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..."

[Pingree1492]

 :clap:  Wow!  Outstanding info so far us11cav.  You've obviously done your research and have taken a very thorough approach.  My condolences that it was necessary.

Most of what you have discussed so far has been very eye-opening.  I've been involved in many searches here in the mountains that the aircraft wasn't found until months later, after the snow melted.  I'm not sure that having any of the information you mentioned would have helped in those cases, but maybe it will next 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..."

A great suggestion- certainly something that bears more consideration.  What is posted, and how information is collected and distributed would need to be thought out carefully as we wouldn't want to "taint" (sorry, can't think of a better word) any witness that would be posting to the site, or that we would talk to later. 

Also, as always, it comes down to a time, resources and expertise problem.  A big (geographically) and long search always puts a strain on our resources, both the actual searchers and staff.  We have a lot of people who do the search part well, but we probably have too few like you who are willing and able to put in the investigative work to a mission. 

Again, great discussion, keep the comments coming!  This has certainly added tools to my toolbox- with perfect timing for what will probably be a busy summer season.

[RiverAux]

Why hasn't CAP made it SOP to set up a website for every search?

The primary reason is that most searches are over in less than a week so setting up a website and publisizing it in that time frame isn't going to be practical.  Advertising a phone number as part of the CAP public affairs efforts relating to the search is going to be sufficent most of the time. 

A secondary reason is that CAP's web development resources are quite limited in many states.  Quite a few states are only barely able to keep an up-to-date wing web page.  However, this could be addressed by soliciting web help from CAP members nationwide.  We're getting better at "thinking outside the Wing" in that way, but it still needs work.

That being said, having a permanent national-level web site devoted to missing aircraft search clue solicitation is not a bad idea.  We would want a unique domain name that is easy to advertise.  I could see listing all suspended searches along with basic information about each. 

[wuzafuzz]

Why hasn't CAP made it SOP to set up a website for every search?

The primary reason is that most searches are over in less than a week so setting up a website and publisizing it in that time frame isn't going to be practical.  Advertising a phone number as part of the CAP public affairs efforts relating to the search is going to be sufficent most of the time. 

A secondary reason is that CAP's web development resources are quite limited in many states.  Quite a few states are only barely able to keep an up-to-date wing web page.  However, this could be addressed by soliciting web help from CAP members nationwide.  We're getting better at "thinking outside the Wing" in that way, but it still needs work.

That being said, having a permanent national-level web site devoted to missing aircraft search clue solicitation is not a bad idea.  We would want a unique domain name that is easy to advertise.  I could see listing all suspended searches along with basic information about each.

I like the idea of a permanent site for active CAP searches and missions.  Something with an EASY to remember and type domain name (good for PAO sound bites), that is kind of a dashboard for current activity.  Something like www.capsearch.org so folks listening can actually remember it until they reach the computer.

Imagine a publicly accessible main page with links to active searches, etc. so nationwide we can always send people to the same site.  Provide basic info and allow visitors to submit information to search managers using contact info or email links.  Not a forum, since you don't want all visitors to see each others' tips.

I'm no expert at this stuff, but I bet a dynamic site with security would permit IC's or their staff to make entries in a database that populates the national website within minutes.  No web authoring skills needed.  Post some basic info on the search, contact info for tips, and perhaps a few photos.  It would be similar in concept to the wildland fire websites that post incident updates.  One example: http://www.inciweb.org/

We KNOW the technology is out there.  Making it happen would be relatively doable, integrating it into procedures would probably be the hardest part.

[Gunner C]

Why hasn't CAP made it SOP to set up a website for every search?

That being said, having a permanent national-level web site devoted to missing aircraft search clue solicitation is not a bad idea.  We would want a unique domain name that is easy to advertise.  I could see listing all suspended searches along with basic information about each.

Excellent idea!

[us11cav]

Gentlemen,
On this day (which has special meaning for this old warhorse) I am deeply gratified to see your responses. My hope that you'd apply the same fearlessness and focus you maintain in the cockpit to the issue of suspended searches--or "cold cases"--seems well founded, at least in this forum.

Granted, a national website (or page on the national CAP website) can't be done in a day, but if right now, on Memorial Day, someone began a thread (or topic w/sub-threads?) dedicated to gathering/sharing information on unsolved cases, it would be significant in several ways.

1. It would serve as an interrim "holding area" if a web-page were later launched.
2. It would reinforce the notion of CAP as more than a "collective" of wings, i.e., if a CAP member in Alabama has an idea (or question) on a cold-case in Oregon, then he or she can participate.
3. It would say to CAP members (and anyone interested) that Semper Vigilans truly means "Always on Watch."

As a guest here, I won't start a thread, but I'll continue to post here (and elsewhere as appropriate) with whatever lessons I can glean from the case of N2700Q.

I'll close with a couple of fine excerpts from your posts in another thread, and ask that we remember the fallen:

...I was at the Air Force Academy today. They have pictures of graduates who are MIA from Vietnam. I think it is 3 or 4 men -- pictures and bios -- encased in glass right in front of the lounge at Hap Arnold Hall. No Academy Cadet can enter or exit without seeing this display. The mystery of these men weighs upon every Air Force cadet -- if just a little everyday. I'm sure that those that loved them, their family's and sweethearts wonder everyday.

