Mission Pilot/Observer

[Gunner C]

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.

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.

[airdale]

I am a firm believer that unless and until CAP has some sort of formal training for conducting two-pilot operations such as the airlines and the military do, operating with two pilots is actually LESS safe

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

[Eclipse]

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.

[Gunner C]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[Gunner C]

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.

[RiverAux]

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.

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. 

[aveighter]

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.

[Gunner C]

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.

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.

[KyCAP]

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.

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

[Eclipse]

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.

[RiverAux]

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. 

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. 

[SJFedor]

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.

[SJFedor]

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. 

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.

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.

[KyCAP]

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. 

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

[Eclipse]

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

[SJFedor]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[Short Field]

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.   

[RiverAux]

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

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.