Aircraft Missing Since 2006 Located With Help From Google Earth

[sardak]

A Cessna 182, N2700Q, missing since September 2006, near Sedona, AZ, was located within the last few days. CAP was involved with the original search. The following website describes the details of how the find was made, which included a lot of work using Google Earth by the missing parties families, friends and volunteers. There is a link on the site to a news interview yesterday with the family. The interview says the plane was found about 12 miles from the LKP.

Google Earth technique explained: http://www.n2700q.com/googleearth1.html

Mike

[wingnut55]

I worked that mission and was in the area along with several helicopters flying at 100 feet NOTHING but It is always good to have an outside group look at us because God knows we are not looking at ourselves and so our mistakes go UNCORRECTED.

[Gunner C]

How many of the aircraft left the mission base with pilots in the right seat who were pencil-whipped observers?  Other than that, CAP does it better than anyone else.  Not looking at ourselves?  Horse squeeze.  I can't tell you how many observer trainees (many of whom were pilots) that I flunked because they had no idea of what they were doing.  They couldn't scan, they couldn't tell you the difference between search patterns with a two-man vs. three-man crew.  They couldn't plan an ELT search.  They couldn't do an effective wing-null or explain the difference between top of wing antenna wing nulls vs. under fuselage antenna. 

Using Google Earth is only as good as the imagery.  There's not always sufficient resolution and the photos are dated.  Folks out there don't understand probability of detection - locating wreckage on the Bonneville Salt Flats requires fewer sorties to get (for example) a 75% POD (off the top of my head - I don't think the chart actually comes out to that probability) than forested, undulating terrain. 

What's the terrain around the LKP?  What was the visibility during the search?  What was the cloud cover (overcast, partial overcast)?  What time of day was the area overflown, what altitude?  All of these things play into it.  I find fault with Wingnut55's indictment of CAP.  We're not incompetent, but we're not perfect.

[cnitas]

Do any units out there use non-located targets as SAREX / training material?

I think it would be great-using real data and could lead to a few discoveries.

[Short Field]

How many of the aircraft left the mission base with pilots in the right seat who were pencil-whipped observers? 

And how many left without a Scanner in the back seat - or one who has a hard time even seeing the ground much less identifying wreckage? 

[CadetProgramGuy]

Did you see the photo taken from the air?  I had a hard time seeing the fire in the ground photo.

[us11cav]

I would like to initiate a dialogue on the search for--and recent discovery of--Cessna N2700Q, which went down 9/24/06 in a blind canyon NW of Sedona, AZ. A scattering of off-the-cuff statements made in other parts of this forum suggest there are questions about this incident that are best addressed within a single thread.  Call it an informal AAR if you will, but a sober and constructive review of this incident seems in order.

My own qualifications and interests here are as a pilot, a participant in numerous (post-CAP) ground and air searches for N2700Q, and as the creator of the Google Earth "MARSI" file (discussed here: http://www.n2700q.com/googleearth1.html ) that was used to consolidate & evaluate search data, develop scenarios, and plan missions. I am also the uncle of Marcy Randolph, the passenger who perished aboard N2700Q.

Following the suspension of the official search, Marcy's father (also a pilot) and I spent the next 2 1/2 years searching for N2700Q, trusting that hard work and persistence would eventually pay off. It did, but the evidence shows it would have been virtually impossible to detect this crash site from the air--especially from a fixed-wing aircraft--due to the dispersion of the wreckage,  covering foliage, rugged terrain, and perennial cliff shadows over part of the site. This was a classic low-POD situation.

I speak for both my brother and I when I say we have nothing but admiration for the CAP pilots who worked so hard to find N2700Q. Phil Randolph has said this on numerous occasions, both publicly and privately. (In fact it's usually the first thing he mentions when talking about the search.) We believe in you. We respect the job you do and the perils you face.

It is sad, however that when Phil offered to sit down--informally--with Arizona's CAP people and discuss what we had learned during our long search, the official response was not only silence but the issuance of a gag order. Perhaps someone upstairs is worried about litigation, in which case I can assure them that is NOT on our to-do list.

What IS on the list might interest you. There are lessons here that need to be shared. We want to help.

We welcome your comments and questions.

PS: A comment in this thread indicated someone thought we used Google Earth imagery to search for N2700Q. Far from it. You'll note on the link above, that among all the things we did use Google Earth for, photo-recon was not among them. The reasons are too obvious to mention here.