Maj. General John Curry once said; "It is our duty to find the lost both the living and the dead... so they are lost no more." What a magnificent legacy it is, that makes these words true. It is one of the reasons that I love the Civil Air Patrol...

As a former IC, I can think of no more difficult duty than telling family members that we're giving up.  I never did, but golly, can you imagine the pain in their hearts that the searchers are giving up when  family members still have so much hope in your hearts? ...

[Gunner C]

I wonder if there will be more suspended searches that otherwise might have been carried on another day or so when the latest budget cuts his 1 Oct?

[RiverAux]

Granted, a national website (or page on the national CAP website) can't be done in a day, but if right now, on Memorial Day, someone began a thread (or topic w/sub-threads?) dedicated to gathering/sharing information on unsolved cases, it would be significant in several ways.

That could be somewhat problematical as technically release of such information would have to be approved by the Inicident Commander.  No one is going to get tossed out for saying "I remember this 1997 missing airplane that we never found in California....", but still I'm not sure its a great idea to try to do here. 

[us11cav]

..that could be somewhat problematical as technically release of such information would have to be approved by the Inicident Commander...

Point taken (though I might have a hard time explaining that to a family member). It also illustrates the whole "attitudinal problem" we ran into during our search for N2700Q. The notion that potentially critical information, gathered with the help of public funds, is "privileged" is very familiar to us. We believe it is used too often as a crutch by administrative people who are either too afraid or too lazy to lift a finger and help.

Perhaps some right-thinking people in CAP will step up and confront this issue. Perhaps not, and CAP will remain open to criticism that it is disconnected with its "shareholders."

For now, I suggest that posting the basic facts of a missing aircraft (i.e., that which is already public knowledge) is a good start. People participating in that thread may then opt to share--via PM--facts/questions they feel uncertain about disclosing publicly. It's not a perfect solution but as I said, at least it's a start.

The bottom line should be the same mantra we used throughout our own long journey: "Find the aircraft."

[RiverAux]

Quote from: RiverAux on Today at 11:01:48 AM
..that could be somewhat problematical as technically release of such information would have to be approved by the Inicident Commander...

Point taken (though I might have a hard time explaining that to a family member). It also illustrates the whole "attitudinal problem" we ran into during our search for N2700Q. The notion that potentially critical information, gathered with the help of public funds, is "privileged" is very familiar to us. We believe it is used too often as a crutch by administrative people who are either too afraid or too lazy to lift a finger and help.

I didn't say that it couldn't be done, just that there are official channels for this sort of thing that CAP members are supposed to use.  Such procedures are in place for many reasons, one of which is family protection. 

[us11cav]

I didn't say that it couldn't be done..

I like your attitude here, RiverAux.

... just that there are official channels for this sort of thing that CAP members are supposed to use.  Such procedures are in place for many reasons, one of which is family protection.

If it's not too much trouble, could you expand on those official channels and procedures--perhaps even quote the regs--so we can get a better perspective on how this works (or not) within the greater context of CAP as it exists to serve both its Mission and the taxpayers (respectful of GunnerC's comments re: budget cuts)?

With regard to "family protection," we believe--from personal experience--this objective could better be served in a proactive manner rather than a labyrinthine system of regs and roadblocks. Why not appoint a "family liaison" from among the CAP ranks, in every "extended" search, to act as an advocate/navigator/interface? (This should not be an IC or wing commander, but someone with knowledge and authority to bridge the gap.)

GunnerC's comment about budget cuts should be seen not as a threat, but as a wake-up call. These are difficult times, and your shareholders are watching. I respectfully suggest this is an opportunity to not only reaffirm your committment to excellence, but demonstrate your willingness to be self-critical, to think outside the box, to use 21st century tools, and to build a more responsive, cohesive agency that will be the envy of SAR groups worldwide.

[RiverAux]

There are abundant citations relating to release of mission information.  The easiest ones to find are in CAPR 60-3

1-7. Information Releases. Information that is releasable on CAP missions should be given promptly to news media representatives. All CAP incident commanders will coordinate press releases with the agency being supported (AFRCC, AFNSEP, FEMA, etc.). In addition to keeping the public informed, releasing certain information could lead to public assistance in reporting data that may assist in search or other CAP missions.

4-9. Media Briefings. Regularly scheduled media briefings should be planned, especially on highly visible missions like missing aircraft searches or when providing disaster support. The local news media can often support you and provide useful tools for information gathering if utilized properly, but personnel conducting press briefings should be careful not to release sensitive information until properly coordinated and approved

[Ranger75]

I continue to read the entries to this thread with interest and wish to offer a number of random comments.

•   us11cav correctly notes the primary responsibility of the Planning Section Chief (PSC) to gather and interpret all available information to focus the search effort.  Most important is his referring to the intelligence function as both a push and pull task.  It is not uncommon that, at the initiation of a mission, the multitude of simultaneous demands including definition of the initial mission parameters, alerting and assembling mission resources, and beginning search operations comes at the cost of deferring intelligence gathering to a secondary consideration.  The lesson I have drawn from my own experience is that, as the IC, I must strive to fence the PSC from the turmoil of the startup chaos to permit him to focus on the planning task. 

