CAP Talk

As a Mission Pilot, am I "grandfathered" into automatically being an Observer? Is the Observer qual a lesser included qualification for a Mission Pilot?  For example, if for some reason I lost my medical, let my F91 lapse, etc. Could I jump in as an Observer right away? 

Could I?  Yes, of course.  CAN I?  Is the question. If so, then why dont we automatically get the observer rating when we do our Form 91?

Quote from: Flying Pig on May 22, 2009, 11:04:20 PM
As a Mission Pilot, am I "grandfathered" into automatically being an Observer? Is the Observer qual a lesser included qualification for a Mission Pilot?  For example, if for some reason I lost my medical, let my F91 lapse, etc. Could I jump in as an Observer right away? 

No, you are not grandfathered, you still have to go thru the MO SQTR. However, once qualified MO (and MS for that matter) is automatically renewed every time you get a F91. Well, not automatically, you still have to go into the Single Person Achievement Module and submit them for Renewal using the date of your F91 as the Status Date.

-- John

Quote from: Flying Pig on May 22, 2009, 11:04:20 PM
As a Mission Pilot, am I "grandfathered" into automatically being an Observer? Is the Observer qual a lesser included qualification for a Mission Pilot?

Mission Observer is not a "lessor qualification" than Mission Pilot - they are different qualifications with specific roles.

One drives, one runs the mission.

A form 91 is not all you need for MP status - that's just a check ride, you also need mission participation and many states require you redo some or all of the taskings during the three year period to maintain qualifications.  This requirment replaced the ARTS and METLS that we all knew and loved.

The 91 ride is only one of a about 28 tasks that may have to be redone. YMMV by state.

Quote from: CAPR 60-3
See Paragraph 3-7i (below) of  CAPR 60-1 CAP Flight Management (Includes Change 1, Corrected Copy, 2 Feb 09)   

3-7. Classification of CAP Pilots.

i. CAP SAR/DR Mission Pilot.
(1) Must meet the requirements for SAR/DR mission pilot in accordance with CAPR 60-3.
(2) Must satisfactorily complete a CAPF 91, CAP Mission Pilot Checkout, within the preceding 24 calendar months.
j. CAP Mission Check Pilot.
(1) Must be a qualified SAR/DR mission pilot.
(2) Have participated in 25 mission sorties as a SAR/DR mission pilot.
(3) Must satisfactorily complete a CAPF 91 mission check pilot check ride given by a CAP Mission Check Pilot Examiner within the preceding 24 calendar months IAW CAPR 60-3.
(4) Satisfactorily complete the National Check Pilot Standardization Course prior to initial appointment.
(5) Must be designated in writing as a CAP Mission Check Pilot by the wing or region commander, Executive Director, or their designee.
k. CAP Mission Check Pilot Examiner. Qualified as a CAP Mission Check Pilot and designated in writing as a CAP Mission Check Pilot Examiner by the wing or region commander, Executive Director, or their designee.

Also see Paragraph 2-3n. (below) of  CAPR 60-3 CAP Emergency Services Training and Operational Missions

2-3. Specialty Rating Requirements and Performance Standards.
n. Search and Rescue (SAR)/Disaster Relief (DR) Mission Pilot (MP).
1) Trainee Prerequisites. Satisfy the following to begin training for MP:
a) At least 18 years of age.
b) Current and qualified CAP pilot in accordance with CAPR 60-1, with at least 175 hours pilot in command time.
c) Qualified Transport Mission Pilot.
d) Qualified Mission Scanner.
e) Qualified GES.
2) Qualified. Complete all requirements listed in the most current version of the Aircrew and Flight Line Task Guide for MP.

Quote from: CAPR 60-3, Page 16
b. To renew an expiring specialty qualification, the member must:
1) Be a current CAP member.
2) Be evaluated on at least one mission (actual or training) every 3 years by a qualified evaluator as outlined in
paragraph 2-2a in each specialty (or equivalent specialty) for which renewal is requested. A matrix of equivalent specialties
is included as attachment 4 to this regulation. During the evaluation, candidates will be required to demonstrate their ability
to perform and/or evaluate all tasks required to qualify in that specialty. This evaluation does not have to be completed on an
Air Force approved training mission. CAPF 91 check rides will be considered equivalent to this evaluation for all aircrew
positions for mission pilots. A separate evaluation is not required. Personnel that are currently qualified in a specialty are
expected to be re-evaluated within 3 years of issuance of this regulation change.

Also according to 60-3, Attachment 4:

If you are a mission pilot, and are qualified already in TMP, MO, and MS...

You do get credit for it when it comes to renewal.

Quote from: Eclipse on May 23, 2009, 01:19:43 AMMission Observer is not a "lessor qualification" than Mission Pilot - they are different qualifications with specific roles.

One drives, one runs the mission.

