO.

Depends on what you're doing...

I flew many of my first CAP aircrew sorties in this configuration.
Mostly because it was the only configuration that we could get out the door.

MP/MS is better than nil.
Or waiting significant hours for someone else to get a more full crew together, and truck all the way into the aor.

[coudano]

.

[Eclipse]

Or, you know...   text mission base from their cell phones.

We all know texting or otherwise using a cell phone for mission comms causes a rip in space-time,
just ask any comm guy, jeesh you must be new...

This is one of the reasons the HRO rating is in the works - to remove this idea from the lexicon.

I've been confused about this.  The only highbird stuff i've seen lately, has just been programming the radio in the dash, and flying a racetrack.

Are there still people sitting up there on a mic doing manual relay?

Less and less in my wing, though we still do it on occasion.
It's funny you mention that because I was thinking the other day that the HRO probably won't
come out now that most (all?) wings have airborne repeaters.  In that case all you need is a lonely
MP.  I think it's been argued this could even be a TMP.

[lordmonar]

You >don't< "retask" a highbird.  It's the safety link between the ICP and the rest of the mission, presumably
and especially the ground teams.

The assumption that this is viable option has stalled or stopped more SARExs then I can count.
When you pull a highbird off station, you effectively stop the rest of the mission, as the ground assets
will now have to fall back to reestablish communications, stand in place, etc.

A highbird is a Comm asset, not a SAR asset.  It has a real job to do that can't be dismissed for expediency.
Pulling it off station will cause all sorts of ripples and unforseen consequences.

This is one of the reasons the HRO rating is in the works - to remove this idea from the lexicon.

You task your assets as the situation demands.
As for the safety link between the ICP and teams?  The world ain't going to end if you can't talk to your teams.
Highbird is a SAR asset.......comm is a SAR asset.....don't let those CAP comm guys let you think otherwise.

In this case I agree with coudano......I would be reluctant to put a MRO in the right seat.  a) it limits my ability as a PSC or AOBD to retask in the air.  b) It takes away the opportunity for me to get some MO training in.  c) I got two seats in the back.....no reason why the MRO can't operate from back there.

[Panzerbjorn]

You >don't< "retask" a highbird.  It's the safety link between the ICP and the rest of the mission, presumably
and especially the ground teams.

You >can< and do.  I'll grant you that the highbird isn't the FIRST one you go to, but it's most certainly a viable option.  I've had situations where they're the last bird up in the air, I get handed a tasking, and instead of launching another bird, I retask my highbird.  I've had my highbird land at an off-site field for fuel or because a highbird is not required for a period of time.  Then a highbird wasn't needed and a SAR bird was, and the ex-highbird was in a good position to be re-tasked.

The only times this doesn't work is when you have a TMP flying highbird.  That situation happens most of the time, because, frankly, it's one of only a couple of duties a TMP can do and what better way to build hours?  I would concede putting a cadet or MRO in the right seat in those situations because the TMP is what is causing me not to be able to retask that aircraft anyway.

It doesn't frequently happen that way, but there are enough scenarios that happen to convince me that I'm going to put an MO-qualified crew person in that right seat long before I put an under 18 cadet or purely MRO in that right seat.

[Panzerbjorn]

An MP/MS crew is not a useful crew IMHO.

Depends on what you're doing...

I flew many of my first CAP aircrew sorties in this configuration.
Mostly because it was the only configuration that we could get out the door.

MP/MS is better than nil.
Or waiting significant hours for someone else to get a more full crew together, and truck all the way into the aor.

I see what you're saying, and I did some of the same when I first started out.  But the problem is that you start having your MP do all the MO duties, and that's a bad habit IMHO to get into.  When I train my MOs, I pound it into them that when it comes to aircraft and aircrew safety, the MP tells everyone what to do.  When it comes to mission execution, the MO is in charge and tells the pilot what to do.  I've seen too many MPs that believe that they are in complete command and roll right over the tops of their MOs, and the MOs let them because they're afraid of arguing with a pilot or a higher ranking officer.

Perhaps I should have better worded it as a MP/MS crew is not a very efficient crew because the MP almost always end up taking on the MO duties as well as MP duties.  That makes him less effective as a MP as well as degrades aircraft safety (read less effective as a MP).

[lordmonar]

I have had the opposite problem.   As and MO I've had pilots who wanted me to sit there with my hand my lap and look out the window.   

But yes a MP/MS crew is better then just an single MP crew.

[Panzerbjorn]

I have had the opposite problem.   As and MO I've had pilots who wanted me to sit there with my hand my lap and look out the window.   

But yes a MP/MS crew is better then just an single MP crew.

Your problem is exactly the one I was trying to illustrate.

No worries, an MP will never be sent up on a sortie by his lonesome. 

[Storm Chaser]

I don't think I would assign an MRO to a highbird, who wasn't also at least an MS.

As an IC, I have to agree with lordmonar; you assign and task your limited resources as the needs of the mission dictate. What's ideal doesn't always work during an actual incident and you have to adapt to accomplish the mission safely.