•   Us11cav  --  I appreciate your recounting of your outreach activities to potential sources.  A number of those identified had not come to my mind.  While I appreciate that the circumstances associated with each mission are unique, I have been able to expand my own checklist to incorporate consideration of contacting a growing number of other agencies or groups.

•   A number of the comments posted to this topic, and us11cav's personal interests, relate to the continuation of efforts beyond the suspension of active search operations.  It is important for us to recall that CAP is not an independent agency with requisite responsibility and associated authority to initiate, suspend, or reopen active search operations (the exception being the 911T procedure for imminently serious missions in response to dire circumstances involving an immediate threat to lives, of significant human suffering, or extensive property losses).  CAP's participation in ES missions and protections for participating members are contingent upon requests for assistance from local, state, or federal authorities being approved by appropriate Corporate or USAF authorities.  Therefore, a wing's ability to respond to emerging new information, once active search operations have been halted, is held hostage to the approval authority of others.

•   I believe us11cav correctly identifies a void in the realm of missing aircraft SAR, responsibility for the continuation of efforts to resolve suspended missions.  There has been a presumption in this discussion that CAP should accept such responsibility and facilitate these efforts through the establishment of a web-based clearinghouse.  I believe further discussion whether this responsibility is best assumed by CAP, the USAF (as the inland SAR lead), another federal agency, or state/local SAR coordination agencies is warranted.  The question comes to my mind whether we have the depth of skilled volunteer personnel to assume such weighty responsibilities.  I have nothing but the highest regard for my fellow members, who offer their individual time, skills, and funds in service to others.  I also recognize the difference in capabilities we are able to generate as a volunteer organization on a weekend compared to a workday, and how those capabilities are quickly impacted as the duration of the mission lengthens.  Would we be able to do justice to the responsibility that comes with the mission? 
 
•   My own opinion is that pulling information from the public during the course of an active search is best accomplished by mobilizing local media to have those with information respond with a call into the ICP.  I believe that members of the general public find a phone call the least onerous means for providing information that in their own mind may be of questionable relevance.  The less the effort demanded of an individual to pass information, the more likely it is that that information will be passed to those able to exploit it.

[us11cav]

Thanks for your detailed and thoughtful response, Ranger75. I have some comments, but it's better if I convey them in the broader context of what we've learned about the media, since both you and RiverAux mentioned the media in your replies.

Last Saturday, the father of the passenger of N2700Q was invited to give a one-hour interview on radio station KTAR (Phoenix) about his search for the missing aircraft. Numerous times during the interview, the conservative talk show host attempted to get him to say something negative about CAP. Each time, the attack was gracefully parried, and the father went on to praise CAP for its efforts to find the plane. It was obvious the host was baiting him--even trying to put words in his mouth--but to no avail. The father threw him a bone by roasting the NTSB for its malfeasance (well-documented in this forum), but he steadfastly defended CAP.

Finally, near the end of the interview, the host asked if CAP had given him all their maps and other information that might have helped his own (post-CAP) search efforts. There was of course only one answer he could give: "No."

And when the host asked what reasons CAP gave for denying him that information, the answer was: "They told me it was privileged information."

So here you have a father who walks into the studio prepared to thank all the people who helped him in the search, including CAP, but he's cut off before the mike even goes live. The talk show host knew his audience wanted fresh meat, and he was determined to give them some. This is the nature of media today--like it or not.

Now you gentlemen can sit back and thumb your regs whenever someone asks an intelligent question, and maybe that will get you by for another sixty years. My bet--for what it's worth--is that it won't. Hunkering down behind the perimeter wire ain't gonna cut it, as my old top sergeant used to say. In a society clamoring for change, you can either be a "force" or a target. Quite simply, you need to engage.

Ranger75, our experience tells us the telephone is not the "least onerous means" for the public to convey information of questionable relevance. Not any longer. The internet wins by a landslide. We have the stats to prove it.

So, other than this forum and a hodgepodge of wing websites, what is CAP doing with this multipurpose tool called the internet? Look in this thread: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=8083.0 and tell me CAP has a plan. It amazes me that with regs covering everything down to the clothes you wear, a simple standardized web-template doesn't exist.

Ranger75 notes that CAP's capabilities as a volunteer organization may not be up to the task of hosting a national "clearinghouse" for unsolved cases. Maybe not; in fact there were jurisdictional miscues in the Fossett search that showed CAP was not a unified national force, and thus no better suited than state SAR agencies for this sort of task.

But you are a national organization, so play to that strength. The most visible indication would be through a network of wing webpages (with common standards for contact #'s. etc.), all linked to the national site. If costs are a problem, ditch those stuffy old uniforms and go with a CAP cap, and the option of tee-shirt or golf-shirt with a CAP logo. Taken together, those actions might silence those critics who say you're just a bunch of doddering old tin soldiers. CAP's rich legacy, its wealth of skills and training, and its cadre of dedicated volunteers deserve better.