Reg cite, please.  This "Observer as Mission Commander" crap has no regulatory basis and is chiefly a GLR invention (with subsequent bleed-over into the NESA school of thought).  Please show me in the regs or even in the MO SQTR where the MO is responsible for or is required to demonstrate "running the mission".  Now, should a green MP be all ears to the guidance of an experienced MO?  Absolutely.  Good CRM demands it--even of an experienced MP--and in fact, for someone with a pilot's license, serving as an MO is a superb MP apprenticeship. But ultimately, an MO is nothing more than an MS who has received additional training so that he/she may assist the MP with their responsibilities--including that of mission command. 

Moreover, there is a 100% overlap between MO and MP tasks if you look at the tasks themselves.  To my thinking, there is no difference between "assist in planning and performing a route search" (MO task O-2109) and "demonstrate planning and flying a route search" (MP task O-2101). Academically, it's the same task.  In fact, most (if not all) of the MO tasks are either assisting the MP or getting a non-pilot up to speed on common pilot knowledge and tasks like navigation, weather, etc.  In other words--and contrary to your assertion that they are different qualifications--the MO skillset is a subset of the MP skillset.  Thus, in fulfilling the requirements for MP, one has also satisfied those for MO.  Those few tasks that an MP isn't required to perform for the SQTR (operate the FM radio, operate the DF gear) are required in the Form 91 checkride.   Thus, there is much truth to the equation:


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

Quote from: Flying Pig on May 22, 2009, 11:04:20 PM
As a Mission Pilot, am I "grandfathered" into automatically being an Observer? Is the Observer qual a lesser included qualification for a Mission Pilot?  For example, if for some reason I lost my medical, let my F91 lapse, etc. Could I jump in as an Observer right away? 

Could I?  Yes, of course.  CAN I?  Is the question. If so, then why dont we automatically get the observer rating when we do our Form 91?

What is the regulation?

Did you consider looking there?

Quote
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.

Another topic that is missing is that MO's are not required to be a pilot.  In most of CAP there is a redundancy.  I think that MO's should at least have enough flight training to land the aircraft in an emergency.

Eclipse-

Keep reading that paragraph....

Quote from: Eclipse on May 23, 2009, 01:19:43 AM

Quote from: CAPR 60-3, Page 16
b. To renew an expiring specialty qualification, the member must:
1) Be a current CAP member.
2) Be evaluated on at least one mission (actual or training) every 3 years by a qualified evaluator as outlined in
paragraph 2-2a in each specialty (or equivalent specialty) for which renewal is requested. A matrix of equivalent specialties
is included as attachment 4 to this regulation. During the evaluation, candidates will be required to demonstrate their ability
to perform and/or evaluate all tasks required to qualify in that specialty. This evaluation does not have to be completed on an
Air Force approved training mission. CAPF 91 check rides will be considered equivalent to this evaluation for all aircrew
positions for mission pilots. A separate evaluation is not required. Personnel that are currently qualified in a specialty are
expected to be re-evaluated within 3 years of issuance of this regulation change.

Emphasis mine.

Quote from: Mustang on May 23, 2009, 09:32:36 AM
Reg cite, please.  This "Observer as Mission Commander" crap has no regulatory basis and is chiefly a GLR invention (with subsequent bleed-over into the NESA school of thought).  Please show me in the regs or even in the MO SQTR where the MO is responsible for or is required to demonstrate "running the mission".  Now, should a green MP be all ears to the guidance of an experienced MO?  Absolutely.  Good CRM demands it--even of an experienced MP--and in fact, for someone with a pilot's license, serving as an MO is a superb MP apprenticeship. But ultimately, an MO is nothing more than an MS who has received additional training so that he/she may assist the MP with their responsibilities--including that of mission command. 

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

For those who get bent out of shape by me using the term "lessor included"  Its a legal term, not an insult.

Quote from: Flying Pig on May 23, 2009, 04:09:33 PM
For those who get bent out of shape by me using the term "lessor included"  Its a legal term, not an insult.

Point taken, but in this case its not necessarily appropriate.

There is a direct 1-2-3 on the Ground - GTM-GTL-GBD, you can't get from M to D without L.

Not the case in the airplane where you can go from MS to MO without ever sitting in the right seat.  So if you were/are an MO, I don't have any issue with your getting credit as an MP, but if you never were an MO, you shouldn't.

The above is also the reason we have hundreds, if not thousands, of Mission Pilots who can't operate the CAP radios or the DF gear, because its entirely possible they never had to, ever, since in some threads we've seen there are check pilots who think that stuff is "optional" or "discussion based".

You can't have it both ways.

We always train a pilot through scanner and observer SQTR's on their way to Mission Pilot. Not sayin' it's required, but we think it's best.

Quote from: Eclipse on May 23, 2009, 04:04:00 PM
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.

Not an interpretation, just quoting of the text. It doesn't really leave any room for interpretation, it is what it is.

