An newly updated question on the knowledgebase asks why there isn't a badge for the mission scanner position and here is part of the answer:
QuoteThere is no Mission Scanner aviation badge because the scanner position is an interim step to mission observer.
While many scanners do go on to become Observers, it isn't required nor is it laid out anywhere that I've seen that it is expected, so I think that part of the answer is bogus. Now, there are probably other legit reasons for not having a Scanner badge, but if they really intend for Scanner not to be a position in its own right they should just abolish it and make it part of the Observer trainnee requirements.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 14, 2009, 12:00:14 AM
An newly updated question on the knowledgebase asks why there isn't a badge for the mission scanner position and here is part of the answer:
QuoteThere is no Mission Scanner aviation badge because the scanner position is an interim step to mission observer.
While many scanners do go on to become Observers, it isn't required nor is it laid out anywhere that I've seen that it is expected, so I think that part of the answer is bogus. Now, there are probably other legit reasons for not having a Scanner badge, but if they really intend for Scanner not to be a position in its own right they should just abolish it and make it part of the Observer trainnee requirements.
OK, so the answer's bogus. Many people never get observer for the simple fact that they just don't want to. What's wrong with that?
Well, qualification as a Scanner is a pre-req for Mission Observer, but, as you say, follow-on training isn't a requirement. Having two MOs in the A/C offers a slight advantage for some taskings, but a competent Scanner can certainly accomplish a lot. At my unit, we actively encourage the progression, particularly since most of our members are pilots.
As for a badge, how many Scanners don't go on to become Observers? Would having the badge available be cost effective for the members and CAP as a whole? how many would actually get sold? What's your thought for what it should look like?
I wasn't saying that Scanners should have a badge. I was disagreeing with the statement that Scanner is nothing more than an interim step to observer.
Personally, I think we push too many people to become Observers. We all know that it is very difficult for non-pilot Observers to get enough right-seat time to stay really qualified to perform the Observer function and having a bunch of folks who are only occassional Observers dilutes the overall quality of the Observer pool and can make it hard for the serious Observers to maintain their skills.
I'm with Riveraux here. Scanner is an end for many members and an important part of a proper aircrew.
They normally do the heavy lifting on photo and SDIS missions.
Any inference that Mission Scanner is an interim rating is simply incorrect and should be corrected.
River.....why are you always trying to stir up trouble?
A KB answere of why MS's don't have a badge is not NHQ's attempt to dis anyone.
Let it go.
There is that, too.
You've been digging pretty deep lately into stuff asked and answered a bunch of times.
With all the September kids logging into here lately, they will think this is something "new".
Obviously this isn't the case. MS can be a terminal qualification. Just because MP or MO are pre-requisites to AOBD, doesn't mean that MP's or MO's are automatically expected to continue to progress on to AOBD. GTMs aren't necessarily expected to follow on to GTL, either. It's perfectly acceptable to qualify as GTM3 and contribute from that level indefinitely. So don't read into it.
As was mentioned above, the Knowledgebase is more often the opinion of NHQ staff members which at times does not actually reflect reality, practice, regulation or intent of Civil Air Patrol as an organization.
I think Civil Air Patrol should create a generic aircrew badge which would cover the other air specialties that current do not have a badge (scanner, archer operator, archer track operator, and air radiological monitor). This would be consistent with the real Air Force. But until that happens, people will continue to assume that a mission scanner is "pre-Observer" instead of being a specialty qualification requiring its own skills to master.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 14, 2009, 04:56:29 AM
There is that, too.
You've been digging pretty deep lately into stuff asked and answered a bunch of times.
With all the September kids logging into here lately, they will think this is something "new".
Actually I check the knowledgebase every month or so to see if anything interesting has come up and this issue was updated there very recently, so I didn't "dig" anything up. And if you think the answers that NHQ puts in the KB don't matter, you might want to think about the fact that these are the same folks that actually write our regulations and their interpretations are those that end up in the regs eventually.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 14, 2009, 02:24:57 PM...you might want to think about the fact that these are the same folks that actually write our regulations and their interpretations are those that end up in the regs eventually.
That's actually a good point. There's a number of things that are a matter of opinion. I believe a lot of people here have heard that we still don't have cloth nametags for the flightsuit because someone on National staff doesn't care for them.
They may not be the actual decision makers, but the people that write the rules have a whole lot of influence in what actually goes into them and a lot of influence in what rules are a priority to change as well. I've got some experience along these lines in my real life.
The "generic aircrew badge" for AC members other than MP or MO is a good suggestion.
I must admit I've always considered scanner as a 'stepping stone' toward observer, but of course that is not how it's written anywhere.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on July 16, 2009, 04:33:11 AMThe "generic aircrew badge" for AC members other than MP or MO is a good suggestion.
I always thought so. Easy way to do it, too. Take the CAP eagle and stick it in the middle of a set of the basic CAP wing desing. Similar concept to how both the Army and the Air Force treat other than specific wings.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on July 16, 2009, 04:33:11 AMI must admit I've always considered scanner as a 'stepping stone' toward observer, but of course that is not how it's written anywhere.
I think that it's considered a stepping stone is because it's required to get to observer. If we treated it as a qualification of it's own, I think it would be be better regarded.
May not hurt to have a few qualifications in the bird with some common instruction to them. An aircrew course, as such. Follow up with whatever you want to do. I think commo and photographer could be considered qualifications in their own right.
Quote from: Hawk200 on July 16, 2009, 05:23:25 AM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on July 16, 2009, 04:33:11 AMThe "generic aircrew badge" for AC members other than MP or MO is a good suggestion.
I always thought so. Easy way to do it, too. Take the CAP eagle and stick it in the middle of a set of the basic CAP wing desing. Similar concept to how both the Army and the Air Force treat other than specific wings.
I'd like to see a mission aircrew badge with the following:
Basic Badge - Scanner / Archer op / photographer / fill in the blank
Senior Badge - MO or MP
Master Badge - MO and MP
To make it more distinctive and to show that this is a CAP only badge, go back to the traditional drooped wings
Quote from: Trung Si Ma on July 16, 2009, 01:21:26 PM
I'd like to see a mission aircrew badge with the following:
Basic Badge - Scanner / Archer op / photographer / fill in the blank
Senior Badge - MO or MP
Master Badge - MO and MP
To make it more distinctive and to show that this is a CAP only badge, go back to the traditional drooped wings
One of the complaints that I have about the Ground Team badge is that it rewards 101 qualifications rather than real mastery of ground team skills. You can theoretically rate a master ground team badge and have only been on a total of four ground sorties your whole life. I'm not sure aircrews really want to go down that road with their badges.
Here is a list of aviation badges in the real Air Force:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badges_of_the_United_States_Air_Force#Aviation
Their badges are broken up by specific aviation related jobs, with the aircrew badge being a sort of "catch all". Seniority with each badge is determined by hours and/or years of service (I'm not sure exactly how that works, but it is experience-based).
I think there is some wisdom in the way in which the real Air Force does their badges, and we would be wise to look at them for clues on how we should do ours.
We already have gone down that road with the observer and pilot badges...
Quote from: RiverAux on July 16, 2009, 07:11:52 PM
We already have gone down that road with the observer and pilot badges...
And sommething has changed?
Quote from: RiverAux on July 16, 2009, 07:11:52 PM
We already have gone down that road with the observer and pilot badges...
How so?
QuoteAnd sommething has changed?
No. Didn't say it had.