[us11cav]

...Us11cav  --  I appreciate your recounting of your outreach activities to potential sources.  A number of those identified had not come to my mind.  While I appreciate that the circumstances associated with each mission are unique, I have been able to expand my own checklist to incorporate consideration of contacting a growing number of other agencies or groups....

Re: "unique" circumstances... The N2700Q incident occurred on a Sunday, thus mail carriers were not on my list (don't forget private delivery companies also). On the other hand, recreationists were out in force, including those hikers who saw the fire.

[RiverAux]

Now you gentlemen can sit back and thumb your regs whenever someone asks an intelligent question, and maybe that will get you by for another sixty years. My bet--for what it's worth--is that it won't. Hunkering down behind the perimeter wire ain't gonna cut it, as my old top sergeant used to say. In a society clamoring for change, you can either be a "force" or a target. Quite simply, you need to engage.

I'm not sure that you get that we are bound to follow our organization's own rules.  Are they always the best rules?  No.  Are they always interpreted correctly by our members?  No.  But, if our members fail to follow proper procedures they get kicked out and most aren't interested in that.  You and I may not always like them, but they've mostly worked for 60 years leaving us about the only part of the WWII civil defense organization still active. 

Now, Ranger75 does bring up a good point about post-suspension participation by CAP.  Our current regulations and policies don't envision such a scenario as he correctly points out.  Could they be changed to allow for this sort of thing?  Sure?  But, he is right that this would need to be coordinated with AFRCC and/or the states.  I think that the Fossett search brought out that the AFRCC needs to look at this issue (relating to the old plane wrecks found during that search), but I have no clue as to where they are in that process. 

in fact there were jurisdictional miscues in the Fossett search that showed CAP was not a unified national force, and thus no better suited than state SAR agencies for this sort of task.

While I think this was definetely true in the past, but I believe there has been significant progress in cooperation between Wings on various missions since Katrina, at least from where I sit.  Sure, there are still some issues, but they're nowhere near like what they were even 5 years ago.

[Larry Mangum]

Once a mission is suspended by the AF, all records in reality belong to them and nothing can be released to the press, family or other search organizations without the explicit permission of AFRCC and NHQ.  Does that mean it is impossible to release informationm well no, it just means that the wing needs to forward the request up the chain.

As to opening a "Cold Case" or if you will suspended missions, the AF is nto going to authorize that, unless new information is turned up that would leave them to believe their is a high percentage of success.  Until AFRCC reopens the mission, the wing is not permitted to run an "A1" mission even if they beleive they have high value information.

I have seen wings in the past, run SAREX's, in the area that an aircraft went missing , as target area's for crews needing to practice search patterns.

[us11cav]

RiverAux and Who_Knows both present an excellent case for maintaining the status quo. Their arguments are as solid and impenetrable as the Maginot Line. With this sort of hard line defense, surely CAP will not suffer the same fate as the Air Education and Training Command (1942 - 2002).

I'll return to a discussion of N2700Q in my next post. We learned quite a bit about dangerous assumptions and "target fixation" during the search, and I believe it's worth sharing here.

[Ranger75]

The discussion on this thread has established a number of issues worthy of our attention.  My own interest at the start was in drawing out best practices or lessons learned from the experience of others that I might apply during my performance of duties as a member of the incident command and staff.  I would hope that additional lessons will be forthcoming as the discussion continues.  Second, there is a exchange related to the relative utility of web-based information gathering and working toward maximizing the potential of this communications means (standardized format, etc.).  I accept the potentials that have been identified by moving in the recommended direction.  The issue of an open exchange of mission information among any and all interested parties has also been raised.   

The most significant issue at hand is us11cav's accurate insight that the end of active search operations most commonly results in the search going dormant, unless by happenstance credible new information comes to the attention of a requisite authority able to call out a renewed effort.  In the case of N2700Q, family members, through their own efforts, fought vigorously to prevent the mission from being put on the shelf.   I, for one, applaud the family's efforts and eventual success.  I could easily see myself taking on a similar role under similar circumstances.  I am less confident that CAP, as a volunteer organization, has the capacity to take on the responsibility that us11cav would have it assume.

My association with CAP spans over 40 years, with active membership broken by an extended military career.  One difficulty I have experienced repeatedly in CAP is that of tempering my military mentality, to one that is effectively works within a volunteer environment, to be able to establish realistic expectations and the means to achieve them.  A picture of herding cats comes to mind.  Primarily it comes down to the authority to ask versus task.  Each member comes into the organization with an individual motivation to contribute to one or more of CAP's chartered roles.  Each brings with them a distinct skill set and willingness to enhance those skills through personal effort.  Each finds themselves having to determine what time, money, and personal engagement they are able or willing to devote to the organization.   Leaders within the organization are required to recognize the diverse personal decisions made by its members to build an effective team capable of mission accomplishment across a broad spectrum of expectations, a task much more difficult than that I confronted as a military officer. 