Bob, you and I see eye to eye on some things, unfortunately this isn't going to be one of them. You're making an awful lot of broad statements and general "talk down's" about mission pilots, and making statements about a few bad apples you've met and lumping all of us in with them. Until you've flown with "hundreds, if not thousands, of Mission pilots who can't operate the CAP radios or the DF gear" then you really have no room to make those kinds of statements. In fact, since you're not a pilot, I don't really understand why you're putting your horse in this race. If you're seeing a problem with your pilots in your Group, then i'm sure you already know it's your responsibility to correct the problem. But until you've gone through the hoops to get qualified as a SAR/DR MP, you don't really have any personal knowledge and experience of it other then what you hear, what you might see, and what you read in regulations. I'm at the point where I'm taking personal offense to your constant berating of mission pilots in this and other threads.

Quote from: Mustang on May 23, 2009, 09:32:36 AM
Those few tasks that an MP isn't required to perform for the SQTR (operate the FM radio, operate the DF gear) are required in the Form 91 checkride.   

Actually, they are required to perform those tasks on the SQTR before the 91 checkride, as well as on that ride. Advanced training tasks O-2001: Operate the Aircraft Audio Panel and O-2005: Operate the Aircraft DF. And, for those of you saying the audio panel doesn't include the CAP FM radio, there's the catch all in the MS SQTR, which the MP candidate has to have done before they start. Advanced Task O-2018 Operate the Aircraft Communications Equipment.


And actually, just as an aside, there's NOT just a direct 1-2-3 on the Ground. You CAN go from M to D without L, it's just a different kind of M.

Quote from: CAPR 60-3, Section 2-3m
m. Ground Branch Director (GBD).
1) Trainee Prerequisites. Satisfy the following to begin training for GBD:
a) At least 18 years of age.
b) Qualified Ground Team Leader or Urban DF Team Member (need not be current).
c) Qualified GES.
2) Qualified. Complete all requirements listed in the most current version of the Mission Base Staff Task Guide for GBD.

Emphasis mine.

So, by regulation, one could be a Ground Branch Director without ever doing anything other then doing 2 training sorties chasing ELTs, and never being in the woods. Should it be that way? Absolutely not. The ground side isn't perfect either.

Quote from: SJFedor on May 23, 2009, 04:49:56 PM
And actually, just as an aside, there's NOT just a direct 1-2-3 on the Ground. You CAN go from M to D without L, it's just a different kind of M.

Quote from: CAPR 60-3, Section 2-3m
m. Ground Branch Director (GBD).
1) Trainee Prerequisites. Satisfy the following to begin training for GBD:
a) At least 18 years of age.
b) Qualified Ground Team Leader or Urban DF Team Member (need not be current).
c) Qualified GES.
2) Qualified. Complete all requirements listed in the most current version of the Mission Base Staff Task Guide for GBD.

Emphasis mine.

So, by regulation, one could be a Ground Branch Director without ever doing anything other then doing 2 training sorties chasing ELTs, and never being in the woods. Should it be that way? Absolutely not. The ground side isn't perfect either.

That is interesting. The e-services SQTR does not support the UDF option.

UDF Teams can go out with just 2 UDF qualified members. I usually try to have a GTL with any ground ops team.

I could see a UDF trained only GBD on a large (121.5 with no satelite ;D) ELT search, but with the large area on these type of missions, you never know when they might need to go into the woods.

If you've got a plane with a Becker DF unit its going to be somewhat difficult for a pilot to learn how to use it while doing their normal MP duties and I don't think it would hurt them a bit to sit in the right seat and run it like its supposed to. 

Same for the CAP radio.  While a pilot could reach across and operate that equipment, I don't think it would always be terribly safe to do so as you're going to have to take your eyes off the sky for a while. 

Quite frankly, the most important skill that an Observer is going to learn is ground team coordination and that also requires some time in the right seat to do correctly. 

Thats why I'm not a big fan of mission pilots getting "credit" for everything for every mission. 

Whether or not they're "running" the mission, the Observer position is a pretty separate skill set from MP in real life even if that isn't reflected in the SQTRs. 

But as a Mission Pilot, I can fly right seat on missions as long as my Form 91 is up to date but as soon as it expires, Im in the back seat as a scanner. Not a whole lot of sense there

Quote from: Flying Pig on May 23, 2009, 07:37:18 PM
But as a Mission Pilot, I can fly right seat on missions as long as my Form 91 is up to date..

In what capacity?  Safety pilot?  Not as an Observer unless you are one.

He would be a second mission pilot in the aircrew.

Quote from: KyCAP on May 23, 2009, 09:19:14 PM
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).

Gunner, you can come and play with our guys anytime you want.

Typical situation with MP#2 in the right seat:

CUL: You were off the air for 45 minutes and we declared you missing, was something wrong with the radios?

MP#2:  No, I was monitoring ATC for safety.

CUL:  So who was on the CAP radios?  Didn't you get the Comm briefing?

MP#2: Yes, but I felt it was better to be on the ATC "just in case".

CUL:  What about check ins?  Can I see your log?

MP#2:  I didn't keep one, I was watching some weather coming in on the XM.  Also, most of the flight I had the stick so the MP could take some pictures of the target.