Quote from: N Harmon on July 16, 2009, 02:23:52 PM
Their badges are broken up by specific aviation related jobs, with the aircrew badge being a sort of "catch all". Seniority with each badge is determined by hours and/or years of service (I'm not sure exactly how that works, but it is experience-based).
Ok, lets make an "enlisted aircrew" wing for us. MPs and MOs still get to keep their respective wings, but MSs/Photographers/ARCHER folks/etc get their own set. Mirroring the AF, he "officer" positions of MP and MO still have their distinctive wings, while the "enlisted" positions get their own wings. The same rules we use for MO Senior and Master wings would apply to our "enlisted aircrew" wings.
Thoughts?
Quote from: Trung Si Ma on July 16, 2009, 01:21:26 PMTo make it more distinctive and to show that this is a CAP only badge, go back to the traditional drooped wings
CAP aircrew badges
are CAP only badges. Just like every other badge CAP awards. Nobody else wears them. We may have some
similar or
based on other ones, but they are unique to us.
The current style is what we went to because the old ones just didn't look right. Many people felt that the droop wings weren't very professional looking.
Quote from: Always Ready on July 16, 2009, 08:44:12 PMOk, lets make an "enlisted aircrew" wing for us. MPs and MOs still get to keep their respective wings, but MSs/Photographers/ARCHER folks/etc get their own set. Mirroring the AF, he "officer" positions of MP and MO still have their distinctive wings, while the "enlisted" positions get their own wings. The same rules we use for MO Senior and Master wings would apply to our "enlisted aircrew" wings.
Thoughts?
I think you're missing that the Air Force has an "officer aircrew" badge, and that in CAP there are no officer and enlisted aircrew positions. You could theoretically have a Lt Col as scanner with a SMSgt as MP and a 2nd Lt as Observer.
Hey! I have an idea! Let's just leave everything the way it is now ok? I don't know why we have to re-hash this every few months, but we do. IMHO awarding wings for Scanner is setting the bar way too low. Two missions with a few hours flight time and some studying and mentoring? Do we give the GT badge to UDF qualified members next? Do you know how long it took me to earn Observer wings back in the early 80's? Back when we had CAPM 50-5 and CAPR 50-15 things were harder than they are now. Let's stop letting standards down so everyone can have more unnecessary bling.
/rant
I guess I can see both sides, but I also agree that the system should be left alone. I earned my observer rating in 1972, went through requalification five years ago and finally earned senior observer. What I had to do originally is a lot different than what observers do now and that's a good thing. You need the scanner position because there's so much to learn that it needs to be done gradually in steps. I also know that years ago while serving in the Alaskan Air Command, I was trained as a mission essential aircrew member/scanner on HC-130s and HH-3s and I wasn't given wings. I would rather a scanner go all the way and earn the wings, you're only increasing your skill and value as an aircrew member. Besides, I can attest that I've spent a lot of time in the in the back seat these days because I fly with a lot of "senior" pilots who would rather have another pilot in the right seat. I also think of my wife who originally didn't like to fly and yet completed observer training and now loves to fly. It's kind of nice having something like that in common with your wife.
Quote from: N Harmon on July 17, 2009, 12:57:42 PM
Quote from: Always Ready on July 16, 2009, 08:44:12 PMOk, lets make an "enlisted aircrew" wing for us. MPs and MOs still get to keep their respective wings, but MSs/Photographers/ARCHER folks/etc get their own set. Mirroring the AF, he "officer" positions of MP and MO still have their distinctive wings, while the "enlisted" positions get their own wings. The same rules we use for MO Senior and Master wings would apply to our "enlisted aircrew" wings.
Thoughts?
I think you're missing that the Air Force has an "officer aircrew" badge, and that in CAP there are no officer and enlisted aircrew positions. You could theoretically have a Lt Col as scanner with a SMSgt as MP and a 2nd Lt as Observer.
No I didn't miss that. I used the words "officer" and "enlisted" just as a form of context. Having generic aircrew wings for all of our folks who work hard in the backseat is akin to the USAF enlisted aircrew badge. Make sense now?
Quote from: Always Ready on July 18, 2009, 01:45:50 AMNo I didn't miss that. I used the words "officer" and "enlisted" just as a form of context. Having generic aircrew wings for all of our folks who work hard in the backseat is akin to the USAF enlisted aircrew badge.
No, it's not. Let's not draw paralells that don't exist. And there are more than a few Air Force enlisted aircrew members that would have some issues with the assumption that their wings are "generic".
Quote from: Hawk200 on July 18, 2009, 02:23:03 AM
Quote from: Always Ready on July 18, 2009, 01:45:50 AMNo I didn't miss that. I used the words "officer" and "enlisted" just as a form of context. Having generic aircrew wings for all of our folks who work hard in the backseat is akin to the USAF enlisted aircrew badge.
And there are more than a few Air Force enlisted aircrew members that would have some issues with the assumption that their wings are "generic".
And where did I say that they have a generic badge??? I said CAP needs to have a generic (I'm using this term very loosely) aircrew badge for the folks in the backseat. I never said that the USAF enlisted aircrew badge was generic. And to cover my butt, I didn't say the USAF officer aircrew badge is generic either. Trust me...I have friends who would kick my butt if I did.
But, I'll drop the subject. Adiós!
ETA: The comparison is that *most* enlisted aircrew positions don't have a separate badge for their different specialties. For example, boom operators don't have a different badge than loadmasters. They share a common badge. CAP needs to do the same thing.
Quote from: Always Ready on July 18, 2009, 01:45:50 AM
No I didn't miss that. I used the words "officer" and "enlisted" just as a form of context. Having generic aircrew wings for all of our folks who work hard in the backseat is akin to the USAF enlisted aircrew badge. Make sense now?
I'm not familiar enough with the differences between the enlisted aircrew and officer aircrew wings in the real Air Force to say that CAP's should be akin to one or the other. But aside from that, I think we're on the same page.
Part of the funding the wing gets from national is based on the number of qualified Mission Pilots and Mission Observers within the wing. Mission Pilots who are also Mission Observers are counted twice. Mission Observer Wings are an incentive for Mission Scanners to get qualified in the front seat. More Mission Observers, more Wing money. What is the downside??
QuoteWhat is the downside??
Quality vs quantity. Not everyone has the capability in the first place (a minority, but it exists) or if they do have the capability not everyone is able to fly Observer often enough (which takes more than the minimum requirements to keep the qualification) in order to truly perform well as an Observer.
The absolute last reason we should encourage people to become Observers is to obtain funding and really it shouldn't even enter the equation. That just sends the message that we really don't care about developing high quality crewmembers.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 19, 2009, 01:49:10 AMThe absolute last reason we should encourage people to become Observers is to obtain funding and really it shouldn't even enter the equation. That just sends the message that we really don't care about developing high quality crewmembers.
I have to agree. Quantity for the sake of funding isn't right.
Now if they used the funding for regular training of the aircrews, I might have fewer issues with it.
Quote from: Short Field on July 19, 2009, 01:37:20 AM
Part of the funding the wing gets from national is based on the number of qualified Mission Pilots and Mission Observers within the wing. Mission Pilots who are also Mission Observers are counted twice.
Cite please.
Another issue preventing some scanners from moving forward is the attitude of some pilots that they will only fly with another pilot or someone they personally trained in the right seat. I'd like to say this was a rare occurance, but it happens frequently enough that demobilizing those pilots from exercises and missions is not feasible.