[sparks]

The Power Point course that NESA publishes has very good examples of difficult search targets. It provides Scanner trainees something to consider before actually embarking on a mission. I have been engaged in many searches and can attest to how difficult it is to spot, from the air,  ANYTHING useful in the woodland shadows which probably characterize Sadona. I have been through that pictuesque area via car but not air. It's rugged on the ground with lots of places to hide a wreckage. I can only imagine the airborne target picture.

We don't do enough to broadcast after action success and failures. I guess wings are afraid of criticism, legal action or may not be aware of the value of the information.

[Ranger75]

us11cav  --  As a newly minted IC, I recognize the limited tradecraft and experience gained through the qualification process, and therefore appreciate the opportunity to garner further personal knowledge from any and all sources.  I for one, would welcome hearing your perspectives on lessons learned in the search for Cessna N2700Q.  --  Regards

[us11cav]

Ranger75 -- Thank you for your interest. Again, our intent is merely to share and learn, in the hope it will help others.

Our search for N2700Q began while you CAP guys were still flying missions for us. Grounded by necessity, we gathered information from every possible source that might reveal clues about the flight. This included the pilot's skills/experience/habits, as well as the aircraft itself, including engine & airframe logs and old incident reports, predating the current owner. We contacted off-road vehicle clubs geocachers, hikers, hunters, forestry workers, and anyone else who might have been out on 9/24/06. We even got in touch with a guy who scans--via helicopter--the high tension powerlines in the search area. Eyes like an eagle, but no sign of a recent wire strike. (Tragically, not long after the CAP search ended, an aircraft struck a wire and went down in the Verde River, killing both occupants -- http://www.aopa.org/asf/ntsb/narrative.cfm?ackey=1&evid=20061114X01651 )

When the official search ended, we had lots of information that we were able to share with the capable volunteers who rushed to help us, but many others were relying on information from official sources to tell them where to look. And that was where we hit a snag...

You might expect a published NTSB incident report would be accurate as far as basic facts, and that if serious errors did occur--and were pointed out--they would be promptly corrected. As I said, volunteer searchers often rely on this information. That was not the case with N2700Q. The NTSB was dismissive and indifferent to our pleas to correct the information, even when offered the hard supporting data we had obtained in the first few days of the search. Unbelievably, they would not even correct it when asked to do so by the AZ State Search and Rescue Coordinator (who directed CAP).

Their report (below) remains the same today as when it was issued. Three of the errors (not spelling or grammar mind you) are self-evident contradictions that require nothing more than a clear mind and a sharp eye to detect (and perhaps a map for those unfamiliar to AZ), and of those, two are critical from a SAR perspective.
I invite you to find them:
----------------------------------------------
NTSB Identification: LAX06FAMS01
HISTORY

On September 24, 2006, about 1030 mountain standard time, a Cessna 182K, N2700Q, departed Deer Valley Airport, Phoenix, Arizona, en route to Sedona, Arizona. The personal cross-country flight did not arrive at the destination, is missing, and presumed to have been destroyed in an accident. The pilot/owner was operating the airplane under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 91. The pilot and passenger are presumed to have sustained fatal injuries. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and a flight plan had not been filed.

The airplane became a subject of an Alert Notice (ALNOT) when concerned family members contacted the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Recorded radar data covering the area of the accident was supplied by the FAA in the form of a National Track Analysis Program (NTAP) printout from Tucson Radar Approach Control (TRACON). Additionally, Radar Evaluation Squadron (RADES) data and accompanying plots were provided to the National Transportation Safety Board investigator-in-charge (IIC). The airplane did not have a discreet beacon code; rather, the IIC reviewed radar tracks from aircraft flying in the area with a 1200 transponder code and altitude encoding. The radar data was analyzed for time frame and proximity to the anticipated flight track of the airplane en route from the Deer Valley area to the Sedona area.

The radar data revealed that the identified target was progressively moving in a north northeasterly direction during the 34-minute 38-second recording. The target was first identified adjacent to the Deer Valley Airport at 0944:46, at a Mode C reported altitude of 2,300 feet mean sea level (msl). During the following 13 minutes, the radar returns disclosed a gradual ascent until reaching a peak altitude of 8,400 feet msl. The remaining radar plot extended in the same direction and began a gradual descent at 1010:55, about 16 nautical miles (nm) from the last recorded target.

At 1015:49, the target indicated an altitude of 6,300 feet and the last return, at 1017:52, revealed an altitude of 5,200 feet. Using the distance between and the altitudes of the aforementioned radar returns, which equated to about a 500-foot-per-minute (fpm) descent.