AOBD: That's the scanners job, what was he doing? 

MP#2:  He probably got some, too.  You should check with him.

BTDT, had to mitigate the remedial training more than once.

Quote from: Gunner C on May 23, 2009, 11:27:32 PM

Quote from: KyCAP on May 23, 2009, 09:19:14 PM
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).   

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.

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.

Quote from: KyCAP on May 24, 2009, 01:57:25 AM

Quote from: Gunner C on May 23, 2009, 11:27:32 PM

Quote from: KyCAP on May 23, 2009, 09:19:14 PM
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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Flying Pig on May 24, 2009, 04:09:52 PM
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.

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.

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.

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....

Quote from: aveighter on May 25, 2009, 12:52:26 AM
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.

 :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Quote from: Short Field on May 25, 2009, 01:12:48 AM
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.

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

Quote from: Eclipse on May 25, 2009, 03:16:26 AM
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.

Quote from: Short Field on May 25, 2009, 04:41:45 AM
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.

Quote from: PHall on May 25, 2009, 05:33:17 AM

Quote from: Short Field on May 25, 2009, 04:41:45 AM
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.

Quote from: CadetProgramGuy on May 23, 2009, 10:47:57 AM

Quote
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.

Quote from: Gunner C on May 24, 2009, 03:45:58 PMThe 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.

Quote from: Eclipse on May 23, 2009, 04:04:00 PMI don't need to cite a reg, its common sense.

Apparently not.

Quote from: Eclipse on May 23, 2009, 04:04:00 PMThe 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.

Quote from: Eclipse on May 23, 2009, 04:04:00 PMYour 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.

Quote from: Eclipse on May 23, 2009, 04:04:00 PMThe 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.

Quote from: Eclipse on May 23, 2009, 04:04:00 PMSadly, 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.

^----  :clap: :clap: :clap:

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. 

QuoteWe 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.

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.

QuoteI 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?

As mustang points out (with disdain), the idea of MO as Mission Commander is a product of NESA, one which make perfect sense and that I happen to (obviously) agree with.

Quote from: Eclipse on May 25, 2009, 01:59:42 PM
As mustang points out (with disdain), the idea of MO as Mission Commander is a product of NESA, one which make perfect sense and that I happen to (obviously) agree with.

Ditto.  If you can't agree with our doctrine*, then don't participate in missions.  Once again, the mission isn't flying, the mission is to find the target.  The observer comes up with the plan and pilot OKs it. 

*Loose use of the term doctrine. CAP doesn't really have any, but NESA is authoritative.  If CAP does adopt operational doctrines, that's where it should come out of.

My state did the same with self-funded, shared-expense sorties flown against the monthly mission numbers.

Same demonstrable successes, (and the same cramped sun gods).

As we raised the bar we found that many "Observers" were actually just former MP's who had long ago lost their PPL's and were flying right seat just to fly - couldn't operate the radios, DF, keep a log to save their lives, etc.

Mysteriously a lot of them stopped playing when this happened.

Quote from: Eclipse on May 25, 2009, 02:56:51 PM
Mysteriously a lot of them stopped playing when this happened.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Training is the best way to get rid of those who don't want to operate.

QuoteDitto.  If you can't agree with our doctrine*, then don't participate in missions.  Once again, the mission isn't flying, the mission is to find the target.  The observer comes up with the plan and pilot OKs it. 

*Loose use of the term doctrine. CAP doesn't really have any, but NESA is authoritative.  If CAP does adopt operational doctrines, that's where it should come out of.

Even with the footnote, its not doctine until you can find some basis for it in our actual policies or regulations.  If the folks at NESA want things to be done this way nationwide they're going to have to actually make it doctine through the proper channels.  Otherwise they're no more authoritative on the issue than the local squadron's mission aircrew course. 

Quote from: Short Field on May 25, 2009, 01:12:48 AM
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....

The only thing this reply is short on is reading with comprehension.  That is not what is meant by CRM and surely you know that.  My writing was clear. 

I agree with the concept of crew involvement in their specialty tracks to the degree of their competence (also clear in my post).  However, this does not mean that any authority over operation of the aircraft and any aspect of it's employment during the course of flight is divested. 

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.

So, one can be "mission commander" "team leader"or any term one finds most satisfying  but don't let that cloud the fact the law and regulation is quite clear on the matter.  PIC means you-know-who In Command.  You may take umbrage at it, I may even agree with you but if anything untoward occurs it will be the PIC that answers in the tribunals where bad and expensive things can happen not the other dudes who happened to be occupying seats.

The wonderful thing about gaining a pilots license is the great privilege of flight.  The downside is the tremendous responsibility and legal oversight of the great privilege of flight. 

While there are a few bad apples as in any endeavor, the majority of pilots understand this hence the sensitivity when someone suggests otherwise.

By the way, if the mission involves an airplane, it is always about flying and if your wing has lousy leadership and training then get some of that change you can believe in.  That, however, changes nothing of what I have said.  Actually it is complementary.