Quote from: N Harmon on July 18, 2009, 02:23:14 PM
Quote from: Always Ready on July 18, 2009, 01:45:50 AM
No I didn't miss that. I used the words "officer" and "enlisted" just as a form of context. Having generic aircrew wings for all of our folks who work hard in the backseat is akin to the USAF enlisted aircrew badge. Make sense now?
I'm not familiar enough with the differences between the enlisted aircrew and officer aircrew wings in the real Air Force to say that CAP's should be akin to one or the other. But aside from that, I think we're on the same page.
Short story on the differences, Officer Wings (Pilot, Navigator, Officer Aircrew) have a shield in the center of wings while Enlisted Aircrew Wings are round in the middle.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 19, 2009, 02:16:29 AM
Quote from: Short Field on July 19, 2009, 01:37:20 AM
Part of the funding the wing gets from national is based on the number of qualified Mission Pilots and Mission Observers within the wing. Mission Pilots who are also Mission Observers are counted twice.
Cite please.
Don't know a current citation, but I too have seen it in an official document at some point in the recent past.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 19, 2009, 02:32:25 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 19, 2009, 02:16:29 AM
Quote from: Short Field on July 19, 2009, 01:37:20 AM
Part of the funding the wing gets from national is based on the number of qualified Mission Pilots and Mission Observers within the wing. Mission Pilots who are also Mission Observers are counted twice.
Cite please.
Don't know a current citation, but I too have seen it in an official document at some point in the recent past.
I'm aware of funding appropriations and equipment being issued based on number of pilots and hours flown, but I can't imagine why having more Observers would matter, and if they are double-counting MPs who are also MO's, that sounds like an FW&A issue.
???
I don't understand the issue now.
MS's don't get any wings because the are considered an entry level position to MO or MP.
National gives money out based on how many MO's and MP's you have.
No one is or has suggested that we somehow encourage more people to get MO or MP qualifications just for funding.
No one....especially Short Field....is suggesting we sacrafice quality just to get more "qualified" MOs and the funding that comes with it.
But the facts remain....National doles out money and equipment based on numbers.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 19, 2009, 01:49:10 AM
The absolute last reason we should encourage people to become Observers is to obtain funding and really it shouldn't even enter the equation. That just sends the message that we really don't care about developing high quality crewmembers.
The reason we need to encourage people to become Observers is to increase the NUMBER of people who know what is going on in the airplane on a mission and can help take some of the load off the MP so the mission is flown more effectively and more SAFELY. Scanners do a key job - but EVERY Mission Pilot and Observer is ALSO a SCANNER. They get wings for having a SECOND aircrew rating.
Providing good training is hard - but no excuse to not provide it. And Hell has a special place reserved for people who sign-off people who can't do the job.
QuoteEVERY Mission Pilot and Observer is ALSO a SCANNER
Correction: EVERY Mission Pilot and Observer HAS BEEN BUT IS NOT NECESSARILY NOW, a SCANNER.
Quote from: Short Field on July 19, 2009, 03:23:39 AM
The absolute last reason we should encourage people to become Observers is to obtain funding and really it shouldn't even enter the equation. That just sends the message that we really don't care about developing high quality crewmembers.
So...
Now scanners don't know anything, don't do anything, and aren't as "high-quality" as MPs and MO's.
Nice.
Mission pilots drive.
Mission observers talk and point.
Mission scanners actually do the
work of the mission.
None is more or less important than the others - don't bother trying to make the argument, it won't "fly", unless over-tasked aircrew doing more than they should just to make the point that they can is a "good" idea. ::)
I'll make a deal with you guys - keep the wings in trade for losing the elitist attitude just because you sit in the front seats.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 19, 2009, 02:49:55 AMI don't understand the issue now.
I think I am starting to. I think I am beginning to understand that there exists an institutionalized indifference to the job of mission scanner. Think about it. This is the one aircrew position for which we may not even activate an air branch but to utilize it; and yet the training and recognition we see for this position is nowhere near proportional to its importance.
The best I can figure is that the job of mission scanner just isn't as "cool" as mission pilot or mission observer/navigator/commander. And thus, nobody really respects it or expects much of it. I think subtle things like incorporating aircrew wings for these positions would go a long way to change that attitudes, but it alone won't do the job.
(previous 3 replies slipped in as I hit the "post" button)
Quote from: Eclipse on July 19, 2009, 03:52:21 AM
Quote from: Short Field on July 19, 2009, 03:23:39 AM
The absolute last reason we should encourage people to become Observers is to obtain funding and really it shouldn't even enter the equation. That just sends the message that we really don't care about developing high quality crewmembers.
So...
Now scanners don't know anything, don't do anything, and aren't as "high-quality" as MPs and MO's.
Nice.
Mission pilots drive.
Mission observers talk and point.
Mission scanners actually do the work of the mission.
None is more or less important than the others - don't bother trying to make the argument, it won't "fly", unless over-tasked aircrew doing more than they should just to make the point that they can is a "good" idea. ::)
I'll make a deal with you guys - keep the wings in trade for losing the elitist attitude just because you sit in the front seats.
You might want to remember that I started this thread as a defense of the Scanner job as an important position in its own right.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 19, 2009, 03:59:57 AM
You might want to remember that I started this thread as a defense of the Scanner job as an important position in its own right.
Point taken, but it seems to have walked away from there back into the typical us/them nonsense.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 19, 2009, 03:52:21 AM
Quote from: Short Field on July 19, 2009, 03:23:39 AM
The absolute last reason we should encourage people to become Observers is to obtain funding and really it shouldn't even enter the equation. That just sends the message that we really don't care about developing high quality crewmembers.
So...
Now scanners don't know anything, don't do anything, and aren't as "high-quality" as MPs and MO's.
Nice.
Mission pilots drive.
Mission observers talk and point.
Mission scanners actually do the work of the mission.
Mission observers talk and point to/from the grid. In the container, they're primary role is to be a mission scanner as well. Many MO's forget that their primary job is still that of a visual search.
Then it is just because someone was too LAZY to properly document their revailidations as MP/MO or they decided they did not want a Scanner Ops Qual. Read 60-3 about revalidations and equivilant sorties.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 19, 2009, 03:52:21 AM
Quote from: Short Field on July 19, 2009, 03:23:39 AM
The absolute last reason we should encourage people to become Observers is to obtain funding and really it shouldn't even enter the equation. That just sends the message that we really don't care about developing high quality crewmembers.
Please don't quote me as saying things that other people said.
Agreed. That bit of prose came from RiverAux.
All,
I am interested in hearing how the Scanner position is used in your operational and SAREX missions. In the two squadrons I am currently involved with they have no role.
One squadron flies almost exclusively with a crew of two MPs the other doesn't allow scanners on opertional or graded excersises.
JB
Quote from: JB_407 on May 12, 2010, 04:10:13 PM
One squadron flies almost exclusively with a crew of two MPs the other doesn't allow scanners on opertional or graded excersises.
Is that a crew of ONLY two MPs in the airplane or do they have a person in the backseat?
Quote from: JB_407 on May 12, 2010, 04:10:13 PM
One squadron flies almost exclusively with a crew of two MPs the other doesn't allow scanners on opertional or graded exercises.
I'm surprised CAP-USAF hasn't made an issue out of this - for starters there are either safety issues if the pilot is searching instead of
flying, or efficacy issues if the pilot isn't searching.
As a primary function mission scanners are the left-side eyes of the aircraft and take the photographs / video / run SDIS, etc. Without
a scanner, mission effectiveness is severely degraded because someone is doing double work for no reason.
