Wings for aircrews...

[Hawk200]

Since another thread ended up seriously derailed onto this subject, hopefully a thread specific to the discussion can stay on track.

If you think there should be wings for other than pilot and observer, what would you put forth? Would you consolidate some, introduce others, or both?

[cnitas]

Scanner and Archer Operator come to mind. 

[MIKE]

Either consolidate aircrew other than pilots under Observer... Or have wings with AC on them for rated aircrew similar in design to the existing Observer wings.  Don't need different wings with P or S or SO on them for individual ratings.

[jeders]

5 seconds of brainstorming, but how about this. Give basic observer wings fo MS, add the star for MO, ARCHER, and possibly photographer. Add the wreath for hours spent in one of those two or three specialties.

No new emblems, just realigning the ones we already have for new uses that didn't exist when they were created.

[caprr275]

ARCHER already has a patch

[Trung Si Ma]

Use the current Observer Wings like the Ground Team Badge has morphed into:

Basic - Current Observer
Senior - Current Observer plus some sort of Photo Reconnaissance / Damage Assessment Requirements
Master - Senior as above plus ARCHER since it appears the most restrictive of available AC training.

I'd also like to see a change in the Pilot's wings:

Basic - TMP or COP qualified
Senior - MP and COP qualified
Command/Master - MP STAN/EVAL

And I would bring back the droop tip badges for those who earned their wings, but were no longer current.

[RickFranz]

We could do like the pre-solo and solo wings.  Mission scanner would have wings without the triangle and prop but with the circle inside.

[jayleswo]

What's wrong with the way it is now? Mission scanner is pretty easy to get so not sure I would award Observer Wings for that. The old CAPM 50-5 "CAP Observer" Manual was pretty rigorous and I wouldn't want to see those wings awarded to an individual who has just flown back seat a few times. If you want to come up with a separate badge, then maybe. We used to have a Stewardess Badge for Cadets (half a wing), maybe resurrect that for any other aircrew positions. Keep the pilot wings as they are. -- John

[PA Guy]

Leave it alone.  Do we need a badge of some sort for every conceivable function in CAP?  As someone said the Archer folks have a patch and what if Archer goes away?  Why must everyone have some sort of goodywhomper to hang on an already overburdened uniform?  It smacks of the Little League trophy for everyone mentality.  I vote NO.

[bosshawk]

I would support everyone except the pilots be awarded Observer Wings, but renamed Aircrew.  I agree with the comments to the effect that we don't need separate wings for each specialty in the airplane.

For the pilots. leave things alone.  The star and the wreath are patterned after the wings that the Army and the Air Force use.  If I remember correctly, the Navy and the Marines have no "advanced" wings for number of hours and years on flight status.   The star and the wreath designate hours and years on flight status: funny how CAP has followed that tradition.

In both cases, since we seem to like to emulate our big brothers and sisters in Big Blue, lets do it their way.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Observers do take extra training that scanners don't. They (at least, they used to) have to take TWO ECI/AFIADL/HQ AU A4/6 courses as part of their training, as well as everything else to get rated.

(Hey, I took those ECI courses.)

I'd be OK with "aircrew" wings -- they're used in the Air Force for non-pilot, non-navigator, positions. But who'd wear it? Archer operators? Rated scanners? Not quite sure how that would work.

Basically, the aircrew wings would go to anyone else who meets flight-status criteria but aren't pilots or right-seaters.

Make any sense?

[Eclipse]

I would support everyone except the pilots be awarded Observer Wings, but renamed Aircrew.

+1

[Eclipse]

Observers do take extra training that scanners don't. They (at least, they used to) have to take TWO ECI/AFIADL/HQ AU A4/6 courses as part of their training, as well as everything else to get rated.

They used to.

No more ECI tests for Scanner or Observer.

As to the tasking, its different, but they added a bunch of flight-related tasks to scanner a few years ago, so there are that many more by quantity.

Scanner = 30 tasks

Observer = 20 tasks (of course you have to be a Scanner to be start Observer)

[O-Rex]

This has been kicked around before.......

Scanner is not a be-all end-all ES rating: just like there's no badge for UDF.

I offer no sympathy: Want wings? go the extra mile and become an Observer.  Member gets bling, CAP gets a better Aircrew member, a definite win/win.

If you want to get into the flying community, expect some exclusivity (is that a word?) anyway, you'll also find it in the military, i.e., backwards baseball cap, back of the line at chow, and other petty indignities for wingless pilot and aircrew aspirants (now that is a word!)  and nobody there whines about it, they just keep their 'eyes on the prize,' meet the standard, and if they're lucky, basque in the glow with the other winged immortals.

"That which is easily attained has little value. . . . ."

[Eclipse]

Scanner is not a be-all end-all ES rating: just like there's no badge for UDF.

Um, what?  Of course it is.  Who says you're supposed to automatically want to sit right-seat in the airplane?
There are plenty of Mission Scanners performing vital services who have no interest in being Observers, not should they be expected to.

If we had more people interested in doing their job instead of the next job, we'd be a lot better off.

If you want to get into the flying community, expect some exclusivity (is that a word?) anyway, you'll also find it in the military, and nobody there whines about it, they just meet the standard.

Yes, like Loadmasters, who are enlisted aircrew, GIB's, and wear wings.  The have a specific job to do, like Scanners, with no specific career path to ascend to the flight deck.

Being aircrew to start is already an exclusive club, considering the way-too-high number of seniors and cadets who never get near an airplane.

[Timbo]

Being aircrew to start is already an exclusive club, considering the way-too-high number of seniors and cadets who never get near an airplane.