Quote from: RiverAux on May 25, 2009, 03:10:57 PM

QuoteDitto.  If you can't agree with our doctrine*, then don't participate in missions.  Once again, the mission isn't flying, the mission is to find the target.  The observer comes up with the plan and pilot OKs it. 

*Loose use of the term doctrine. CAP doesn't really have any, but NESA is authoritative.  If CAP does adopt operational doctrines, that's where it should come out of.

Even with the footnote, its not doctine until you can find some basis for it in our actual policies or regulations.  If the folks at NESA want things to be done this way nationwide they're going to have to actually make it doctine through the proper channels.  Otherwise they're no more authoritative on the issue than the local squadron's mission aircrew course.

Then there's no use for it.  If they're not standardizing the procedures nationwide, then we're wasting money.

Quote from: RiverAux on May 25, 2009, 03:10:57 PM

QuoteDitto.  If you can't agree with our doctrine*, then don't participate in missions.  Once again, the mission isn't flying, the mission is to find the target.  The observer comes up with the plan and pilot OKs it. 

*Loose use of the term doctrine. CAP doesn't really have any, but NESA is authoritative.  If CAP does adopt operational doctrines, that's where it should come out of.

Even with the footnote, its not doctine until you can find some basis for it in our actual policies or regulations.  If the folks at NESA want things to be done this way nationwide they're going to have to actually make it doctine through the proper channels.  Otherwise they're no more authoritative on the issue than the local squadron's mission aircrew course.

That's a good topic for another thread...   In Kentucky we take the core of the NESA slide decks and use that for ALL local training when it applies.  We might add local anecdotes, but for the most part we just download the slide decks and go from there.   So....   How many OTHER wings are actually doing this would be a good picture of the voluntary adoption of the curriculum vs. it being pushed out through reg or policy?

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=8098.0 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=8098.0)

Quote from: aveighter on May 25, 2009, 03:13:34 PM
By the way, if the mission involves an airplane, it is always about flying...

That is so wrong in so many ways, and is literally the core of the problem. The aircraft are a support tool
to a larger mission - a useful one, but also one that is very expensive and which comes with a fair amount of baggage and background noise.

The only thing a CAP aircraft can do is observe and report.

They cannot deactivate an ELT.

They cannot provide comfort or aid to an injured person.

Ground teams can operate 100% independent of an airplane and perform the totality of the mission - it takes longer, but it can be done.  Not so in the inverse.

CAP aircraft point at some badness happening, go home, and get a save or find credit, while someone else, whether CAP or civilian actually does something about it.

As to the analogies - driving a ground vehicle is exactly the same in terms of overall legal responsibility, the only difference is that you can't pull over to the side when the "kids" are fighting.

Your analogy with a CG or similar vessel is flawed, however. Perhaps you've watched too much Star Trek, where the command crew do everything.  While the Captain is ultimately responsible, if he's spending his time not allowing his highly-trained crew do their jobs, he's not going to have to worry about that responsibility very long.

Further, the simple assumption that being a pilot makes you automatically proficient as an MO or MS is
pretty arrogant.

QuoteIn Kentucky we take the core of the NESA slide decks and use that for ALL local training when it applies.  We might add local anecdotes, but for the most part we just download the slide decks and go from there. 

The thing is that this "Mission Observer as Mission Commander" idea isn't supported by anything in any slide presentation, SQTR, or reference handbooks that I've seen.  If it is being taught at NESA it is being done so outside of the official materials CAP has provided. 

The closest thing you will find is a single statement in one of the ppt slides that says: "Assist in planning – may be mission commander", but everything else has them in an "assist the pilot" role.  Hardly enough to say that the Mission Observer IS the Mission Commander.  That would be a major policy that you would think would be outlined in 60-3 and 60-1 and in many other places than just 1/2 of a bullet point on a slide with half a dozen other MO responsibilities. 

Quote from: Eclipse on May 25, 2009, 04:43:52 PM

Quote from: aveighter on May 25, 2009, 03:13:34 PM
By the way, if the mission involves an airplane, it is always about flying...

That is so wrong in so many ways, and it literally the core of the problem.

The only thing a CAP aircraft can do is observe and report.

They cannot deactivate an ELT.

They cannot provide comfort or aid to an injured person.

Ground teams can operate 100% independent of an airplane and perform the totality of their mission - it takes longer, but it can be done.  Not so in the inverse.

CAP aircraft point at some badness happening, get a save or find credit, while someone else, whether CAP or civilian actually does something about it.

No, it's quite right. If there's an aircraft involved in the mission, then on board that aircraft, flight is the number one priority. If you're in the air, but not "flying", you're on the fast track to something bad happening.

Aircrews can, and do, deactivate ELT's. It's required training for CAP mission pilots (Advanced Training, Task O-2007, Locate and Silence an ELT on the Ground).