How this is lost or allowed to continue is beyond me. Its one thing for a single unit or aircrew to be misinformed, but when they show up to missions this should be corrected by people who know better.
Graded? Sounds like hand picked crews and GOB activity to me. Thats night right at all.
If they think the training is no good, then they need to run that up the chain. But by excluding folks because "no one can do it as good as we can", isn't the answer and will backfire in the future when those that are "the only ones capable of doing the mission" burn out, or otherwise don't get their way at some point when they are used to getting nothing but their way, and they take their ball and go home.
Been there, done that, felt the effects of it. One more reason Cadet Programs and Aerospace Education look a lot more interesting every day, than dealing with all the GOBs and politics.
^^^^
You in my Wing??
Pretty prevalent in ALOT of Wings....some GOB's do not want to pass on the knowledge
Poor leadership, poor mentorship, poor forward thinking .......plenty of that to think about for CAP's future if today's "leaders" can not even step up to the plate thinking they are the sole answer to CAP future and its abilities to secure missions, funding, and future respect.
Quote from: JB_407 on May 12, 2010, 04:10:13 PM
All,
I am interested in hearing how the Scanner position is used in your operational and SAREX missions. In the two squadrons I am currently involved with they have no role.
One squadron flies almost exclusively with a crew of two MPs the other doesn't allow scanners on opertional or graded excersises.
JB
In our squadron, we routinely fly with a scanner in the backsit during missions (CD or SAR) and SAREX.
Very often we also fly with two MPs, we are lucky to have quite a few qualified MPs in our squadron. When two MPs fly, the right seat MP acts as an Observer. Many times, an Observer or MP will fly in the back seat and act as an Scanner when a MS is not readily available.
Note that we fly a C-182. In some squadrons that fly the C-172, they may have to trade the backseat for fuel (a payload issue) to get more air endurance time. In that case, they may be forced to unload a MS and take a MP or MO only in the front right seat, I wouldn't take that as a sign of the MS having less significance, but simply as a constraint of the resources available for the mission. After all, all MPs and MOs are also qualified MSs.
Quote from: vento on May 12, 2010, 05:12:36 PM
Note that we fly a C-182. In some squadrons that fly the C-172, they may have to trade the backseat for fuel (a payload issue) to get more air endurance time. In that case, they may be forced to unload a MS and take a MP or MO only in the front right seat, I wouldn't take that as a sign of the MS having less significance, but simply as a constraint of the resources available for the mission. After all, all MPs and MOs are also qualified MSs.
A legit point, but proper fuel management generally solves that issue. BTDT.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 12, 2010, 05:19:57 PM
Quote from: vento on May 12, 2010, 05:12:36 PM
Note that we fly a C-182. In some squadrons that fly the C-172, they may have to trade the backseat for fuel (a payload issue) to get more air endurance time. In that case, they may be forced to unload a MS and take a MP or MO only in the front right seat, I wouldn't take that as a sign of the MS having less significance, but simply as a constraint of the resources available for the mission. After all, all MPs and MOs are also qualified MSs.
A legit point, but proper fuel management generally solves that issue. BTDT.
Also a legit point in regards to fuel management. Here in CAWG, our members are relatively big and mostly over 200 Lbs in the 205-230 Lbs range. Take that times three aircrew members in a C172 and we end up with anywhere between 20 and 30 gallons of fuel which translates into roughly 2 to 3 hours of total airtime. Much less when taking into consideration the required legal minimum fuel on board, so the fuel available for mission is drastically reduced.
It takes fuel to fly to the grid and back to the base, therefore it's not uncommon to drop an aircrew in order to carry some more fuel and work the mission with minor compromises. Also it can get sort of hot here in SoCal, and very often Density Altitude becomes an issue if the grid is at some elevation and thus forcing us to fly with only two aircrew members.
You should only be flying two MPs on a mission in a few circumstances. First would be if you don't have MSs or MOs who are AVAILABLE to fly (note I didn't say qualified - as the MP should be willing to train them). Second, if one of the MPs needs to have a check ride and the other MP is the check pilot. Third, if one of the MPs is signed off as qualified but not really safe to fly alone (should be corrected by good leadership). Otherwise you should fly TWO sorties and give more MSs and MOs a change to fly and train.
The GOBs might complain about how hard it is to get other pilots to join CAP but the ugly truth is they don't want the competition for the free flying.
Are MPs flying as scanners and observers held to the same crew rest standards as the actual PIC?
Quote from: NC Hokie on May 12, 2010, 06:00:12 PM
Are MPs flying as scanners and observers held to the same crew rest standards as the actual PIC?
Crew rest standards apply to the whole air
crew.
The argument that there needs to be scanner wings is being put forth by a lot of the people that want to burn Vanguard to the ground or want to do away with uniform bling altogether.
Here's the deal, Mission Scanner is an important position, the extra set of eyes is great to have and someone has to operate the camera in our increasing number of photo missions.
However there are a lot of other mission critical positions that do not have badges, MSA, UDF and MRO to name a few.
The wings we have are to recognize the hours of time put into training in learning the systems or learning to fly the aircraft. There are knowledges that the MO and MP have that are simply more advanced and are not part of the MS requirements (requirements that a perspective MO and MP have to complete also).
As it stands, the job of the MS is evolving and becoming more complex as our missions change and is becoming a more and more vital part of our aircrew than "flare assistance ballast". Maybe one day there will be a badge, but let us not be so hasty to give our money to Vanguard.
Quote from: Short Field on May 12, 2010, 04:14:49 PM
Quote from: JB_407 on May 12, 2010, 04:10:13 PM
One squadron flies almost exclusively with a crew of two MPs the other doesn't allow scanners on opertional or graded excersises.
Is that a crew of ONLY two MPs in the airplane or do they have a person in the backseat?
Crew of two
That is just a joy ride, not a search mission. I bet they both log the flight time in their log books as PIC.
Cant comment on how they long time but they are real search missions.
Sometimes, you have to work with what you have. MS is an important position, especially in a visual search or Photo mission. Hunting for an ELT electronically, not so much. I have launched several ELT missions with 2 pilots because that's who was available. Really crappy weather, at night, overwater, 2 pilots makes for a safer flight (in theory) and is sometimes required by the regulations.
Quote from: tsrup on May 13, 2010, 06:23:14 AM
Quote from: NC Hokie on May 12, 2010, 06:00:12 PM
Are MPs flying as scanners and observers held to the same crew rest standards as the actual PIC?
Crew rest standards apply to the whole air crew.
Well then, that seems to be a perfect reason for NHQ to take the lead and forbid the use of MPs in other aircrew roles if there are qualified non-pilots available to fill those slots. If MPs are a finite resource (and in many wings they are), it makes no sense to let them burn their precious crew time doing anything other than their most valuable job.
^ They are going to burn their duty day whether they are sitting in the ICP or flying. Its starts from when you leave the house in the AM, not wheels up.
Quote from: N Harmon on July 19, 2009, 03:57:41 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 19, 2009, 02:49:55 AMI don't understand the issue now.
I think I am starting to. I think I am beginning to understand that there exists an institutionalized indifference to the job of mission scanner. Think about it. This is the one aircrew position for which we may not even activate an air branch but to utilize it; and yet the training and recognition we see for this position is nowhere near proportional to its importance.
The best I can figure is that the job of mission scanner just isn't as "cool" as mission pilot or mission observer/navigator/commander. And thus, nobody really respects it or expects much of it. I think subtle things like incorporating aircrew wings for these positions would go a long way to change that attitudes, but it alone won't do the job.