I question whether our personnel resources are adequate to the task of working each missing aircraft search to a final conclusion.  --  Us11cav  -- I am interested in gaining an appreciation of the man-hours devoted by yourself and others over the years since N2700Q failed to arrive at its destination.  --  In my own circumstance, in addition to a demanding second career, I serve as a principal staff officer at wing-level.  My own interests are focused on the ES mission.  Yet, I have found that the time I can devote beyond my current participation is extremely limited, to the point that I have had to defer acceptance of the offer of command positions that had presented themselves.  Within my wing I would be among a small core of individuals with appropriate qualifications to take on the responsibilities that have been proposed.  For me to do so would represent a zero-sum decision, a situation that I believe would be representative of the other members of a small group.

It is my perspective that to effectively execute the envisioned task would require the assembly of a geographically dispersed workgroup, one comprised of skilled individuals, working in a collaborative manner by effectively exploiting available technical means and tools.  My own belief is that necessary resources would have to be drawn from a nation-wide resource base in order to identify a select group, appropriately qualified, and able to invest the required time.   The operations section of National Headquarters would have to play a leading role in such an initiative.  I'm too distant from that activity to accurately assess that element's capabilities within the constraint of current personnel resources.  I would welcome to hear from someone with a clearer view of how the staff at National view their operational role and a sense of their ability to implement such an initiative, given consideration and approval by the NB.

[RiverAux]

RiverAux and Who_Knows both present an excellent case for maintaining the status quo. Their arguments are as solid and impenetrable as the Maginot Line. With this sort of hard line defense, surely CAP will not suffer the same fate as the Air Education and Training Command (1942 - 2002).

I'll return to a discussion of N2700Q in my next post. We learned quite a bit about dangerous assumptions and "target fixation" during the search, and I believe it's worth sharing here.

I think you will find that I was pointing out to you (a non-CAP member) what restraints we operate under and I think you will find examples of where I suggested changes could be made to address the legitimate issues that have been raised.   

Unlike Ranger75 I don't see any manpower/volunteer issues that would present any real limitations to providing some sort of CAP function to continue to gather information on searches that have been suspended.  I tend to think that this is something that AFRCC should run, but given their own inability to maintain their web site (see how many broken links they have) makes me think it unlikely they would really be able to do so, hence it could be something that they delegate to CAP.   

[Larry Mangum]

I also was not trying to create a Maginot Line, rather to point out that we have limitations that we have to work within. As Ranger75 pointed out, as a volunteer force, we have very limited resources when it comes to people who can continue to work on missions after they are suspended even when we go through all of the hoops.

When I ran ES at the wing level, I would have loved to have had people dedicated to pursuing leads on "cold case", but I was generally lucky if I had enough staff to meet current needs and requirements.  The best I could do was to take planned SAREX's and assign aircrews to practice search grids in areas we suspected a missing aircraft was in, as part of the exercise.  Beyond that my wing did not have the resources to send people out to gleam new information from hikers or such. Not only that but I would have gotten in a world of trouble from the local Sherieff and the state.

I am quite interested in how you went about acquiring the information that lead to the discovery and truly believe, that we need to take the lessons learned from your effort and see how we can integrate it into the training for our IC's and PSC's.

[RiverAux]

I'm not sure that we would really need to have Wing personnel specifically dedicated to this.  At a bare minimum level we could have the national web page to collect leads that would then be funneled to AFRCC (for their official files and for them to consider whether it was valid enough to re-open the mission) with copies going to the Region and Wing for information purposes. 

The next step up would be having a Region-level cold-case squad (as an extra duty for people throughout the region) that would periodically review all suspended cases to re-evaluate the situation and make recommendations to AFRCC about re-opening searches.  In particular I could see them looking over very recent summer searches in the winter to see if it would be worthwhile to launch a few sorties in high probability areas when the leaves are off. 

Not sure any one Wing is going to have enough open cases to warrant having their own dedicated personnel. 

[us11cav]

Thank goodness! I was starting to feel like I was launching claybirds at a skeet-shooting competition. It's gratifying to see the conversation shift from "Why we can't," to "Ways we can (or might)." We're not asking anyone to ignore the obvious (i.e., rules), but at least let's pair those thoughts with some constructive thinking.

Who_Knows, with regard to your question, please review my replies #9 and #19. I'll follow-up soon with additional information that may also help.

Back to the discussion begun on #24: Unsolved cases and a national website... Remembering Lao Tzu ("A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step"), I suggest we not try to take on too much at once. Overall strategy is essential, but it will take a tactic--a first step if you will--to get this cart moving.

I propose we begin with a real-world case. Not necessarily to solve it but rather as an exercise to illustrate some of the things we learned in the search for N2700Q, and to help you refine your own thought processes. Keep in mind, this is not about launching planes, but about using your mind.

Just before noon on 9/21/03, a Beech Bonanza (tail # N927JL) departed Mesa, Arizona enroute to Dallas, Texas. One hour later, the aircraft dropped below radar near the New Mexico border and vanished into rising mountainous terrain. CAP units from Arizona and New Mexico flew extensive searches. The search was finally suspended on 10/18/03.
NTSB report DEN03FAMS1: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DEN03FAMS1&rpt=fa

This might be worthy of it's own thread, but no need right now. Eventually it would be great to have a Category on the board for "Unsolved ALNOTs"--or whatever you want to call it--with a thread for each missing tail# that is brought to the board. It might just beg/incite the grander strategy of getting these cold-cases up on the national board.