The last radar return was about 9 nm northeast of the Sedona Airport. The majority of the radar returns were uniformly spaced and followed the anticipated track towards the Sedona area. The radar data plots are contained in the public docket for this report.

PERSONNEL INFORMATION

A review of FAA airman records revealed that the pilot held a private pilot certificate with ratings for single engine land and instrument airplane. The pilot's most recent third-class medical certificate was issued on December 02, 2005, with the limitation that he must wear corrective lenses and possess glasses for near and intermediate vision.

The pilot's flight records were obtained from his family, and consisted of photocopies dated from November 2005, to the day of the accident. The summation of flight hours in the logbook revealed that the pilot had accumulated 450.9 hours total time, with a majority of that time amassed in the accident airplane. The logs additionally disclosed that he had previously flown two trips from Deer Valley to Sedona within the past year. A majority of the flights recorded throughout the logs were conducted within at least a week duration from the previous entry.

AIRCRAFT INFORMATION

The airplane, a Cessna 182K, serial number 18257900, was issued an FAA airworthiness certificate on February 25, 1967. It was registered to the current owner on March 08, 2006. A review of the airplane's logbooks revealed a total tachometer time of 2,196.3 hours at the oil change on August 26, 2006. The last annual inspection was signed as completed on February 25, 2005, at an airframe total of 7,079.51 hours.

According to the records, the airplane had a Teledyne Continental Motors O-470 engine, serial number 133371-6-R, installed. Total time on the engine at the last annual inspection was 2,045.57 hours, corresponding with 671.71 hours since the last major overhaul.

Fueling records obtained from a service station at Deer Valley disclosed that the airplane was last fueled on September 19, 2006, with the addition of 29.40 gallons of 100LL aviation fuel. Referencing the pilot's logbooks, the airplane had flown 2.3 hours between the last fueling and the accident flight.

METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS

The closest official weather observation station to the last radar contact was Flagstaff, Arizona, located about 28 nm northeast. An aviation routine weather report (METAR) for Flagstaff was issued at 1056. It stated that winds were from 080 degrees at 14 knots, gusting to 18, with 10 miles visibility. Sky conditions were clear; temperature was 55 degrees Fahrenheit; dew point was 23 degrees Fahrenheit; and the altimeter was 30.37 inHg.

A METAR issued at 1053 for Prescott, Arizona, about 30 nm southwest of the last radar return, reported variable winds at 10 knots; visibility 10 statute miles; sky conditions were clear; temperature was 66 degrees Fahrenheit; dew point was 25 degrees Fahrenheit; and the altimeter was 30.26 inHg.

COMMUNICATIONS

Tucson TRACON provided no radio communication services to the pilot.

ADDIDTIONAL INFORMATION

The Civil Air Patrol (CAP) has continued to make numerous searches, but has not been able to locate the wreckage.

Family members have set up a website dedicated to the search for the missing airplane: http://www.n2700q.com. --------[ END REPORT]-------------------

Ranger75, My apologies for ending this first part of our account with a "gripe" but as any IC knows, INFORMATION is paramount in a search. You can imagine how we felt every time another volunteer notified us through our website that they had just gone out and potentially put themselves in harms way based on wrong information.

[Ranger75]

Without the immediate benefit of the appropriate sectional and a plotter, or even knowing the relative position and distance between the two airfirelds, I wouldn't attempt to make sense of the radar tracking.  What I do notice as glaring is that the report begins by indicating the departure time from Deer Valley as 1030, which places it after the time associated with the LKP based upon the radar track (1017).  Of course, if the departure time is correct, then the radar track is of no value.

What I would be interested in having you post is a list of suggested corrective actions based upon your personal observations during the course of the multiagency search.  --  Regards

[cnitas]

Without the immediate benefit of the appropriate sectional and a plotter, or even knowing the relative position and distance between the two airfirelds, I wouldn't attempt to make sense of the radar tracking.  What I do notice as glaring is that the report begins by indicating the departure time from Deer Valley as 1030, which places it after the time associated with the LKP based upon the radar track (1017).  Of course, if the departure time is correct, then the radar track is of no value.

What I would be interested in having you post is a list of suggested corrective actions based upon your personal observations during the course of the multiagency search.  --  Regards

+1

[RiverAux]

As I said, volunteer searchers often rely on this information.

I don't know that CAP makes any attempt to use NTSB reports.  In fact, I don't think there is any concerted attempt to transfer facts gathered by CAP while actively prosecuting the search to the AFRCC much less the NTSB.  Making any attempt to re-open a case almost impossible -- especially after 4 years, which is how long CAP keeps mission files.  AFRCC will keep their's longer, but they don't get complete records of all that CAP does under their oversight.