And those that did (like me) who choose to fly for CAP, but only do enough to keep the Wings.  I am not ashamed of it.  If someone needs me to fly, I am more than capable, but I choose to do other things in CAP.  People ask me when pounding the dirt with the ground team, why I am not flying when they see my wings, I tell them "because in CAP we do we want because we want to".  Honestly, flying got old.  I fly for fun, but after my first 10 or so missions, the fun started to go away, and I decided to try the ground team route.  I have more fun walking through the woods, than I did flying a grid.  I also have more finds on the ground than I ever did in the air.  (actual finds, not elt training)     

[O-Rex]

Don't remember the source, but someone did a study and found that a surprisingly small percentage of USAF personnel are actually flight crew.

Many of us who earned other wings in previous incarnations did so under the "Many will enter, few will win" high-percentage washout program, often after being on a waiting list for months or even years to even get into the training.  Even in alot of police flying, Pilots and JAFO's (most of them ex-mil) often have to join, train like everyone else and then walk/ride a beat for a year or two even before seeing an aircraft.  It's not just part of an organizational culture, but has it's purpose: rewarding performance and success.  Many CAP members want to 'talk the talk' of military culture, without understanding the underlying experiences that created the language in the first place.  This is one of them.

That having been said, the CAP program is not that arduous, but nonetheless has a prescribed road to 'winghood' that takes a degree of diligence.  That's no accident.  When we water down the culture and the standard, we become the very amateurs that others accuse us of being.
 
There's all kinds of 'Special Olympics/everyone-who-shows-up-is-a-winner' gratuitous bling that CAP hands out: wings should not be one of them.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Scanner is not a be-all end-all ES rating: just like there's no badge for UDF.

But there is a ground-team badge.

I offer no sympathy: Want wings? go the extra mile and become an Observer.  Member gets bling, CAP gets a better Aircrew member, a definite win/win.

I agree, but should there not be SOME rating for those who have ARCHER chops and who are back-seaters? I don't have ARCHER, and I'm an (ECI-trained, old-school) observer, so I'm not sure I'd mind if there's a second set of non-pilot wings.

And I normally have an issue with bling overload. I agree with O-Rex on the "Special Olympics" bling problem. For instance, there's too many of those enamel shields floating around -- I'd be OK with ditching them all.

[O-Rex]

BuckeyeDEJ:

ARCHER is a different animal altogether, and even SDIS (when the satellite worked) was it's own thing: definitely NOT a 'one week wonder' program. 

I harken it to AWACS and JSTARS aircrew, and some of us actually sent a proposal up the chain that operators be at least scanner qual'd and submitted a drawing of modified obs wings, but with lightning bolts over the triangle where the tri-blade should be (I wish I still had the graphic.)

So you had Scanner as the inital-entry course, then Members could pursue ratings as Mission Pilot, Mission Observer AND/OR Sensor Operator  Made sense, and jived with the current training doctrine.

Of course, it died on the vine. . . . .

Point was that it was to reward advanced training....

Ground Team Badge: I was UDF-qualed for two years before I decided to "go green" (actually blaze-orange) and become a GTM-3, and more recently GTM-2, and eventually will go for GTL.  Not for the bling, but for the opportunity for a leadership role in another facet of ES (consider that GTL is the only CAP "command in the field," so-to-speak.)   

[SilverEagle2]

I am archer and a patch is fine. However, I did get my Pilot Wings first.

Perhaps a set of wings with a "S" overlayed would be enough.

Then you cover all three positions in the plane.

[CAPLAW]

how about a half wing for scanner

[O-Rex]

how about a half wing for scanner

Submitted in 2002: sender is still waiting for an answer.

I think it gets filed in the same place as requests for blue epaulets with 1550's and green nametapes on BDU's as well as other abused and deceased equine creatures....

[Timbo]

And I normally have an issue with bling overload.......For instance, there's too many of those enamel shields floating around -- I'd be OK with ditching them all.

It is because the Air Force does it too.  http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123130132

Everyone wants to feel special, and show off what they did.  CAP is no different.  

[O-Rex]

And I normally have an issue with bling overload.......For instance, there's too many of those enamel shields floating around -- I'd be OK with ditching them all.

It is because the Air Force does it too.  http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123130132

Everyone wants to feel special, and show off what they did.  CAP is no different.  

Yeah, but I've never seen more than one occupational badge on an Airman, whereas we can wear two. . . . .  like pasties 

I have a few specialties earned over the years, but wear only one badge at a time, based on what the event/target audience is.

Does anyone remember when the only specialty badges were were AE, Cadet Programs ES, Commo, Public Affairs and Safety? 

I think '02 or '03 was the 'specialty badge explosion.'

[Timbo]

^ Yes to everything!  I think the wings we have now are enough for what we do.  We can surely fit Archer SDIS and any other flight crew position into what is awarded now.  All we need to do is see that those types (Archer, etc) also can function as an Observer etc.  OR we can award two sets of wings, one for Pilot and one for Aircrew, no matter what specialty you have.  That way we cut back, and everyone still feels better.  Perhaps the Pilot Wings and the Observer Wings, nothing more, nothing less??  Is that stupid?  I am just throwing it out there.  We need to eliminate Bling, not create more. 

[jimmydeanno]

Yeah, but I've never seen more than one occupational badge on an Airman, whereas we can wear two. . . . .  like pasties 

A lot of Airmen wear multiple occupational badges. 

[O-Rex]

^ Yes to everything!  I think the wings we have now are enough for what we do.  We can surely fit Archer SDIS and any other flight crew position into what is awarded now.  All we need to do is see that those types (Archer, etc) also can function as an Observer etc.  OR we can award two sets of wings, one for Pilot and one for Aircrew, no matter what specialty you have.  That way we cut back, and everyone still feels better.  Perhaps the Pilot Wings and the Observer Wings, nothing more, nothing less??  Is that stupid?  I am just throwing it out there.  We need to eliminate Bling, not create more. 