(previous 3 replies slipped in as I hit the "post" button)
As a new MS and non-pilot but also having flown on three critical missions in the last six weeks, I can tell you that I have been treated as nothing other than a fellow "professional" by the folks in the front seats with the wings and the FAA licenses. And I think our other non-pilot MSs in at least this half of my state would say they've had the same experience.
When I'm the MS on a photo mission, we're there to get photos. The front seat people want to put me in the best position possible, as safely as possible, to get the mission critical photos. I also log wheels up/wheels down and basically only talk when spoken to or I have something I think is important to say. I'm trying to scan and absorb as much as I can.
We are a team and a crew in the air, not a collection of individuals. Everyone has an important and defined role. I have enormous respect for the MPs and MOs and all that they have to do to complete a safe and successful mission. And they seem to respect me and my other non-pilot MSs for what we do.
I believe the SDWG, NDWG, and MNWG flew nearly two weeks straight of flooding photo missions in March. Sometimes we had two MPs in the plane, but it was clear--one MP, one MO. No egos. Just the mission. And when you have a small wing like we do in the Dakotas, we need all hands on deck (within the safety and crew hour guidelines, of course). That people with jobs and school and families would cheerfully volunteer for so many days of the mission is a testament to their dedication and our great CAP aviation tradition.
I didn't sign up to be an MS so I could get wings. I signed up because I had good photo skills, I love to fly, I wanted to learn more about aviation, and it was/is a critical need to our Wing's missions. I'm also training to be an MO, which I realize will be a lengthy process because of all I have to learn as a non-pilot. But being an MS, in my opinion, is an interesting, honorable, important, and useful duty.
Quote from: JB_407 on May 13, 2010, 06:42:41 AM
Cant comment on how they long time but they are real search missions.
I assume you mean log time. If they are a search mission looking for something on the ground, then who is searching out the left window - the MP?
I have reviewed debriefing reports from CAP missions that ONLY had one person on board - the MP. That mission did a search plus took photos.
Quote from: Short Field on May 13, 2010, 09:01:32 PM
Quote from: JB_407 on May 13, 2010, 06:42:41 AM
Cant comment on how they long time but they are real search missions.
I assume you mean log time. If they are a search mission looking for something on the ground, then who is searching out the left window - the MP?
I have reviewed debriefing reports from CAP missions that ONLY had one person on board - the MP. That mission did a search plus took photos.
How did he get a release? At least three people made grade A stupid decisions there.
Here is a direct quote from a Wing Operations Officer after seeing that a crew didn't fly the mission as briefed: "What do you expect me to do - he is one of our best pilots!"
Yes I did mean to type log instead of long. I guess I shouldn't post at 1:45 am.
At any rate yes the MP would have to observe out the left window.
Quote from: JB_407 on May 14, 2010, 03:35:56 AM
Yes I did mean to type log instead of long. I guess I shouldn't post at 1:45 am.
At any rate yes the MP would have to observe out the left window.
I thought MPs were prohibited from looking at the ground on a search?
Quote from: davidsinn on May 14, 2010, 03:54:03 AM
Quote from: JB_407 on May 14, 2010, 03:35:56 AM
Yes I did mean to type log instead of long. I guess I shouldn't post at 1:45 am.
At any rate yes the MP would have to observe out the left window.
I thought MPs were prohibited from looking at the ground on a search?
Not prohibited from looking at the ground, as many of the things we do require ground reference....but engaging in visually searching, yeah, not a good idea.
Quote from: SJFedor on May 14, 2010, 04:11:16 AM
Quote from: davidsinn on May 14, 2010, 03:54:03 AM
Quote from: JB_407 on May 14, 2010, 03:35:56 AM
Yes I did mean to type log instead of long. I guess I shouldn't post at 1:45 am.
At any rate yes the MP would have to observe out the left window.
I thought MPs were prohibited from looking at the ground on a search?
Not prohibited from looking at the ground, as many of the things we do require ground reference....but engaging in visually searching, yeah, not a good idea.
That's what I meant. Obviously you can't do a pylon turn on a photo target without looking at 9:00 low. I just remember hearing or reading that MPs are not to engage in a visual search.
The really good pilots don't have to follow the rules.
The Observer's job .. is to observe. Everything.
The MP, thats the bus driver.
The scanner, look for the objective of the mission.
... now reality?
Everyone is looking out the window.
Quote from: JB_407 on May 14, 2010, 03:35:56 AM
Yes I did mean to type log instead of long. I guess I shouldn't post at 1:45 am.
At any rate yes the MP would have to observe out the left window.
With proper technique its not necessary to look out both sides of the aircraft anyway. Might be more efficient way to cover ground but what about for instance when flying a tandem aircraft?
"Might" be more efficient to have people looking out windows on both sides of the plane? I think that is about twice as efficient.... Do we have to send planes up with only 2 people every now and again? Sure, but that is the last resort (sending up only an MP is a non-starter).
Quote from: JB_407 on May 15, 2010, 12:44:24 AM
Quote from: JB_407 on May 14, 2010, 03:35:56 AM
Yes I did mean to type log instead of long. I guess I shouldn't post at 1:45 am.
At any rate yes the MP would have to observe out the left window.
With proper technique its not necessary to look out both sides of the aircraft anyway. Might be more efficient way to cover ground but what about for instance when flying a tandem aircraft?
How many tandem a/c have you seen participate in a CAP search mission recently?
Two if you only count CAP operated aircraft. Quite a few more if you count all aircraft involved in a search along with CAP. However that really isn't the point. I am only suggesting that one can adjust techniques to fit circumstances.
What tandem aircraft is CAP operating? Granted my info is a bit old but last I saw was 16xGA-8, 22xC206, 285xC182, and 195xC172 None are tandem. Are you talking Corporate or something a squadron acquired?
Quote from: JB_407 on May 15, 2010, 12:44:24 AM
With proper technique its not necessary to look out both sides of the aircraft anyway.
What proper technique are you talking about? Are you talking about an expanding square where you put the MS & MO on the same side of the airplane to look out the right side? That is possible but that is the only search pattern it would work on.
The point is that there is no MS but besides that yes expanding square, sector search, spiral search and modified grid searches all work. Seems that most search patterns can be modified easily to accommodate right turns only.
As far as the tandems I was speaking of both are PA-18s. There is an Aeronca in CAP colors but I have never seen it in a search might be a member aircraft for all I know. While not a tandem there is a C-170 here that appears to be a wing aircraft but again could be a member aircraft.
As far as your list of aircraft go I don't think there is an age issue its just not all inclusive. It fails to mention the C185's and DHC-2s we fly here and I am certain they are corporate.
Quote from: JB_407 on May 15, 2010, 07:24:00 AM
The point is that there is no MS but besides that yes expanding square, sector search, spiral search and modified grid searches all work. Seems that most search patterns can be modified easily to accommodate right turns only.
As far as the tandems I was speaking of both are PA-18s. There is an Aeronca in CAP colors but I have never seen it in a search might be a member aircraft for all I know. While not a tandem there is a C-170 here that appears to be a wing aircraft but again could be a member aircraft.
As far as your list of aircraft go I don't think there is an age issue its just not all inclusive. It fails to mention the C185's and DHC-2s we fly here and I am certain they are corporate.