[us11cav]

Three replies! This is promising.

I'll table that NTSB report for now, and get back to it "in context" but I will say that the three greatest errors were "Last known position," "Time of departure," and "Fuel on board." (Significant from a SAR perpspective, no?) Why the report itself was so important--and the NTSB's refusal to fix it--will become evident as I explain the collaborative process we used to locate N2700Q.

Ranger 75, I would never presume to give you a "list of suggested corrective actions." My own search experience prior to N2700Q was limited to a long night spent prowling through a bomb-blasted Vietnamese rubber plantation, searching for a sling load of artillery rounds that had broken loose from a CH-47. Given that IED's are not a recent invention, and given the vulnerabilities of our M113 ACAV hulls, we were well motivated, yet unsuccessful nonetheless. I guess this makes me 1 for 2 if anyone's keeping score.

But even if I weren't a guest here, I'd still resist the temptation to jump to conclusions. (Ready! Fire! Aim!) Since we have the benefit of time and hindsight, let's see if we can't reach a consensus on what the problems were. Perhaps--thread willing--we might even begin exploring possible solutions, remembering all the while that we're only brainstorming here.

My simply listing "problems" is also presumptuous, and closes off avenues of discussion. Instead, I'd ask you to walk with me--not as CAP officers or cadets but as fellow citizens--through the process by which we found N2700Q. It was not easy, and at times it was painful, as when one CAP officer asserted, after the official search ended, that it was her opinion the aircraft had "left the area." This same theory was advanced in the case of Steve Fossett's disappearance, and in both cases it was wrong. Sometimes we just have to accept the simpler explanation, even if it means admitting we aren't infallible. Other planes will fall, and a few will defy your best attempts to find them. All we ask is that you do your best, and then support us in our own efforts if it comes to that. (And remember what I said about information.)

There's more I'd like to say, but this is not the place. My next post will describe how the official search ended, and what happened next.
Your comments & questions are welcome as always.

[bosshawk]

us11Cav: you have given most of our members a completely different perspective than we usually get.  In that regard, it should be a valuable input for those of us who do the searching, and most particularly, those who plan and run searches.

As a general rule, CAP searchers are not told the names of those on the aircraft or on a missing person search: it makes it somewhat easier to concentrate on the technical aspects of the search without getting into the emotions that are always attached to a search.  I am one of those who doesn't want to know personal details.  Just tell me the color and ID number of the aircraft and any intel about radar track, proposed track, times off the ground and how much fuel.  The CAP intel people go off and get info on personal habits, flying experience, usual routes, etc and then pass that on to the search crews.

Keep on posting your thoughts, they are valuable.  I have been flying search for 16 years and learn something new everytime that I fly.

[us11cav]

...As a general rule, CAP searchers are not told the names of those on the aircraft or on a missing person search: it makes it somewhat easier to concentrate on the technical aspects of the search without getting into the emotions that are always attached to a search. ...

I understand perfectly, Bosshawk. We had to "compartmentalize" our feelings very early on. Somebody suggested naming our website "Find_Marcy&Bill" but we chose "N2700Q." Throughout the search, we always referenced it as N2700Q. Of course, after the search feelings had to be dealt with...and still are (hence tonight's major rewrite of that post you replied to. Apologies for that). It's the price of being human I guess.

I never liked looking at photos where wreckage was shown. You know the feeling. But the search required me to study photos of other wrecks in order to become a better searcher. (Of course I had no idea then that the remains of N2700Q didn't even resemble an aircraft). Now I'm able to "detach" when viewing wreck photos, and--as you say--concentrate on the technical aspects.

Breakup and dispersal of wreckage, its effect on POD in a given area, and the dangers of underestimating those variables is one of the lessons from N2700Q that I look forward to discussing with you folks.

[wingnut55]

I agree with you on the necessity of Mission Post analysis  reviews by all involved. I was involved on that particular Arizona mission and I was acutely aware of the Pilot and passengers' names, photos, etc. It was on the news every night. So as you may know flying the mission gets to be very personal and the stressors are enormous. 

We often become very cynical of the system yet have a great deal of respect for the professionals that are part of the team. Like most volunteer agencies the armchair generals are abundant, however I don't think we are addressing the aircrews that are ill trained, or down right bad. Some members have tried to get $150 GPS  trackers to study the flight patterns while in a grid, but to no avail. We need to be professional and look at what may be a real problem, and that is that many mission pilots are either delusional in how they fly a grid or they just are sloppy. Either way we need to do it for ourselves.