As for Bonanza N927JL...
There are two important first steps I would make were I to begin working this case--given only the "facts" that appear above (and in the NTSB link). They are based on what we learned while searching for N2700Q, and should be obvious to anyone who's been following this thread.
Anyone care to guess what they are?

[N Harmon]

I would be interested in a cost/benefit analysis in using taxpayer funds and members' time to investigate and search for long-suspended missing aircraft/people where the likelihood of saving lives is near-zero.

[cnitas]

Who said anything about taxpayer funds? 
I have spend considerably more time doing less worthwhile things in CAP than trying to track down Missing A/C 'cold cases'.

Should this be the primary focus of CAP, no... but why can it not be one of those 'extras' like parking cars, or playing victim at a mass casualty exercise, or laying wreaths, or DDR?

[N Harmon]

Who said anything about taxpayer funds?

See response #40. If the AFRCC is going to launch sorties, then that would be a use of taxpayer dollars.

[us11cav]

Thanks cnitas, but I got this...

See response #40. If the AFRCC is going to launch sorties, then that would be a use of taxpayer dollars.

Please don't confuse one person's ideas (#40) with the main point of this discussion. We are not asking taxpayers to fund additional sorties, nor for CAP to go beyond their mandated mission; only to reassess their views regarding "suspended" searches. We believe that once a search is suspended it is incumbent upon the SAR agencies--CAP included--to articulate with private parties who wish to continue the search at their own expense; to share information gathered at public expense with those very same taxpayers who seek closure. Put away your calculators gentlemen; this costs you nothing.

The national website is a side issue--spawned in this thread--that could facilitate sharing and receiving information on suspended searches, at very little expense. It also opens the door for CAP people who wish to volunteer their own time to work with private parties and families on a problem, and to do so in a controlled, organized manner. It also has potential value as a training exercise.

Again, nobody's asking CAP to launch aircraft or ground teams. Just apply your brains, your hearts, and that willingness to give of yourself that brought you to CAP in the first place. Public or private, we're all part of the same community; if a family finds closure on day one or two years later, we all win.

I would be interested in a cost/benefit analysis in using taxpayer funds and members' time to investigate and search for long-suspended missing aircraft/people where the likelihood of saving lives is near-zero.

Cost/Benefit ratios are great. Let's do a couple on the search for N2700Q:

C/B-1 (AZ SAR & CAP):
COST: 481.7 flight hours, 213 sorties (you do the math)
BENEFIT: Zero. Aircraft not found

C/B-2 (Private searcher):
COST: Phone call to USFS to get hiker report of unconfirmed fire (25-cents)
BENEFIT: Aircraft found. Two families get closure.

Now can we stop the back & forth stuff and get back to a constructive discussion? Please?

[wingnut55]

Just getting back into this conversation

I  marvel at some people on this blog who seem to comment about things that they most likely have never have participated in. The actual search for a missing plane, an airplane with SOULS on board, a missing child, an older person, a Father, Brother, Sister, Aunt, Mother.

We don't just cherish our missing soldiers, but all people, and since CAP is a part of the US Government , I doubt anyone begrudges the reopening of a search mission. It is done all the time Fossett was not special. As for those long forgotten missions I for one volunteer to do that ON MY OWN TIME!!

But I know that The US Government will reopen all cases of missing aircraft because it can.  Some people here on this site seem to enjoy always being the one who goads people just to try to make people miserable like they must be

[us11cav]

...Now can we stop the back & forth stuff and get back to a constructive discussion?

constructive   (adjective)
1. constructing or tending to construct; helping to improve; promoting further development or advancement (opposed to destructive ): constructive criticism. 

[RiverAux]

One does have to wonder just how interested the AFRCC would be in doing anything along these lines.  From what I can tell, they're mostly interested in search and RESCUE and after a case has been suspended, 99.9% of the time we would be talking about search and RECOVERY. 

Lets for example say that all of a sudden some fairly good info has been submitted on a search that was suspended a year ago.  Do we think that AF would want to spend money on solving it?  Are they even allowed by their own rules or other law governing AFRCC to spend money on recovery operations? 

I wouldn't expect them to approve 50 sorties on that sort of info, but a few sorties and maybe some GT work, wouldn't be too much to ask. 

FYI, I am looking this as a potential CAP program and not as something done by another organization as uscav seems to be proposing. 

[us11cav]

..I am looking this as a potential CAP program and not as something done by another organization as uscav seems to be proposing.

Oops. Looks like it's time to recap before we get too far astray...

I never proposed anything that extensive on CAP's end, RiverAux. This part of the discussion began when I floated the idea (reply #19) that CAP set up a web-page for each unsolved case--as we did for N2700Q--to solicit and gather information from sources outside CAP.

That got a good reception, and the subsequent ideas that came in gravitated toward implementing this from the CAP national website.