As of today:
| A/C Type |
|
|
| | C-172 | 205 |
|
| | C-182 | 309 |
|
| | C-206 | 21 |
|
| | A185F | 4 |
|
| | DHC2 | 7 |
|
| | GA-8 | 0 |
|
| | MT-7-235 | 4 | |
| | P68TC | 0 |
|
| | Total | 550 | |
|
|
Quote from: JB_407 on May 15, 2010, 07:24:00 AM
The point is that there is no MS but besides that yes expanding square, sector search, spiral search and modified grid searches all work. Seems that most search patterns can be modified easily to accommodate right turns only.
Why would you? CAP has a very fine, workable aircrew program that assume 3-4 people in the aircraft.
Rather than perpetuate the mentality of MP's who think they can do it all by re-writing the program, how about we just work
on letting some scanners fly, too?
Quote from: JB_407 on May 15, 2010, 07:24:00 AM
The point is that there is no MS but besides that yes expanding square, sector search, spiral search and modified grid searches all work. Seems that most search patterns can be modified easily to accommodate right turns only.
Just because the plane keeps turning to the right doesn't mean that you're searching as much area as you would with two people in that plane doing that pattern. An expanding square with an observer and a scanner is still going to be twice as efficient as an expanding square with just an observer.
Exactly.
This isn't UPS, left turns don't hurt us in the air. Work on busting the GOB networks.
Further - anyone who has ever actually looked for a downed aircraft, especially in heavy canopy, etc., knows that literally the blink of an eye or
a slightly different angle can make the difference.
A pilot has to be checking course, other traffic, and various instruments to say safe, which means his attention it divided at best.
Pick your argument - flight safety is compromised or mission effectiveness.
Either way there is no good reason or excuse to go up with less than three aircrew.
I've looked down and saw, and then looked to the scanner log to annotate only to completely loose what I saw. Many times. Or flown ever the same thing time and time again and never saw it.
Lighting, angle, reflection. They are all huge factors. Very huge.
Quote from: RiverAux on May 15, 2010, 04:38:51 PM
Quote from: JB_407 on May 15, 2010, 07:24:00 AM
The point is that there is no MS but besides that yes expanding square, sector search, spiral search and modified grid searches all work. Seems that most search patterns can be modified easily to accommodate right turns only.
Just because the plane keeps turning to the right doesn't mean that you're searching as much area as you would with two people in that plane doing that pattern. An expanding square with an observer and a scanner is still going to be twice as efficient as an expanding square with just an observer.
Dont get me wrong I am not an advocate of flying without a scanner in fact the point of this post is to gain them a more active role. However that being said adding a scanner does not make the search twice as efficient.
You might want to check your math. You will end up searching twice as much ground with two lookers in the plane in the same amount of time as you will with only 1 person looking out the window. Yes, you can search that amount of ground with 1 person, but it will take twice as long.
Quote from: RiverAux on May 15, 2010, 07:50:34 PM
You might want to check your math. You will end up searching twice as much ground with two lookers in the plane in the same amount of time as you will with only 1 person looking out the window. Yes, you can search that amount of ground with 1 person, but it will take twice as long.
The math is not linear.
Look at the POD table. If you search a grid with a POD of 50%...then search it again with a POD of 50%...your cumulative POD does not jump to 100%, it only goes up to 70%.
Same thing with a two searcher sector. The will not overlap 100% and they both may miss the same area.
On the issue of the OP.
IMHO Scanner needs to changed to BAQ (Basic Aircrew Qualification).
It is the entry level qualification to train to one of the mission ratings.
The duties of the guy in the back seat (the scanner) is just a job.
Should it be filled? Heck yea! Every seat that can be safely filled should be filled for each flight!
Do they "HAVE TO" be filled? Well a lot of that depends of the circumstances.
If you have a weight issue or power issue then no.
If you have a manpower issue then no.
Each flight (IMHO) must have an MP and a BAQ rated member (no solo SARs!), but there are legitmate reason for not filling a seat.
Adding more eyes to search increases your POD and/or allows you to increase your track spacing, which means you can finish your grid faster.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 15, 2010, 08:20:05 PM
The math is not linear.
Uh, yes it is. If you have to fly an area twice with one looker to cover all the ground that would have been covered wtih one flight with 2 people looking out the window you actually aren't searching the same area twice. You are searcing what would have been seen on the right side of the aircraft on the first fly through and when you come around you search what was missed on that first pass. So, to get the equivalent of that 50% POD you actually have to fly it twice.
Yes, it is linear because he was talking total area searched. POD and area searched are two separate things. While not directly related to area searched, the search width effectively doubles if you have people looking out both sides of the airplane. Search width is related to POD as it is selected to optimize the POD. It would take 8 passes to search the same size area to the same POD with one searcher and only 4 passes with two searchers.
Oops....I thought we were talking about two people looking out the same side of the plane.
Yes....an observer and scanner make the flight shorter by allowing the pilot to increase the track spacing.
Quote from: Short Field on May 15, 2010, 11:17:19 PM
Yes, it is linear because he was talking total area searched. POD and area searched are two separate things. While not directly related to area searched, the search width effectively doubles if you have people looking out both sides of the airplane. Search width is related to POD as it is selected to optimize the POD. It would take 8 passes to search the same size area to the same POD with one searcher and only 4 passes with two searchers.
If efficiency is simply number of passes per ground covered you are correct.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 15, 2010, 04:53:59 PM
Further - anyone who has ever actually looked for a downed aircraft, especially in heavy canopy, etc., knows that literally the blink of an eye or
a slightly different angle can make the difference.
A pilot has to be checking course, other traffic, and various instruments to say safe, which means his attention it divided at best.
Pick your argument - flight safety is compromised or mission effectiveness.
Either way there is no good reason or excuse to go up with less than three aircrew.
Youve not done weight and balance for our 185 then.
Quote from: JB_407 on May 16, 2010, 02:05:22 AM
Youve not done weight and balance for our 185 then.
Not sure how that's relevant.
The three person crew would be to heavy for the 60 hp rule?
What 60 hp rule?
Dave: I believe that the famous 60 hp rule was in a PAC Region Supplement, which was allowed to expire, therefore no longer in force. For those of you interested, it meant that a 182 was a three person airplane: 60 divided into 230 hp=3 people.
I understand that the new G1000 airplanes are really two CAP people airplanes: assuming that a lot of CAP aircrew are in the 225+ category.
[Emily Litella impression]
Never mind.
[/Emily Litella impression]
Quote from: bosshawk on May 16, 2010, 02:48:39 AM
I understand that the new G1000 airplanes are really two CAP people airplanes: assuming that a lot of CAP aircrew are in the 225+ category.
You assume incorrectly.
Oh please tell US G1000 drivers (current or not so) Eclipse!!
The airplane can still be flown with 3 heavy GOB's in the cockpit...
You are just not going to land with a full bag of fuel until one / you burn off at least 1.5 hours worth of fuel
The airplane can approach some dogginess with tubbies on board and the extra battery aft is helping the weight issue either.
Can be flown with tubbies .......just do your W&B !!!
Quote from: Eclipse on May 16, 2010, 02:10:02 AM
Quote from: JB_407 on May 16, 2010, 02:05:22 AM
Youve not done weight and balance for our 185 then.
Not sure how that's relevant.
With required gear and crew of 3 plus full bags its over gross!
Quote from: JB_407 on May 16, 2010, 04:54:55 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 16, 2010, 02:10:02 AM
Quote from: JB_407 on May 16, 2010, 02:05:22 AM
Youve not done weight and balance for our 185 then.
Not sure how that's relevant.
With required gear and crew of 3 plus full bags its over gross!