Comfort and aid? Nope, unfortunately I've yet to perfect the method of getting myself from the air to the ground in the woods, and still be able to use the plane again.

And yes, Ground Teams can function 100% independant of aircraft. No dispute there. But if you wanna effect a save vs a find, having a platform that can cover ground more quickly and efficiently IS going to make the difference.

Eclipse, you seem to have a really crappy view and feeling towards all things aircrew. I'm not sure what mission pilot pissed in your cheerio's, but with all due respect sir, your attitude sucks.

Quote from: RiverAux on May 25, 2009, 04:48:58 PM

QuoteIn Kentucky we take the core of the NESA slide decks and use that for ALL local training when it applies.  We might add local anecdotes, but for the most part we just download the slide decks and go from there. 

The thing is that this "Mission Observer as Mission Commander" idea isn't supported by anything in any slide presentation, SQTR, or reference handbooks that I've seen.  If it is being taught at NESA it is being done so outside of the official materials CAP has provided.

It's somewhere in the MART, but it says the MO may act as the "mission commander", not that they ARE the mission commander.

Edit: Yup, first page.

Quote from:  Mission Aircrew Reference Text
The Mission Observer is a scanner with expanded duties who usually sits in the right front seat. In addition to the primary duty of scanning while in the search area, the observer assists the pilot with planning, navigation, and communication. The observer may also server as mission commander, ensuring that all mission objectives are met.

Which is something some MO's forget. Their primary duty is STILL being a scanner. I see too many MO's getting caught up in being the "mission commander" that no one is even looking out the right side of the aircraft while we're in the grid.

Quote from: RiverAux on May 25, 2009, 04:48:58 PM

QuoteIn Kentucky we take the core of the NESA slide decks and use that for ALL local training when it applies.  We might add local anecdotes, but for the most part we just download the slide decks and go from there. 

The thing is that this "Mission Observer as Mission Commander" idea isn't supported by anything in any slide presentation, SQTR, or reference handbooks that I've seen.  If it is being taught at NESA it is being done so outside of the official materials CAP has provided. 

The closest thing you will find is a single statement in one of the ppt slides that says: "Assist in planning – may be mission commander", but everything else has them in an "assist the pilot" role.  Hardly enough to say that the Mission Observer IS the Mission Commander.  That would be a major policy that you would think would be outlined in 60-3 and 60-1 and in many other places than just 1/2 of a bullet point on a slide with half a dozen other MO responsibilities.

Page 19 of the MART that is here in section 1.2.  In the second bullet..
http://www.cap-es.net/NESA%20MAS/MART%20Rev%201%20Jun07.pdf (http://www.cap-es.net/NESA%20MAS/MART%20Rev%201%20Jun07.pdf)

Quote from: SJFedor on May 25, 2009, 04:55:36 PM
Eclipse, you seem to have a really crappy view and feeling towards all things aircrew. I'm not sure what mission pilot pissed in your cheerio's, but with all due respect sir, your attitude sucks.

As aircrew myself, a commander, GBD, and someone who's depended more than a few times on everyone doing their job in the airplane, I've been dealing with this nonsense for almost 10 years, primarily because of the GOB's who used to control the CAP skies.

I can tell you from first-hand experience that as soon as the NESA way is adopted, and MP's have to actually internalize the fact that they need to respect the "ballast", a lot of the problems went away quickly, either in the form of adjusted attitudes, or people simply going away.

And before anyone goes to "we can't afford to lose pilots", I disagree, GOB's who think they own the airplane and do everything themselves can go fly for someone else.

Now, if you want to see some real fun, crew the airplane with three, type-A GOB's and stand back - about 2 hours later they might launch, assuming there is anyone still alive after the preflight.  BTDT

Quote from: Eclipse on May 25, 2009, 05:05:59 PM

Quote from: SJFedor on May 25, 2009, 04:55:36 PM
Eclipse, you seem to have a really crappy view and feeling towards all things aircrew. I'm not sure what mission pilot pissed in your cheerio's, but with all due respect sir, your attitude sucks.

As aircrew myself, a commander, GBD, and someone who's depended more than a few times on everyone doing their job in the airplane, I've been dealing with this nonsense for almost 10 years, primarily because of the GOB's who used to control the CAP skies.

I can tell you from first-hand experience that as soon as the NESA way is adopted, and MP's have to actually internalize the fact that they need to respect the "ballast", a lot of the problems went away quickly, either in the form of adjusted attitudes, or people simply going away.

And before anyone goes to "we can't afford to lose pilots", I disagree, GOB's who think they own the airplane and do everything themselves can go fly for someone else.

Now, if you want to see some real fun, crew the airplane with three, type-A GOB's and stand back - about 2 hours later they might launch, assuming there is anyone still alive after the preflight.  BTDT

And I understand that and have the same feelings about it that you do re: the GOB's. But you're really coming off with the "screw the pilots, we don't need 'em" tone, when I think what you're really trying to say is "we don't need the pilots who aren't team players, but instead we need more of the ones who are there to get the job done with their crew" which is a correct and true statement.