In keeping with the USAF model, there are four basic wings (not counting astronauts or Medico's) Pilots are, well, Pilots; Nav's/WSO's are Officers who can read a map/screen/radar and shoot missiles and other things that can cause severe discomfort and modify terrain (note: WSO/Navs as well as Navy BN's and RIO's get stick-time during AOC training..)  Enlisted Aircrew bunches all of the MOS's together, but Officer Aircrew is for things like AWACS crews and the like.

What Observer Wings should mean is a CAP member who's demonstrated the ability to do everything but actually fly the plane.

[AlphaSigOU]

Not to forget... USAF astronaut mission specialists are awarded the aeronautical rating of 'observer' and wear 'naviguesser' wings as soon as they complete astronaut candidate ('ascan') training. They add the shooting star to the shield if they fly in space.

And don't get any ideas... there ain't gonna be a form 5 for a CAP astronaut!  (You could ask Colonel Boe, though...  )

[BuckeyeDEJ]

What Observer Wings should mean is a CAP member who's demonstrated the ability to do everything but actually fly the plane.

AMEN, BROTHER!

A set of aircrew wings, if proscribed properly, would recognize non-pilot, non-observer aircrew members who have a certain level of training needed to earn a place in the airplane.

On the bling comments: The enamel shields are too much and, in the case of most of them, hardly distinguishable. I would shed no tears if all the shields disappeared, replaced instead by a group of seven or eight major specialty-area badges that look much like the Air Force's specialty badges (maybe the badges could follow the A-staff major areas).

And I remember when there was only one -- communications. Then came ES, then safety... and then the floodgates opened. No one wanted to be left out.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

And don't get any ideas... there ain't gonna be a form 5 for a CAP astronaut!  (You could ask Colonel Boe, though...  )

Think maybe the astronaut attachment will go on Boe's CAP wings?

[ol'fido]

Would using the shield ala the command patch between the wings for non-pilot or non- observer aircrew be too much like the real AF for everybody?

[Flying Pig]

I say no.  Leave it the way it is.  Sorry, but there isnt a whole lot to the Scanner deal.  A Scanner is a luxury postion.  If you can get one, great, if you cant, oh well, we still launch.  I have rarely flown on a mission with a Scanner.  If we are going to have "Aircrew Wings" then lets make the standard the Observer level.  Oh wait..thats what we have now isnt it?  I view a scanner as an observer trainee.

If you really want the wings, then for crying out loud, maybe go the extra mile, get the Observer Training, then get the Wings, and then quietly relocate yourself back to the rear seat as an Observer trained Scanner.  I was a scanner for a while when I started back into CAP.  Maybe a silver enamel barf bag for a badge would be more fitting.

I chalk this up to thr Pre-Solo wing mentallity.  Dont get me started.

[DNall]

I'm saying yes, but only because I think the whole scanner/observer & special skills stuff should be changed up.

The scanner rating has become pretty worthless as technology has come along. And the observer rating hasn't stepped up. I'd propose splitting the current observe curriculum & adding it to scanner. That becomes aircrew. And the more advanced aspects observer, combined with mission commander, and technical skills (archer, SDIS, etc) make up navigator/observer. In both cases, the basic/sr/master cover training levels.

If you just want wings for scanner, that's pretty worthless.

[PaulR]

Leave it alone.  Do we need a badge of some sort for every conceivable function in CAP?  As someone said the Archer folks have a patch and what if Archer goes away?  Why must everyone have some sort of goodywhomper to hang on an already overburdened uniform?  It smacks of the Little League trophy for everyone mentality.  I vote NO.

Exactly!

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Maybe a silver enamel barf bag for a badge would be more fitting.

For whatever reason, I'm picturing it -- sort of like a Monopoly piece with wings.

And the pre-solo wing thing? Silly. Either you soloed or you didn't. Second place isn't a winner (to quote Ricky Bobby: "If you ain't first, you're last"). Those wings are a poster case for "trophies for everyone," and maybe it should be among the first in line to be phased out.

Aircrew member (specialist) wings for back-seaters? DNall suggests that the more advanced observer tasks should combine with technical skills to make up the new observer class. I see a couple of issues with that. Many observers won't ever see ARCHER, just as most units won't ever get an Airvan, so forget that. Many may never get their hands on SDIS, either. Those are specialized tasks, and they require trained specialists. Either one is a back-seat job, not a right-seat one. That looks like a third set of wings to me. Aircrew member.

I think the additional ratings, in his post, should be a combination of training AND flight hours.

[Pumbaa]

I am proposing new wings for aerial photogs.

Thoughts?

[Eclipse]

I say no.  Leave it the way it is.  Sorry, but there isnt a whole lot to the Scanner deal.  A Scanner is a luxury position.  If you can get one, great, if you cant, oh well, we still launch.  I have rarely flown on a mission with a Scanner. 

Try doing a photo mission without a Scanner.

And no, the Observer doesn't take the pictures...

[jb512]

From the viewpoint of someone who is MO qualified and also in AF aircrew school to be a loadmaster, I'll throw my two cents in...

I rejoined CAP specifically to fly as an aircrew member.  I went through all of the MS and MO training and then was left with not much real work to do.  If a pilot needed the right seat, then I usually got bumped to the back.  The training was decent enough to give me an understanding of what to do but it took a lot of assertiveness on my part to be able to do anything up front.  A lot of pilots tended to look at non-pilots as less than capable of occupying that seat.

So, I joined the AF and decided to do it for them.  Not only is the training much more intense and selective, it prepares you to be an actual part of the crew responsible for your specific area.

I think we should award wings to all CAP aircrew positions but make the training a little tougher to get them.  Not only would that weed out the ones who don't need to be there, it would gain a little more trust from the pilots that we can do the job right.

And the percentage of AF enlisted personnel who have been awarded aircrew wings is less than 2% according to the school.