Then we hit a snag when it was suggested CAP rules might prevent the release of information about suspended searches. I confess that's a sore point with me because of the difficulties we faced getting CAP-held information after the search for N2700Q was suspended. I responded with an account of a recent radio interview that I hoped would remind everyone that "people are watching." Merely maintaining the status quo may not serve CAP's best interests in this political and budgetary climate.

RiverAux then floated this in #40:

...The next step up would be having a Region-level cold-case squad  (as an extra duty for people throughout the region) that would periodically review all suspended cases to re-evaluate the situation and make recommendations to AFRCC about re-opening searches.

I appreciate the intent, but that post then generated a discussion about cost/benefit ratios and using taxpayer funds to search for long-suspended missing aircraft, to which I gave a rather snarky reply. (My apologies gentlemen; I was getting a bit exasperated at that point.)

To summarize and re-iterate: We are not asking that CAP or AFRCC (or any other public agency) do anything more than improve their ability to articulate with private citizens/groups who wish to pursue a suspended search at their own expense. (By "articulate," I mean make every possible effort to share mission information with those parties.)

The website is a side-issue; something that worked well for us, and could help other families. If CAP/AFRCC doesn't have the wherewithal to do it, fine, but we feel strongly that they still need to address the "articulation" issue.

What I said in reply#13 still stands, and lays at the core of our message:
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.

[Short Field]

The lack of a central repository for closed/suspended SARs is a glaring shortfall in our system.   How it would be put together and the types/formats of data/material it would contain would take someone much smarter than me to work out.  But we should have something to support research and follow-on searches.

I can understand the concerns some people may have with posting the information as it can be the first stop for people looking to sue over a "poor" search.   This is not a trivial concern and shouldn't be ignored.

On the flip side, I was asked to research some old suspended SARs to see if we could work them into our SAR exercises.  The only information I could find on them were a couple of newpaper articles and the NTSB reports.  YMMV, but I have not seen CAP Wings keep a detailed record of everything that transpires on a search.  The map board gets cleaned off, the 104s get filed, and that is that.  You can reconstruct some of a search from the 104s, but there is a lot of informaton that just disappears - if it ever existed to begin with.

[Ranger75]

For the sake of clarity concerning the current state of play related to the releasability of mission information encompassing CAP's role in an active search operation, the following is an extract from the current CAPR 60-3:

1-18. Mission Records. Wing commanders will ensure that records pertaining to each authorized mission are filed at wing headquarters. These records shall be kept in a CAPF 115, Emergency Services Mission Folder, and will include at least the
incident commander's log; mission flight plans; personnel, vehicle, and aircraft registers; all CAP and wing forms used; message log; copies of news releases; reports to the controlling agency; and any related information that may be needed in answering future inquiries relating to the mission. Records shall be maintained at least 7 years after the mission is closed or suspended except where they are involved in actual or potential litigation and then they will be retained until that issue is resolved. No mission records will be released outside CAP without prior written approval of NHQ CAP/GC and HQ CAPUSAF/JA.

It would appear that CAP is not the master of its own domain, when it comes to release authority.   While any number of us may be supportive of more open access to or full disclosure of information detailing completed operations, it would appear that DoD/USAF would also have to weigh in with a changed mentality.

[us11cav]

Short Field's example suggests CAPR 60-3.1-18 was not followed with regard to preserving mission information, i.e., someone broke the rules. I'm familiar with 1-18, Ranger75; it was quoted to me in another thread. My reply was:

...In the case of N2700Q, the AZ State SAR Coordinator's letter ended with this: "After outlining the intense effort made on the search and with all leads having been cleared, I advised [the families] that I was officially suspending the search efforts for the aircraft. Please contact me if I can be of any further assistance."

The word "suspending" implies that it may be re-opened, say if new leads are acquired. Yet at the same time, our very serious efforts to uncover such leads were hobbled by our inability to obtain the CAPF 115 Emergency Services Mission Folder referred to in CAPR 60-3. Any right-thinking CAP person who wanted to help us would have to break the rules to do so. The door had effectively been slammed in our faces...

The time limit specified in CAPR 60-3 brings up one of the two questions I posed in reply #41 regarding Bonanza N927JL. The 7-year limit on that search expires next year. What happens then? Will we still be chatting about this while mission documents are being shredded? I hope not, and that's why one of those two steps I mentioned would be to lock-down and preserve--in perpetuity if needed--all mission info. The other would be to verify the information in the NTSB report (Yes, that one too--like N2700Q's--has obvious errors.)

I'm getting the feeling there are two roadblocks to a more logical (and humane) handling of CAP mission information. The first is this notion that CAP regulations are cast in stone, and that the process of obtaining "prior written approval from NHQ CAP/GC and HQ CAPUSAF/JA" cannot be modified or streamlined. The second was aptly summed up by Short Field:

...I can understand the concerns some people may have with posting the information as it can be the first stop for people looking to sue over a "poor" search.  This is not a trivial concern and shouldn't be ignored....

I respectfully reject both arguments. The notion of an inviolable, unchangeable set of regulations runs contrary to our democracy. Our body of laws has always been a work-in-progress. If something doesn't work, we fix it.