I, for one, am all about delegating to my crew. I push new MO's especially to get them out of their comfort zone of sitting there and looking out the window, and try to get them to take a more interactive approach to being on that flight crew. That's what they're there for, to work with me and the rest of the crew to make sure we ALL get the job done safely and efficiently. That's the bottom line.

Quote from: SJFedor on May 25, 2009, 05:11:36 PM
And I understand that and have the same feelings about it that you do re: the GOB's. But you're really coming off with the "screw the pilots, we don't need 'em" tone, when I think what you're really trying to say is "we don't need the pilots who aren't team players, but instead we need more of the ones who are there to get the job done with their crew" which is a correct and true statement.

That's exactly what I'm trying to say.

Quote from: aveighter on May 25, 2009, 03:13:34 PM

Quote from: Short Field on May 25, 2009, 01:12:48 AM
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....

The only thing this reply is short on is reading with comprehension.  That is not what is meant by CRM and surely you know that.  My writing was clear. 

I agree with the concept of crew involvement in their specialty tracks to the degree of their competence (also clear in my post).  However, this does not mean that any authority over operation of the aircraft and any aspect of it's employment during the course of flight is divested. 

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.

So, one can be "mission commander" "team leader"or any term one finds most satisfying  but don't let that cloud the fact the law and regulation is quite clear on the matter.  PIC means you-know-who In Command.  You may take umbrage at it, I may even agree with you but if anything untoward occurs it will be the PIC that answers in the tribunals where bad and expensive things can happen not the other dudes who happened to be occupying seats.

The wonderful thing about gaining a pilots license is the great privilege of flight.  The downside is the tremendous responsibility and legal oversight of the great privilege of flight. 

While there are a few bad apples as in any endeavor, the majority of pilots understand this hence the sensitivity when someone suggests otherwise.

By the way, if the mission involves an airplane, it is always about flying and if your wing has lousy leadership and training then get some of that change you can believe in.  That, however, changes nothing of what I have said.  Actually it is complementary.

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.   

QuotePage 19 of the MART that is here in section 1.2.  In the second bullet..
http://www.cap-es.net/NESA%20MAS/MART%20Rev%201%20Jun07.pdf

Yes, there are several references to "mission commander" in the MART, but nowhere does it explain what the heck that is.  What is a "Mission Commander"?  What authority does a "Mission Commander" have?  How does that authority relate to the authority granted to pilots by the FAA and by CAP? 

If this was something that CAP was actually pushing, it would be a MAJOR part of our aircrew training program rather than a few throwaway lines.  We go through more trouble to discuss the duties of MSAs, which are glorified gophers. 

Quote from: Short Field on May 25, 2009, 05:40:01 PM
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.

Quote from: airdale on May 25, 2009, 01:58:21 PM

QuoteI 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.

Quote from: aveighter on May 25, 2009, 03:13:34 PM
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.

QuoteIf 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.

Quote from: Gunner C on May 25, 2009, 01:55:25 PM

QuoteHere'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"  ;D I applaud your efforts to get everyone involved in the flying!

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

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. ;)

Quote from: airdale on May 25, 2009, 06:49:45 PM

Quote

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. 

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

Quote from: airdale on May 25, 2009, 06:49:45 PM
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.

Quote from: airdale on May 25, 2009, 06:49:45 PM
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.

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?

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.

QuoteHoly 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.

QuoteBut 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.

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.

Quotethis idea of the MO not being on the CAP radios

Huh?  When did I say that?

Quotewhile 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.

Quote from: dbarbee on May 25, 2009, 06:45:13 PM
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.

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   ;D

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.

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.

Quote from: flynd94 on May 26, 2009, 06:29:44 PM
We have gone round and round with Bob on this. 

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

Quote from: flynd94 on May 26, 2009, 06:29:44 PM
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.

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".

Quote from: aveighter on May 26, 2009, 01:48:45 AM

Quote from: dbarbee on May 25, 2009, 06:45:13 PM
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.

QuoteTaken 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 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.

HEY I got an idea >:D >:D >:D >:D

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

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

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

Goofy zippersuited sun gods..

Quote from: heliodoc on May 26, 2009, 09:34:49 PM
Goofy zippersuited sun gods..

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

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

Quote from: airdale on May 26, 2009, 08:54:11 PM

QuoteTaken 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."

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

Quotethe 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.

He can also rent his own airplane in the future.   ;D

Quote from: airdale on May 27, 2009, 02:12:13 PM
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".

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. 

Quote from: Flying Pig on May 28, 2009, 02:04:37 AMThe 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.

Quote from: Eclipse on May 28, 2009, 12:46:37 AM

Quote from: airdale on May 27, 2009, 02:12:13 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: airdale on May 26, 2009, 08:54:11 PM

QuoteTaken 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.

QuoteI 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.

Quote from: airdale on May 28, 2009, 06:34:44 PM
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.