[Eclipse]

If a pilot needed the right seat, then I usually got bumped to the back.

That is so wrong...

[jb512]

If a pilot needed the right seat, then I usually got bumped to the back.

That is so wrong...

I agree.

[Pumbaa]

Try doing a photo mission without a Scanner.

I do it all the time in our CD missions.  Did 50 sorties this year and only one has a scanner.  I would rather go with the pilot and myself.

[Timbo]

Not only would that weed out the ones who don't need to be there, it would gain a little more trust from the pilots that we can do the job right.

As a pilot (who doesn't drive very much for CAP anymore, just enough  ) I would say that becoming a pilot is not at all difficult.  I got my PPL at 18, and was flying for CAP 3 years later after my forms.  Keeping current is the biggest thing, but there are always opportunities.  Actually doing the searching or working the archer system or the other tasks that are not part of the pilots duties are what is important.  Being a pilot in CAP, is nothing more than being a taxi driver.

Pilots are nothing special.  Just another CAP member.  Trying to impress them is uncool.  Just do your job, and stand up for your right to sit upfront.  Getting bumped at the last minute because Major McNerdy needs his last minute hours is not at all cool.  Let the boss know that you are outraged.      

[Flying Pig]

As a pilot, I dont agree.  If I have the choice of another pilot going up front to do the Observer duties thats where their going.  Im not putting a pilot in the back seat, to have a non-pilot sitting up front.  From a safety, CRM, and redundancy issue just to name a few.

[Timbo]

As a pilot, I dont agree.  If I have the choice of another pilot going up front to do the Observer duties thats where their going.  Im not putting a pilot in the back seat, to have a non-pilot sitting up front.  From a safety, CRM, and redundancy issue just to name a few.

Why have Observers at all.  Make all pilots train in the Observer skill set, and eliminate all non-pilots from the front?!?!  Is that correct, from what I understand as the tone of your post??

[Eclipse]

As a pilot, I dont agree.  If I have the choice of another pilot going up front to do the Observer duties thats where their going.  Im not putting a pilot in the back seat, to have a non-pilot sitting up front.  From a safety, CRM, and redundancy issue just to name a few.

GOB mentality.

Whether the Observer or Scanner is a pilot should not even be part of the conversation.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

As a pilot, I dont agree.  If I have the choice of another pilot going up front to do the Observer duties thats where their going.  Im not putting a pilot in the back seat, to have a non-pilot sitting up front.  From a safety, CRM, and redundancy issue just to name a few.

Why have Observers at all.  Make all pilots train in the Observer skill set, and eliminate all non-pilots from the front?!?!  Is that correct, from what I understand as the tone of your post??

Well said

I worked up to GBD before I started air crew training. Since then,  I've achieved an IC rating. As a former cadet and AE Officer I know most of the basics of what is going on "up front". But in Flying Pig's world I'm worth less in the right seat than someone with PPL and GES.

I am really sick of the pilots that think the rest of us are 2nd class citizens.

[Flying Pig]

GOB mentality??

I dont have any mentality.   Whatever mindset I have comes from flying with professional aircrews for the last few years. However, if I have a crew made up of a 2 Mission Pilots and 1 Observer, the 2nd pilot is going up front.  Especially if I am facing mountain flying, or single pilot IFR.  Now...maybe I should have specified a Mission Pilot, not a new pilot with 40 hours looking to build time or get his form 5 done.  As a crew commander, I want my most qualified people in my most essential positions.  If I hurt your feelings because I would put anther Mission Pilot up front with me, vs. in the back, get in another plane.
If your mindset makes you feel like a second class citizen, maybe you need some counseling.  Fact is, I have been an "Observer" for the last several years and am now a pilot.  Ive done more grunt observer work than you could possibly imagine so save the lectures.
I am not looking for someone with a "basic understanding" of what is going on.  Some of you are getting your panties in a bunch because you might not get to play.  Im looking at stacking my crew according to their qualifications.

[Eclipse]

GOB mentality??

I am not looking for someone with a "basic understanding" of what is going on.  Some of you are getting your panties in a bunch because you might not get to play.  Im looking at stacking my crew according to their qualifications.

Thankfully in my wing the aircrews are not set by the pilots.

Textbook

     Good

     Old

     Boy

[Flying Pig]

Yeah...thats it...Im in the Good ol' Boy network.

[Flying Pig]

I say no.  Leave it the way it is.  Sorry, but there isnt a whole lot to the Scanner deal.  A Scanner is a luxury position.  If you can get one, great, if you cant, oh well, we still launch.  I have rarely flown on a mission with a Scanner. 

Try doing a photo mission without a Scanner.

And no, the Observer doesn't take the pictures...

Curious, why cant the Observer take the photos?  I have had people take hundreds of photos from the Observer seat of a 206 and they come out just fine.  At least good enough to withstand scrutiny from a Defense Attorney, which is pretty good.

[Eclipse]

Curious, why cant the Observer take the photos?  I have had people take hundreds of photos from the Observer seat of a 206 and they come out just fine.

For starters, not all wings have a 206 - most have 172's and 182, and its near impossible to take a photo in those aircraft
from the right seat without getting a wing strut or wheel in the photo.

Next, the MO's job is mission command - radio work, flight logging, navigation, etc., which leaves little time for taking photos.

Either the pictures and the tracking suffer, or some part of the overall mission requirements suffer.

Also, my personal experience is thata the more "piloty" an MO is, the more attention he pays to flying the airplane and less to his actual job, which has nothing to do with flying the airplane.

[Flying Pig]

Curious, why cant the Observer take the photos?  I have had people take hundreds of photos from the Observer seat of a 206 and they come out just fine.

For starters, not all wings have a 206 - most have 172's and 182, and its near impossible to take a photo in those aircraft
from the right seat without getting a wing strut or wheel in the photo.