[us11cav]

We thank you for your service, Wingnut55. As I've said before, no one could have found that plane from the air, except maybe a helo pilot with balls the size of Jupiter. It was just too broken up, and covered by some of the trees it knocked down. These pics give you some idea:
http://digitalbucket.net/view/22396d9a30742c12/2009_04_20_2480.JPG
http://digitalbucket.net/view/39367dd22cc2c735/2009_04_20_2487.JPG

hiker pic of fire 9/24/06 -- compred to same area 4/17/09:
http://digitalbucket.net/view/d46b446c5aea3716/compare_2006-2009.jpg

...and the canyon from air, March '07:
http://digitalbucket.net/view/9ed5efbe4664d6c2/DSC_0032(BillTpic).JPG

... and placing the aerial pic:
http://digitalbucket.net/view/f58bbfb76a8d85b1/compare_air-grd-closeup.jpg

Maybe you can see something in that old aerial pic that I missed, but it seemed to me a ground-team was the only solution, and for that you need good intel in order to narrow the field (since nobody can hike through the puckerbrush at 100 knots). That brings us to something you said in another thread about this, and I'm compelled to clear that up here. USFS takes a lot of fire reports, and many of those fires--like this one--self extinguish before they can get anyone out to check on it. I don't believe those make it into their "published report," which is all the SAR agency asked for.

Also, on Sunday, 9/24/06, there was no missing plane report (yet), so the person taking the report had no reason to suspect the fire report was any different from dozens of others. The onus to find that hiker's report of the fire that was Cessna N2700Q would seem to fall on the SAR agency. Thats' what the "search" in SAR implies. Indeed, we understand they asked USFS for fire reports, and they got the published fire reports. And--as I said above--the hiker's report wasn't in it because that fire was never confirmed.

And so the clue that could have closed this search out in two days languished in a logbook for two and half years until one of our team uncovered it while prepping for a ground search of Loy Canyon. Imagine if there been an injured survivor out there.

I think the lesson here is about "collecting paper" versus actively investigating an incident. An aggressive phone query of every outdoor agency in the SA should be mandatory, and it should be done in the first hours of a search. It is a disservice to you guys to send you out there without your staff working simultaneosly on getting thorough ground intel. It is our strong belief that SAR is a battle that is best fought on multiple fronts.

[Ranger75]

us11cav  --  I continue to develop my own checklist that I employ as a Planning Section Chief and Incident Commander.  It encompasses the contacts and data I seek at the opening of a missing aircraft search.  I would be interested in reviewing the list of agencies/groups/individuals you reached out to during the course of your invesigation.  My intent is to add to my own list those that had not come to mind. 

[us11cav]

Ranger75, great question. I'm glad to see you consider your list a work-in-progress.

Checklists are essential tools (I always use the written pre-start checklist before turning a prop), but--as with any "rote" operation there's a danger of disengaging higher thought processes. Please indulge me for a moment while I walk you through our own thought process on the gathering of ground intel in the search for N2700Q.

After ramp-checks and interrogations of friends/family indicated the plane wasn't safely parked somewhere, our focus shifted to remote, unpopulated zones within the SA. An initial Search Area was quickly jotted out by the IC on this map (contained as hyperlink in my GoogleEarth placemark for the AZDEMA building, along with other docs):
(http://www.n2700q.com/googleearth/pix/CAPSearchMap.jpg)

As you can see, that is one BIG hunk of Arizona, with lots of sparsely populated real-estate that we'll just call "out there." So we began our list with two questions:

1. Who was "out there" on 9/24/06?
2. Who went "out there" after 9/24/06?

Beginning with the obvious: Public agencies, including US Forest Service, Park Service, various police and sheriff's departments, Fish & Game, BLM, etc.

Bureau of Land Management was especially interesting because they're charged with protecting native ruins. Our interviews with the missing pilot's friends indicated he had a fascination with these sites. This helped put Loy Canyon--which had Indian caves along the cliff wall--back on our "hit list," despite its intensive CAP-sortie coverage. The subsequent planning for a ground search into Loy led to the discovery of the fire report.

Interesting note on BLM: CAP-Utah routinely helps them in Arizona with site-surveillance, yet when we asked CAP Utah for help up in their turf (based on the pilot's previous flight to Cedar City and his last known course) we got silence.