Quote from: airdale on May 25, 2009, 06:49:45 PM

QuoteIf 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:

Quote from: airdale on May 25, 2009, 01:58:21 PM

QuoteI 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?

Quote from: airdale on May 25, 2009, 06:49:45 PMI 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.

Quote from: Mustang on May 29, 2009, 05:12:00 AM
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.   

Quote from: airdale on May 28, 2009, 06:34:44 PM

QuoteI 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"?  ??? :P

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

Quote from: Flying Pig on May 28, 2009, 02:04:37 AM
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.

Im going to quote myself as a reference here.....

I wonder why these questions of who is in charge are so prevailing in CAP, but outside of CAP in other SAR/Aviation organizations, its just understood.  One issue I think is that at least in Law Enforcement Aviation, we all know and work with each other on a daily basis. We all tried out and earned our positions and completed a rigorous training program that not everyone passes.  And we all realize what an awesome privilege it is to be where we are.  Ive run across many CAP members of all ranks and positions who think CAP would fold without them.  Sometimes that can translate into the cockpit.
I think a lot of civilian pilots who do not fly operationally with "aircrews" who are performing missions regularly view the Scanner and Observer as passengers instead of team members.  Some pilots here, come from an aircrew environment where we cannot do each others jobs even if we wanted to.   So when I get in the Observer seat, I already know my role because Ive been there. 

Quote from: Flying Pig on May 29, 2009, 04:32:00 PM

Quote from: Flying Pig on May 28, 2009, 02:04:37 AM
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.

Im going to quote myself as a reference here.....

I wonder why these questions of who is in charge are so prevailing in CAP, but outside of CAP in other SAR/Aviation organizations, its just understood.  One issue I think is that at least in Law Enforcement Aviation, we all know and work with each other on a daily basis. We all tried out and earned our positions and completed a rigorous training program that not everyone passes.  And we all realize what an awesome privilege it is to be where we are.  Ive run across many CAP members of all ranks and positions who think CAP would fold without them.  Sometimes that can translate into the cockpit.
I think a lot of civilian pilots who do not fly operationally with "aircrews" who are performing missions regularly view the Scanner and Observer as passengers instead of team members.  Some pilots here, come from an aircrew environment where we cannot do each others jobs even if we wanted to.   So when I get in the Observer seat, I already know my role because Ive been there.

There may be some truth to what you have said about "passengers" rather than team members. That may or may not be as much of an attitude problem as it is a by product of the fact that many of our non-pilot crew members do not get adequate time in the aircraft which creates a situation where the pilot may be the most proficient crew member in the cockpit. (don't start accusing me of looking down my nose at non-pilots, thats not my point)

How many times have you gone to a sarex and found yourself telling a qualified Observer "no, its the little knob on the GX55 that changes the map scale" or something like that. Pilots get to play with the equipment on a regular basis if they are at all current as pilots.

I love to get in the left seat and watch a good Observer do his thing but some times it does not work out that way. It's not that I am any smarter than most, its just that I get into the plane about once a week, rather than once a quarter.

Some of the posts have referred to Observers being off the CAP radio for a length of time which I can't understand. With the 3 comm audio panels that we have now, I don't see too many situations where someone in the cockpit cannot be monitoring comm 3 all of the time, even of the Observer is talking on the aircraft radios. My biggest complaint is usually that the Observer is on the CAP radio too much. When the base asks for 15 minute check ins it seems like the Observer is on the radio more than my daughter is on her cell phone. ;D

Crews that make a living as crews don't have this built in barrier like we do. The best thing that I have found is to determine from the start exactly who can do what and then agree before takeoff who will operate the GPS, the radios, the DF etc. Then there is no confusion or ego issues during the mission. I like to be straight with folks. If I know that an Observer has not been in the cockpit for a year and even though he may be "qualified", I ask him to do a few things on the ground to see exactly what I am up against before takeoff.

Of course that knife cuts both ways. If a hot Observer gets in and finds himself with a pilot that flys 3 take off's every 90 days, he needs to be sure that it is the right move to even take off in the first place.

Bottom line, leave the ego on the ground and remember why we are doing what we do. If you have a bad experience try to make it at least a learning experience instead of painting everyone with the same brush.

Quote from: Eclipse on May 24, 2009, 03:08:00 AM
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.

If an experienced MO or MS is EVER in the way, then you either need to evaluate your MO/MS training, or else you are suffering from APS (arrogant pilot syndrome).  The ORM form agrees with me.  I am a MP, by the way.

I just read through the whole thread and thought I would throw in my two cents:

1.  I think the most experienced in the type of mission should command the mission regardless of what seat they are sitting in.  This does not mean the MP gives up any of the duties and responsibilities of PIC.

2.  We need to remember that one of the important responsibilities of the MP is to train MO's and MS's.  Therefore, we should take it upon ourselves to do what it takes to be "experts" at these positions.  If you are a MP don't feel your Wing has good trained crew members, you need to spend some time looking in the mirror!  The only good "real experince" training they get is from YOU!