Next, the MO's job is mission command - radio work, flight logging, navigation, etc., which leaves little time for taking photos.

Either the pictures and the tracking suffer, or some part of the overall mission requirements suffer.

Also, my personal experience is thata the more "piloty" an MO is, the more attention he pays to flying the airplane and less to his actual job, which has nothing to do with flying the airplane.

Ill agree.  Ive never taken a photo from a 182 or a 172.  However, I still stand by my preference to having a Mission Pilot up front over a non-pilot.  And where I am, a Scanner is still a luxury.  Which has nothing to do with thinking someone is a second class citizen.  Thats usually a cop out for people who just want to call names vs trying to understand why. 
My comments are based on some pretty sound training and experience, not because Im a good ol boy.  As far as having an MP/Observer who starts to take more of an interest in flying than observing, your right, that can be an issue just the same as a search I was on as a SCANNER where the pilot was spending more time providing flight instruction to the Observer than we spent searching.  So it can go both ways.

I am a pilot and have no problem jumping in a scanner if needed.  Id rather not, but if a crew needed one, OK.  So why should an Observer have an issue with acting as a scanner?

So, asking that we respectfully agree to disagree, I offer the Observer/Scanner National Anthem :clap:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wlw2EMpIYes

[RiverAux]

I see no need to alter the current system.  From my experience a majority of those who do any significant amount of flying become observers.  I can't think of many active aircrew members who stay at Scanner on a permanent basis. 

So, basically all this would do would give most aircrew members a set of wings a few months earlier than they would get them anyway and allow people who barely do any flying to have some wings. 

Personally, its no skin off my nose if a scanner who flies once a year has a set of wings, but if the goal of the wings is as a motivation tool or to recognize significant contributions to the program, I don't see it making a difference.   

[Eclipse]

So, asking that we respectfully agree to disagree, I offer the Observer/Scanner National Anthem :clap:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wlw2EMpIYes

Nice! 

[BuckeyeDEJ]

If a pilot needed the right seat, then I usually got bumped to the back.

That is so wrong...

I agree.

But it happens all the time. It doesn't always bother me -- heck, if the right-seat pilot wants to do all the work, so be it. I'll still log it as an observer.

But if I'm in the back and it becomes an actual, and the guy isn't mission-qualified, the crew had darn well better be reconfigured to put me up front.

Otherwise, being in the back leaves me free to shoot from the back seat and enjoy the ride.

(Uh, shoot with a camera, that is. My D100 with a 300.)

[Gunner C]

I used to run a wing's mission observer school.  We'd give them the best training possible outside of of NESA.  When they left our course they could navigate, observe, work the radios, plan searches, and whatever else was needed in the front seat.

Unfortunately, that was the last time that most of them ever saw the front seat.  On the very next SAREX, everyone of them had showed up with their equipment ready to fly missions.  They sat there the entire day waiting to be called for a sortie by the AOBD.  The entire day they watched A/C take off with three pilots.  Finally, the AOBD came in and said "I need one of you backseaters to replace someone on a mission."

I never saw anyone from that class on a mission again. I don't think any of them ever renewed their membership, either.

I've been on sorties where a low-time MP (not an observer) elbowed me out of the way on the way to the aircraft.  He said that a pilot's place was in the front seat.  I said that an observers station was the front right seat.  I refused to fly the mission and they left without an observer. That's how observers get treated. 

When I was a group commander, pilots trained as scanners, then MPs. PIlots weren't allowed to be observers and take seats from MOs who had trained for the privilege to fly on SARs.  If I hadn't done that, they NEVER would have flown.

[SJFedor]

I used to run a wing's mission observer school.  We'd give them the best training possible outside of of NESA.  When they left our course they could navigate, observe, work the radios, plan searches, and whatever else was needed in the front seat.

Unfortunately, that was the last time that most of them ever saw the front seat.  On the very next SAREX, everyone of them had showed up with their equipment ready to fly missions.  They sat there the entire day waiting to be called for a sortie by the AOBD.  The entire day they watched A/C take off with three pilots.  Finally, the AOBD came in and said "I need one of you backseaters to replace someone on a mission."

I never saw anyone from that class on a mission again. I don't think any of them ever renewed their membership, either.

I've been on sorties where a low-time MP (not an observer) elbowed me out of the way on the way to the aircraft.  He said that a pilot's place was in the front seat.  I said that an observers station was the front right seat.  I refused to fly the mission and they left without an observer. That's how observers get treated. 

When I was a group commander, pilots trained as scanners, then MPs. PIlots weren't allowed to be observers and take seats from MOs who had trained for the privilege to fly on SARs.  If I hadn't done that, they NEVER would have flown.

I won't lie, that's pretty sad.

Now, in defense of Lt. Steht, if I know I'm going to be in a very high workload environment (single pilot IFR, mountain, etc) I would much prefer, and request, a 2nd pilot to be in the seat, simply in the name of safety.

Now, barring any of those implications, I'd actually rather have an MO in the right seat, be it a low time pilot that doesn't have the hours for MP, or a non-pilot MO. This is mainly because I've "drank the kool-aid" from NESA and believe that the MO's place is next to me, running the show to the extent that they are capable of and that I feel comfortable with letting them. That DOES NOT mean I tell the n00b MO to shut up and color the entire flight and I run the show if I'm not comfortable with them handling everything, but rather that I'm going to add a 1-2 second window in my scan rotation between horizon, traffic, instrumentation, and everything else, to make sure that he's getting things set properly. And if it's not happening, then we'll have a learning experience to reinforce the skills.

And if I get a 2nd MP and an MO assigned to my crew, we'll have a discussion about who's gonna sit where and fill what roles, co-dependant on what the mission objective is. If we're just out doing grid searches, I really don't care who sits where, as long as the mission is getting completed. However, on those longer searches, in the interest of crew rest, I'd try to make opportunities for them to switch seats during an opportune rest stop while out on the sortie.