Don't bring the bags.
Fill with less fuel.
"Required gear?" Choose another airplane.
Every wing can make their own rules to make their own lives more difficult. If you're flying over water and have to have some goofy raft, so be it.
If you have to wear Nomex, so be it. If you need an expresso machine so be...(wait, that's be cool).
None of the 1% excuses about fuel load, weight, etc., are any justification for the nonsense our scanners endure from many MP's who think they own the airplanes and the flying program.
Quote from: davidsinn on May 16, 2010, 04:56:57 PM
Sounds like a NAV III. Only fill to the tabs and you fix your over gross.
Yep.
Those that work and play well with others seem to be able to make these things work, while those no one wants to play with always seem to have some reason why they are the only people who can fly.
Quote from: JB_407 on May 16, 2010, 04:54:55 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 16, 2010, 02:10:02 AM
Quote from: JB_407 on May 16, 2010, 02:05:22 AM
Youve not done weight and balance for our 185 then.
Not sure how that's relevant.
With required gear and crew of 3 plus full bags its over gross!
Sounds like a NAV III. Only fill to the tabs and you fix your over gross.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 16, 2010, 04:56:02 PM
Quote from: JB_407 on May 16, 2010, 04:54:55 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 16, 2010, 02:10:02 AM
Quote from: JB_407 on May 16, 2010, 02:05:22 AM
Youve not done weight and balance for our 185 then.
Not sure how that's relevant.
Don't bring the bags.
If you had read my post with understanding you would realize the reference to full bags was pilot speak for full load of fuel. So not bringing them isn't a choice.
Fill with less fuel.
Yes this is certainly an option for some missions. However it could mean less time over target. It could require a RTB to refill which in my AO could easily mean 2 hours of transit time. Is it worth those two hours just to fill another seat?
"Required gear?"
Yes required gear, require by state statute. As PICI should ignore those standards? Maybe you will fly into the Alaska arctic without your survival gear just to fill a 3 seat. I'm won't.
Choose another airplane.
I don't select the aircraft and some squadrons don't have multiple aircraft to choose from. When the mission calls for a ski equipped plane this is the one we have most of the time.
The point you seem to have missed is that at times it makes sense to fly with two. Certainly not for every mission maybe not even for most missions but for some yes.
With required gear and crew of 3 plus full bags its over gross!
Don't bring the bags.
Fill with less fuel.
"Required gear?" Choose another airplane.
Every wing can make their own rules to make their own lives more difficult. If you're flying over water and have to have some goofy raft, so be it.
If you have to wear Nomex, so be it. If you need an expresso machine so be...(wait, that's be cool).
None of the 1% excuses about fuel load, weight, etc., are any justification for the nonsense our scanners endure from many MP's who think they own the airplanes and the flying program.
Quote from: davidsinn on May 16, 2010, 04:56:57 PM
Sounds like a NAV III. Only fill to the tabs and you fix your over gross.
Yep.
Those that work and play well with others seem to be able to make these things work, while those no one wants to play with always seem to have some reason why they are the only people who can fly.
Scanners,
Seems that many feel scanners don't get a fair shake. Is this true for MO's as well? And if it isn't what is keeping the scanners from becoming qualified MO's?. Are squadrons not providing opportunities?
Our Wing ran an MO school for the MS's last year, had about 4-6 attend. I think quite a few of the non-pilot MS's may be a bit intimidated by the ground school type materials... JMHO
You could well be correct.
Another issue is many pilots won't let a non-pilot fly right seat for safety reasons in case something happens to them.
At the risk of angering the zipper suited sky gods, almost anyone can fly a Cessena well enough to land it in an emergency. Is this desireable, no, but it is reality. If something happens to the pilot - it is an emergency and most rules go out the window. Will the plane be damaged? possibly, but folks will survive.
Quote from: arajca on May 17, 2010, 12:05:10 AM
Another issue is many pilots won't let a non-pilot fly right seat for safety reasons in case something happens to them.
If they're that worried they should not be flying.
Quote from: arajca on May 17, 2010, 12:05:10 AM
Another issue is many pilots won't let a non-pilot fly right seat for safety reasons in case something happens to them.
Cool thing about that is our MP don't get to choose who rides right seat!
The big sticker here in NVWG is we got a few pilots who won't let the MO's do their job.
They get to shut up and look out the window. Don't touch the radios, don't read the checklists, don't follow along with the chart, and lord forbid you try to tell them that they are in the wrong grid or not following the road far enough north!
Having said that....for the most part our MP's are great...they give you stick time, explain what is going on and work with you as a team. It is the few bad apples that spoil it for the rest.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 17, 2010, 01:29:50 AM
Quote from: arajca on May 17, 2010, 12:05:10 AM
Another issue is many pilots won't let a non-pilot fly right seat for safety reasons in case something happens to them.
Cool thing about that is our MP don't get to choose who rides right seat!
The big sticker here in NVWG is we got a few pilots who won't let the MO's do their job.
They get to shut up and look out the window. Don't touch the radios, don't read the checklists, don't follow along with the chart, and lord forbid you try to tell them that they are in the wrong grid or not following the road far enough north!
How does that happen more than once?
If they are that worried .. yeah, they ought not be flying. .. I show everyone in my aircraft how to tune the radio, how to talk on it, and what to say in an emergency.
I'm confident that should the need arise, ATC services will help out the best they can.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 17, 2010, 01:37:59 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 17, 2010, 01:29:50 AM
Quote from: arajca on May 17, 2010, 12:05:10 AM
Another issue is many pilots won't let a non-pilot fly right seat for safety reasons in case something happens to them.
Cool thing about that is our MP don't get to choose who rides right seat!
The big sticker here in NVWG is we got a few pilots who won't let the MO's do their job.
They get to shut up and look out the window. Don't touch the radios, don't read the checklists, don't follow along with the chart, and lord forbid you try to tell them that they are in the wrong grid or not following the road far enough north!
How does that happen more than once?
What? When other pilots can't get pilots fired for not flying their grids or flying at 200 feet AGL (on camera!). When pilots are kicked out of national level training programs because they can't shut up.....why do you think they are going to do anything because a pilot does not trust his MOs?
It's a pilots world...always has been...I [censored] about it....but I live with it.
The BOG and National Headquarters can cry about safety all they want and mandate safety classes forever but nothing is going to change our safety culture until following 60-1and 60-3 becomes mandatory and not optional.
According to the NTSB database, there were seven CAP airplane crashes between 2000 and 2010 that resulted in fifteen fatalities. Only one of the airplanes was flown by a private pilot (577 hrs). The rest were flown by PICs with 1,000 plus hours and Commercial or ATP licenses. Flying too low either enroute or while conducting a search was the most common cause of the crashes.
^^
Yep...."Mandating" "safety classes" will NOT change a thing in CAP....especially when GOB's can not follow the rules themselves.
There is no meat in 60-1, 60-3 and really no "MEAT" in many CAP training programs...
The online craziness in CAP has put the entire organization out of touch with the face to face instruction that the REAL world of flying.
Why do you suppose the FAA FAAST teams preach that to the up-n-coming flight instructors?
CAP really could take a hint in its own ranks of "professional instructors." Safety and education are instilled on a one to one basis and on a group basis.
Maybe its time for CAP to reinstate the Pilot Continuation Training program instead of solely relying on online classes for "safety training."
Sure online gets the"education" out to the masses.....but its been argued in my Sqdn that CAP HAS to do MORE in the face to face mode and plenty of instructors that "claim" they are instructors start teaching or step aside.