The list of private individuals and groups is much larger; I'm sure we didn't hit them all. We did contact--some through internet forums like this--hikers, hunters, ATV enthusiasts, rockhounds, and an odd group called "geocachers." These folks were especially compelling because they post the time, date, and exact GPS coordinates of their visits to various caches on their website (www.geocaching.com). They often include photos; helpful for estimating POD from a ground perspective. Our earliest indications of the daunting nature of this task came from such photos. I plotted (in Google Earth) all "remote" cache sites in the SA, and was actually able to contact people who were out on 9/24/06 to ask if they'd seen or heard anything that might help us.

Hiker groups also log treks on the internet, but not with as much consistency as the geocachers. Unfortunately both groups stay mostly near trails, so this leaves a lot of uncovered territory "out there." Geocachers in particular like to be close to roads because it's a family activity. Great fun for you CAP families by the way--kids love it! (Note for Wingnut55: you can also use the GPS unit when you fly missions.)

Google Earth helped us uncover some clues about other groups that might have been "out there," like a remote control airplane park near the LKP, some dirt race tracks, and a few abandoned airfields, including a very interesting one called Red Butte (http://www.arizfoto.com/red_butte.html). Given that the pilot had previously landed on dirt strips, and had recently obtained a tail-dragger endorsement (though 2700Q was tri-gear), these were potential sources we had to map and check out.

Fire Lookout Towers: I plotted all the ones in the SA on Google Earth, but we learned they were not manned that day. We climbed up one (Turkey Butte Lookout, 3.3NM north of wreck site), and quickly learned that you get a great view of treetops from watch towers, but anything on the ground more than 100 yards away is impossible to spot. (Hence the value of "lookdown" capability, but I'm preaching to the choir here.)

Finally, there were the telephone, power, and utility workers, and surveyors that might be "out there." (read #9 in this thread for more on powerlines). Have I left anybody out? Sure--what about boy scouts, church groups, college research stations... the list goes on, and that's why you should create your own list within the context of each Search and its territory, and not rely entirely on a "rote" list.

And that's when you realize that being "out there" doesn't necessarily mean being there in person. For example, a power utility computer may have sensed a spike in their system if the aircraft hit a wire (We checked this.)  Or maybe a seismic monitoring station picked up something from one of their remote sensors (Don't laugh, but we checked this, too. There were many sensors NE of the wreck site. A small plane would almost have to hit one, but stranger things have happened) Maybe a parking lot security camera caught a glimpse of a low flying plane at just the right time/place to match your criteria. Doubtful, but since I didn't think of it, shame on me.

Celltowers. Now this is an interesting one. We got (again through backchannels, from another right-thinking soul) an indication that a tower near Dewey--halfway up N2700Q's track--picked up a "ping" indicating the passenger's cellphone had just been turned off. The timing--11:07am--put the aircraft 50 miles uptrack from KDVT, and near enough to the Dewey tower to help us remove any lingering doubts that the radar track 06M-1831A was our missing aircraft.

We later used this data to refute the astounding claim (by an official whose name I won't mention), that it was uncertain whether the track was indeed N2700Q. (This also helped dispel any rumors the passenger was not on the plane. Since she'd dined in KDVT's restaurant just prior to takeoff, an aircraft was the only way she could have gotten to the Dewey celltower in that short of time.)

So, Ranger75, you see here a glimpse of the process we used to pull in information, but the discussion wouldn't be complete without mentioning the role our website, www.N2700Q.com, played in opening the door to facilitate receiving offered information. Hundreds of tips, and inquiries from interested parties wishing to help, came into us through the website. Some of it was prompted by the posters and fliers we distributed throughout the SA, and some by media reporters who included the site url in their news articles or on their station's website. It was an indispensable tool for gathering and sharing information.

Which begs this question: Why hasn't CAP made it SOP to set up a website for every search? A standard national website address, with backslash\[tail number] for each incident would be easy to establish, and simple to understand. We note an inconsistency in the web-technology CAP does use, in that each wing's website is different. Contact numbers are not always clearly posted, nor are people there to answer the phone--understandable given your limited budgets, but is there a better way?

Standardized websites and a national hotline might not be the answer but it seems worthy of your consideration. Two-way lines of communication seem to go right to the heart of CAPR-60-3 1-12: Managing the Mission. This excerpt from 12-1.d seems especially appropriate in light of what I've offered here (and hope to offer in future posts):

"...Small pieces of information often fit together to form a more complete picture. The mission situation should be re-evaluated with each new bit of information. Assessment of gathered information is a never-ending cycle..."