It's funny, I hear a lot of these horror stories about these prima donna pilots bumping out other people and the like, but honestly, i've yet to see it in my 9 years in, and my 4th as an aircrew member. But maybe I just don't perpetuate the stereotype 

[Pumbaa]

For starters, not all wings have a 206 - most have 172's and 182, and its near impossible to take a photo in those aircraft

It's not difficult to shoot out of a 172 or a 182, front or rear.  I have posted images of my work here in the past.  if you have a good pilot who can turn the bird properly you have the game won.

Perhaps more people need to take a basic course in aerial photography?

I said it before and I'll say it again.  I flew right seat as the observer/ Photographer all summer for CD.  We plan on 100 hours minimum in 2009.  All of our 2008 flights (with 1 exception) was just the pilot and myself.

We had over 95% of the 'finds' in NY Wing with our CD missions.

Our images were consistently the best the customer has seen.

So is a Pilot - Observer/Photog near impossible in a 172/182?  I say no.  It is a learnable skill set and learnable team skillset.

[SJFedor]

For starters, not all wings have a 206 - most have 172's and 182, and its near impossible to take a photo in those aircraft

It's not difficult to shoot out of a 172 or a 182, front or rear.  I have posted images of my work here in the past.  if you have a good pilot who can turn the bird properly you have the game won.

Perhaps more people need to take a basic course in aerial photography?

I said it before and I'll say it again.  I flew right seat as the observer/ Photographer all summer for CD.  We plan on 100 hours minimum in 2009.  All of our 2008 flights (with 1 exception) was just the pilot and myself.

We had over 95% of the 'finds' in NY Wing with our CD missions.

Our images were consistently the best the customer has seen.

So is a Pilot - Observer/Photog near impossible in a 172/182?  I say no.  It is a learnable skill set and learnable team skillset.

Which is an oustanding example of "improvise, adapt, and overcome" 

[davedove]

Back to the original question, I see nothing wrong with having wings for all the qualifications.  What I think would be appropriate is to redesignate the observer wings as aircrew wings and start the award at scanner.  We could keep the pilot wings so the pilots can feel special.

As far as the people who don't think we need more bling, my thought is why not.  Giving some sort of bling for almost anything is fine.  Bling is the only way we have of recognizing our people since we don't get paid.  Now, I agree about keeping the uniform somewhat clean, but you can do that by limiting the amount of bling that can be worn.  For instance, now a person can have both pilot and observer wings, but can only wear one at a time.

The argument has been raised that people will only get the qualifications for the bling.  I'll agree that people should have more noble intentions to get qualified, but on the other hand, if the craving for bling gets another person qualified, aren't we better off.  We have a hard enough time with getting and retaining people.

[O-Rex]

I used to run a wing's mission observer school.  We'd give them the best training possible outside of of NESA.  When they left our course they could navigate, observe, work the radios, plan searches, and whatever else was needed in the front seat.

Unfortunately, that was the last time that most of them ever saw the front seat.  On the very next SAREX, everyone of them had showed up with their equipment ready to fly missions.  They sat there the entire day waiting to be called for a sortie by the AOBD.  The entire day they watched A/C take off with three pilots.  Finally, the AOBD came in and said "I need one of you backseaters to replace someone on a mission."

I never saw anyone from that class on a mission again. I don't think any of them ever renewed their membership, either.

I've been on sorties where a low-time MP (not an observer) elbowed me out of the way on the way to the aircraft.  He said that a pilot's place was in the front seat.  I said that an observers station was the front right seat.  I refused to fly the mission and they left without an observer. That's how observers get treated. 

When I was a group commander, pilots trained as scanners, then MPs. PIlots weren't allowed to be observers and take seats from MOs who had trained for the privilege to fly on SARs.  If I hadn't done that, they NEVER would have flown.

Happened to me once, followed by "How do you get this darn Becker to work?"

I sat there and smiled: seating arrangements changed shortly thereafter. 

I agree with SJFedor, if things are going to get squirrely, yeah, I'll sit in the back.

But you have to ask nicely. 

You see Danny, I can deal with the bullets, and the bombs, and the blood. I don't want money, and I don't want medals. What I do want is for you to stand there in your. . . . . . . 

[Eclipse]

So is a Pilot - Observer/Photog near impossible in a 172/182?  I say no.  It is a learnable skill set and learnable team skillset.

Possible or not, its not necessary when you have qualified people for the back seat without the same limitations (or other aircrew responsibilities).

Same continued argument, if our people worried more about doing their job, and not about what everyone else is doing, we'd be better off.

Pilot drives the plane.
Observers run the mission.
Scanners do the heavy lifting or looking and/or absorbing the light they see and bringing it back to show others.

[Gunner C]

Pilot drives the plane.
Observers run the mission.
Scanners do the heavy lifting or looking and/or absorbing the light they see and bringing it back to show others.

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

[jeders]

Pilot drives the plane.
Observers run the mission.
Scanners do the heavy lifting or looking and/or absorbing the light they see and bringing it back to show others.

+1

[Hawk200]

In keeping with the USAF model, there are four basic wings (not counting astronauts or Medico's) Pilots are, well, Pilots; Nav's/WSO's are Officers who can read a map/screen/radar and shoot missiles and other things that can cause severe discomfort and modify terrain (note: WSO/Navs as well as Navy BN's and RIO's get stick-time during AOC training..)  Enlisted Aircrew bunches all of the MOS's together, but Officer Aircrew is for things like AWACS crews and the like.