Safety Courses? Until CAP has at least 2 week in residence safety course similar to OSHA or RM and actually has some meat behind it......it really does not mean much more than online classes with no REAL certification. Is CAP "safety education" certified or recognized by real safety organizations or insurance companies like AOPA, AVEMCO, OSHA??
If the argument becomes "my vaca time"....If one can sit there butt in an RSC, NB, Drill Comp, etc and take vaca for those activities.......
Then they can sit through a one week or 2 week safety course.
I will do my part os SO for my Sqdn and Wing...but I'd bet the majority of CAP SO's did not come from an ACTUAL safety program and it is easier to teach safety when someone ACTUALLY has had a COURSE LOAD and work in silent authority than have "safety program" that is based on knee jerk reactions and should have been part of CAP's culture ALL along during the same period after WW2 when others including the USAF had a budding safety program....that is when CAP should have been taking the hint on safety....
Safety program in CAP has been reactionary at best. I understand with all the incidents and accidents that CAP has had, they had to start somewhere. They are just 50+ years late in getting the "safety program" organized!!
Quote from: heliodoc on May 17, 2010, 01:27:05 PM
Safety program in CAP has been reactionary at best. I understand with all the incidents and accidents that CAP has had, they had to start somewhere.
At least the on-line safety program goes beyond READING the Sentinel to the squadron. On the nights the Sentinel was unavailable, they would READ NTSB accident reports - but never the ones that included the probable cause of the accident. The only safety advice outside of "flying is dangerous" was to avoid "get homeitis". I still fail to see exactly what "get homeitis" had to do with the crash of a IFR flight by a current and experienced IFR pilot in marginal VFR conditions.
I am a big believer in a full aircrew. The new T models do make it harder. Our R model has 1230 useful load. The new Ts have 1034. Filled to the tabs the R can take 845 vs the Ts 649.
Add in the 30 lbs for survival kit and trunk junk you are left with R: 815 vs T: 609. A 172 at the tabs has 555lbs left. Once a mission starts I like to keep the T models at 50 gals. 733 is usually enough for 3 people but even then it can be close. If I am sending a sortie out over hilly terrain in wind for a low level search I would much rather the plane not be at gross.
Another issue is keeping the planes at 50 gal. We have had people fill them all the way several times. Once we were running at 40 gal for crew and equipment and they filled it to 88. We were more the 200lbs over gross. We had to sit around while they sucked it back out after a long argument. Its hard to leave someone out or their gear when they are returning home after a mission. On the nashville flooding we had to fly 2 outside folks (CAPF9 and 1af approved so hold your spam :) who were 255 and 325lbs. R model to the rescue. The T model with fuel at 64 would have been 130lbs overgross. The R was 65 under.
None of which changes the role of the scanner as a critical member of the aircrew but also the first one to be dropped due to weight or other issues. All of our MP are also MS/MO and most of the non-pilot MS we have are also MO. That give us more flexability but the reality is if you are only qualified MS then there is a greater likelyhood of your being unable to participate.
So maybe there is some logic to senior members striving to maintain af hight and weight standards...
Someone had to say it.
we have a T model with a 6 pack.
Quote from: tsrup on May 17, 2010, 09:05:00 PM
So maybe there is some logic to senior members striving to maintain af hight and weight standards...
Someone had to say it.
Rupster:
As a widebody myself, I'm not wild about your point but I understand your point and think you might even be right. But then that probably should be made a requirement or an SQTR that aircrew must meet the height and weight requirements.
And as you know first hand, assembling qualified aircrews for long-term missions is already a tough job in a small wing like ours (SDWG). Throw out the fatties like me and we have an even smaller, albeit lighter pool to choose from.
Believe me, I've thought about this issue when the MP asks me how much I weigh and we start doing the calculations and I see that we also need to take the airborne repeater and other gear aloft. If I'm too fat to fly, then I shouldn't be allowed to if it is going to endanger our aircrews or the public.
So, my skinny colleague, when does the Rupster's Fat Camp for tdepp begin? :P Maybe we could turn it into a reality series: CAP Fat Camp: Too Fat To Fly.
Quote from: tdepp on May 17, 2010, 10:19:28 PM
As a widebody myself, I'm not wild about your point but I understand your point and think you might even be right. But then that probably should be made a requirement or an SQTR that aircrew must meet the height and weight requirements.
H & W has nothing to do with capability or even most training tasks. It is only relevant to the pilot and perhaps the AOBD in regards to prep for a respective sortie, etc. You start placing artificial barriers to voulnteerism, barriers which have no real practical reason for existing, and you are setting
yourself up for losing pilots, not "aircrew",
pilots, who as it is already (in many cases) are difficult to get to do anything but the minimums.
Until CAP, inc. comes up with some sort of recruiting or incentive program to stuff our units so full of members that we can simply cast off pilots and other aircrew for being too heavy, we have to continue as we have, which is assembling the best crews possible day-of.
There are plenty of members in my AOR who are fully within the tables for wearing the USAF combos but cause W&B issues because they are tall.
Put 2-3 of these guys in the same plane and you have an issue. What's the fix? Little fellers fly with the big fellers and we all move on.
Epp, knowing you personally I know the tone of your article is very lighthearted, and as always I appreciate your jest.
Very valid points. Our wing had a small pool of resources and cutting out those who do not meet AF height and weight standards would cripple our ability to carry out the missions put to us.
And maybe it's easy for me to say this because I am young and within standards, but maybe we as aviators need to consider the ramifications of our weight and the impact it has on our mission effectiveness. I'm not saying we create new standards or SQTRs, but rather as professionals try and hone our skills and our bodies to become more effective at what we do.
We can cry and complain about discrimination all we want, but when it comes to Cessnas, weight and balance is god. If we can't carry enough fuel or carry the equipment we need to carry out our mission, it is no longer a membership issue, but an operational one.
Again I mean no offense to those who serve diligently in the Civil Air Patrol and I apologize in advance for it, but we need to start thinking of ourselves as professionals and how we as individuals impact our mission capabilities, even if it is the sacrifice of an hour of fuel. We owe it to ourselves as professionals to do everything we can to make ourselves more mission effective.
It is not about height anyway - it is just about weight. Six Ft Five inches and 259 pounds is within the CAP H&W standard. You can even weigh more and meet the AF standard. The aircraft W&B really doesn't care how neat you look in the uniform or which standard you are meeting. If you are within the W&B, you fly, otherwise you don't.
Quote from: cap235629 on May 17, 2010, 10:09:49 PM
we have a T model with a 6 pack.
Those are about half way between the Glass and the older ones. Kinda strange that the glass ones are heavier. You would think all those metal and glass instruments would be heaver than the panels but I think the boxes and the backup battery make up the difference.
Why are the glass heavier? An explanation given me says that the seats are heavier, due to being made to more robust standards(more metal in them), the interiors are made of mostly leather(heavier than cloth) and airframes beefed up. Don't know that these are the real reasons for the increased weight, but it makes a certain amount of sense. Since I don't fly the glass, I simply rely on rumor(sort of like a lot of CT members). If you really want a valid answer, ask a CFI who is glass qualified. Oh, I almost forgot that I have been told(those three dangerous words) that the Lycoming engine on the glass is heavier than the Continental ones on the round dial planes.
That ought to stir up some more questions and comments from CT folks who are non-pilots.
Compare POH equipment lists .. the avionics are more involved than six cans of gyro.
It's practically an airliner with just two PAX seats.