Air Force has seven different wings at present:

• Pilot(to include "co-pilots")
• Navigator/Observer
• Officer Aircrew
• Air Battle Manager(Worn by AWACS crews, formerly they received the Officer Aircrew badge)
• Flight Surgeon
• Flight Nurse
• Enlisted Aircrew

The first six listed are all officer wings. The last is for the all enlisted personnel on active flight status. And there are enlisted personnel that can receive wings even if the career field does not specifically require flight.

Not completely certain what the officer aircrew badge actually covers. The AFI isn't real clear to me.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Pilot drives the plane.
Observers run the mission.
Scanners do the heavy lifting or looking and/or absorbing the light they see and bringing it back to show others.

+1

+2

I flew a mission in the right seat recently with a mission pilot in the left and... get this... the most credentialed aviator in my unit and on the mission (a former B-52, B-1 and F-111 driver who's new to CAP) in the BACK SEAT.

I felt like he might have felt a little slighted -- he wasn't, since he's a team player and was qualified to sit as a scanner, as he's working his way to mission-pilot status (which I know he'll grease). Felt a little funny, but I understood the mission as an observer and I think he got some insights out of it....

I guess putting a pilot in the right seat is dependent on the type of mission. As long as I don't feel like I want to tell the right-seater how to do his job, I'm fine....

[Hawk200]

This one's straying a bit. Should I consider it done and lock the voting, or leave it for another day or two?

[O-Rex]

This one's straying a bit. Should I consider it done and lock the voting, or leave it for another day or two?

Pull the trigger: It's been a consistent 60/40 split.

[Hawk200]

Pull the trigger: It's been a consistent 60/40 split.

Do I hear a second?

[James Shaw]

A simple solution to this question. If anyone feels that strongly about it than make a suggestion and put it through the proper chain of command. Personally I dont see to much kickback. USCG Auxiliary Air Crew Wings

[IceNine]

That would make us look like the PANAM-Scanners.

Modify the bling we have, or leave it alone.  There is no need to go through the process of creating more wings.  Add a star, add a star and toilet seat, whatever but dear lord please don't add a slightly different set of wings for people to wear incorrectly. 

I mean we have pa's that can fix those pictures but we'll still laugh at it.

[Timbo]

Simple.  Pilot Wings for pilots, Air Crew Wings for everyone else in the plane (use the Observer Wings, to save money!!!)

[lordmonar]

In keeping with the USAF model, there are four basic wings (not counting astronauts or Medico's) Pilots are, well, Pilots; Nav's/WSO's are Officers who can read a map/screen/radar and shoot missiles and other things that can cause severe discomfort and modify terrain (note: WSO/Navs as well as Navy BN's and RIO's get stick-time during AOC training..)  Enlisted Aircrew bunches all of the MOS's together, but Officer Aircrew is for things like AWACS crews and the like.

Air Force has seven different wings at present:

• Pilot(to include "co-pilots")
• Navigator/Observer
• Officer Aircrew
• Air Battle Manager(Worn by AWACS crews, formerly they received the Officer Aircrew badge)
• Flight Surgeon
• Flight Nurse
• Enlisted Aircrew

The first six listed are all officer wings. The last is for the all enlisted personnel on active flight status. And there are enlisted personnel that can receive wings even if the career field does not specifically require flight.

Not completely certain what the officer aircrew badge actually covers. The AFI isn't real clear to me.

Like the enlisted aircrew wings....any officer who flies in conjuction with their job (and x prefix on their AFSC) but does not rate pilot/nav/flight nurse/flight doc/ABM wings.

I have seen flying COPs, maintenance officers, intell officers and some technical specialties get them.

[CAPLAW]

Lets just get these ones below produced through Vanguard an issue a set to everyone

[lordmonar]

Simple.  Pilot Wings for pilots, Air Crew Wings for everyone else in the plane (use the Observer Wings, to save money!!!)

Isn't that what we do now?

Let's face it....by definition a Scanner is just a trainee position.  It is no really inteneded for someone to get an MS rating and then just stay there forever (yes people do....and they do a good job....but it was not intended for that).

I would do away with the Scanner specality and incorporate the training (and the required two sorties in the back seat) into the MO and MP/MTP rateings.

[Timbo]

^ You are correct.  However, I was thinking about lumping everyone not a pilot into the "aircrew" category.  Archer, SDIS etc, etc, etc etc. 

[IceNine]

 

That's not even close to right.

The Scanner is the only person whose job is to LOOK OUT THE WINDOW.  If that includes a camera or some other technology then so be it.

Rolling this into scanner is simply going to cause "His piece is bigger than mine" type adolescent issues of who gets to sit next to daddy while he drives the plane.

Scanner does not even resemble a "training only position".  What is the training they get?, and how are you going to roll the 30 tasks required into another specialty.  I can't think of any specialties that have 50+ tasks for qualification. 

Plus MO and MS are COMPLETELY different with the exception coming that they are both done from an A/C.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

Isn't that what we do now?

Let's face it....by definition a Scanner is just a trainee position.  It is no really inteneded for someone to get an MS rating and then just stay there forever (yes people do....and they do a good job....but it was not intended for that).

I would do away with the Scanner specality and incorporate the training (and the required two sorties in the back seat) into the MO and MP/MTP rateings.

I disagree. If some eagle eye only wants to serve by spotting our objectives, more power to them and why not give them bling?

Scanner is also the minimum air side requirement for an GBD to progress to PSC (like UDF for a AOBD).

Why is it AOBD and not GOBD (or vice versa)?

[swamprat86]

I don't know if I agree with the Scanner being a trainee position.  A lot of GTMs get a scanner rating so they have a better understanding of what goes on in the aircraft without having to get too bogged down with some of the more technical aspects covered by the MO job.

This is the same reason I try to convince aircrews to at least get UDF qualified.  It gives them more insight to what ground operations goes through and is a useful backup for those crowded SAREXs.  If you can't fly at least you might get to go out on a ground mission and vise versa.

Removing the scanner position or only making a trainee position might reduce the number of generally non-aircrew types that would try it out.

For the record, I have been a ground-pounder for almost all my CAP life but didn't become a scanner until about three years ago.  I have taken the Observer class and I am waiting to do my flights, but that was only due to the suggestion of my Wing Vice Commander.

As for wings, why not.  The idea for a badge for UDF probably isn't too far behind either.

[Eclipse]

Let's face it....by definition a Scanner is just a trainee position.  It is no really inteneded for someone to get an MS rating and then just stay there forever (yes people do....and they do a good job....but it was not intended for that).

Give

me

a

break

Please go ahead and cite this as anything but GOB opinion, belittling non-pilots...

[BuckeyeDEJ]

The idea for a badge for UDF probably isn't too far behind either.

Why? Really. Why? Don't we already have too many trivial badges and ribbons?

Scanners, based on existing scanner criteria, should not get wings. If scanners have ARCHER or SDIS specialization, I have NO PROBLEM issuing aircrew member wings. But it's the value of technology training and specialization that makes a scanner wingable.

Being a scanner is to aircrews what earning UDF is to a ground team. It's the first step. If we want to add value to scanners, let's give 'em tracks for ARCHER and SDIS, and make those technologies more readily available to rank-and-file CAP aviators.

Does that make sense?

[Eclipse]

Being a scanner is to aircrews what earning UDF is to a ground team.

Exactly, a full, respected rating, important in the framework of CAP, and not necessarily a first step to anything.

[SJFedor]

Pilot drives the plane.
Observers run the mission.
Scanners do the heavy lifting or looking and/or absorbing the light they see and bringing it back to show others.

Mostly true. Except that, in a visual search, the observer is fully responsible for being the eyes out the right side of the aircraft. Some MO's forget that and are too busy playing with things in the cockpit, when their primary responsibility is that of a visual search.

I have no issue with an MO setting up the GPS for the search, getting radios and all configured, but once we hit that IP lining up with the search, they stop what they're doing and get their eyes outside.

Honestly, why don't we just get rid of the MS qualification altogether and just mesh MS and MO together to make one big qualification? And rename MO to something like SAR/DR Aircrew or something like that.

Hold on, lemme get my nomex on....

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Being a scanner is to aircrews what earning UDF is to a ground team.

Exactly, a full, respected rating, important in the framework of CAP, and not necessarily a first step to anything.

Isn't UDF the first step into ground team? Or did I miss something along the way? Heck, I don't even remember when UDF was formulated. Everyone was "ground team."

If we do scanner wings for just achieving "scanner," then there should be a UDF badge, I guess. But I don't see a need for EITHER.

[lordmonar]

Let's face it....by definition a Scanner is just a trainee position.  It is no really inteneded for someone to get an MS rating and then just stay there forever (yes people do....and they do a good job....but it was not intended for that).

Give

me

a

break

Please go ahead and cite this as anything but GOB opinion, belittling non-pilots...

I'm not a pilot...and I am not belittling anyone.....but if it was considered a "career" specialty...then it would already have wings.

[lordmonar]

^ You are correct.  However, I was thinking about lumping everyone not a pilot into the "aircrew" category.  Archer, SDIS etc, etc, etc etc. 

Are those not just fancy observers?

They are just add-on technologies for the MO specialties.

[SJFedor]

Yeah, and for some reason I thought MO was a pre-req for ARCHER qualification anyway. For the NESA ARCHER TRAC operator school it's a pre-req to not only have MO, but to have at least 25 training or actual sorties as an MO.

[SilverEagle2]

They want you to be at least MS for ARCHER. That is what I was when I went to class.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

They want you to be at least MS for ARCHER. That is what I was when I went to class.

And an MS with ARCHER should be a rated aircrew member. An MS without special training should not.

[lordmonar]

Well then how about this then.....

Do away with the observer rating as is.....make the scanner the basic aircrew rateing and just hang a bunch of add-ons to it.

MS (basic qualification)
MS-O (right seat qualified)
MS-A (Archer)
MS-S (SDIS)
MS-P (Photo)

If you get them all you would be an MS-OASP or some such.

You get your wings when you finish your basic MS qualifications.

[Eclipse]

Isn't UDF the first step into ground team?

No, if you look at the SQTR you will see it is a rating unto itself, combing parts of GT and GTL curriculum because the 2-man teams need to operate autonomously in urban environments.

It is not mini-, or pre-, GT.

Its UDF.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Isn't UDF the first step into ground team?

No, if you look at the SQTR you will see it is a rating unto itself, combing parts of GT and GTL curriculum because the 2-man teams need to operate autonomously in urban environments.

It is not mini-, or pre-, GT.

Its UDF.

Roger that. When I was doing the ground-pounding, there was no UDF rating. There were GTMs and GTLs, and there weren't three levels of GTMs.

I guess if you are UDF, maybe you should wear the GT badge, since you're doing a combination of GTM and GTL tasks. Unless that's the way it is already. UDF team members are ground team members of a different feather. Right?

[IceNine]

UDF is for Ramp checks, inner city searches, and they shouldn't get much off the pavement. 

It is primarily designed for electronic searches.

[Eclipse]

I guess if you are UDF, maybe you should wear the GT badge, since you're doing a combination of GTM and GTL tasks. Unless that's the way it is already. UDF team members are ground team members of a different feather. Right?

No - GTM is a different animal, and includes more emphasis on survival and working away from urban resources, while alot of times they are sent to do urban searches, they carry the gear to allow them to survive overnight at a minimum if necessary.

UDF teams stay on hard pavement and by design should not be far from a telephone and a Denny's.

I fully recognize that UDF is not the same animal and not as "hard core" as GT in terms of skillz, but its also not just a precursor to GT,

[MIKE]

CAP Talk... More drifting than a Tokyo speedway.