As for lawsuits, I can't imagine what yardstick anyone might use to measure a "poor" search. A SAR agency is expected to perform its tasks as mandated; beyond that there is no expectation of success. But if this issue really does have us caught like deer in the headlights, then let's lobby for legislation to indemnify and hold harmless SAR agencies from lawsuits relating to the good-faith pursuit of their mission and the release of mission information to legitimate private searchers.  Again, let's not quit; let's fix the problem.

[Ranger75]

us11cav  --  My cite of the current regulation was not intended as a statement of personal inflexibility, nor as a rejection of your objective to see access to such information greatly enhanced.  Rather, it was to ensure that all taking part in this exchange were aware of our own internal regulatory hurdle that would have to be overcome, and that that hindrance is not the sole challenge to achieving what you seek.  I also believe that the cite indicates an appropriate, and possibly more effective, strategy for affecting change.  While it is well and good to establish a dialogue with interested members of CAP on an unofficial discussion board with an expectation that that might serve as a catalyst for change internal to the organization, a direct approach to the more senior authority, the USAF, would appear to be in order.  I am unaware of what efforts you might have expended in that direction.

[us11cav]

Ranger75, Perfect. It appears we agree and are well-positioned to move forward. Our efforts to acquire information during the N2700Q search were done informally at first and then through FoIA requests, both of which were largely unsuccessful. I was not aware of the path through NHQ CAP/GC and HQ CAPUSAF/JA (nor even what those acronyms stood for), but it seems like this is a good time for me to learn, and for all of us to test the process.

I propose we use the case of Bonanza N927JL as a testbed to see how the "process works." I'm approaching this with an open mind, and am eager to listen to whatever suggestions you or others here might have on how to obtain mission information on that case.

Again, I am not asking, nor even suggesting, that any CAP (i.e., taxpayer) resources to be devoted to this. It would be a purely a volunteer effort to extend the good work already performed by the CAP-AZ and CAP-NM wings.

[Short Field]

Short Field's example suggests CAPR 60-3.1-18 was not followed with regard to preserving mission information, i.e., someone broke the rules.

My point was not so much that the rules are broken but that the level of information maintained is not really that detailed.  I.E. Incident Commander's Log: " Mission Base opened at 05:30.  Missions flown as tasked.  Mission Base closed at 18:30."  My logs tend to be more detailed but then I have a lot more experience maintaining incident log due to my past life.   

[SarDragon]

I was not aware of the path through NHQ CAP/GC and HQ CAPUSAF/JA (nor even what those acronyms stood for), but it seems like this is a good time for me to learn, and for all of us to test the process.

FYI, the alphabet soup is, respectively, National Headquarters General Counsel, and Headquarters CAP/USAF Judge Advocate General, the lawyer folks for the two entities.

[Ranger75]

us11cav  --  My regrets for the delayed response.  My focus has been in preparing for and participating in my wing's USAF evaluated SAREX this weekend.

My time spent in uniform presented me the opportunity to serve at the most senior levels within both our military and political structures.  That experience leads me to offer a suggested strategy consisting of the following steps to achieve your aims:

•  An initial registered letter addressed to the Civil Air Patrol's General Counsel, and Headquarters, CAP/USAF Judge Advocate General, seeking release of the specific mission file related to CAP efforts in the search for N927JL.  The letter should include a request for clarification from both staff elements on the criteria utilized in release of information decision reviews and your interest and rational for seeking less stringent barriers to obtaining information related to search operations.

•  If the reply is not responsive to your request, forward a similar request directly to the National Commander, CAP and the Commander, CAP-USAF, with a courtesy copy provided to the Commander, USAF Air University, the senior command of CAP/USAF.

•  As necessary, a third letter addressed to the Secretary of the Air Force, with courtesy copies provided to your House representative and two senators.

•  As necessary, a letter to your representative and senators, with all previous correspondence attached, requesting intercession with DoD/USAF to obtain release of the information and a review of policy toward future requests for similar information. 

•  As necessary, a letter addressed to the Vice President and President mirroring that seeking Congressional intercession.   

While correspondence to members of Congress and the White House will not normally draw the attention of the principals, a member of their staff will push the request forward to the USAF for review and reply.  Such a reply can be expected to be forwarded back through the requesting office for review, before being sent out.  As a Special Advisor for National Security Affairs to a senior elected official, I reviewed similar correspondence to single out those requests worthy of individual staff attention.  In rare cases, I would send a memo to my principal explaining my recommended course of action to resolve the issue.  Given his review and initials on my memo, I cold make use of his title in my engagement with the concerned federal departments and agencies.       

[us11cav]

Ranger75, with all due respect...  I can't help but think this is some sort of misguided joke. Is that contorted, arduous path that you describe the very best we can expect from our government (and from CAP)?

Perhaps we've not made our points clearly enough in this thread. The fact that a search has been "officially suspended" should not mean it's relegated to the "normal" morass of non-responsive bureaucracy that we all too easily take for granted.  The very nature of SAR work carries with it an implicit requirement for "all due haste."

A family left holding the "post-suspension" bag should rightfully expect more than the spectre of writing endless letters to their elected representatives, in the hope that someone will take pity on them. This reeks of "democracy in inaction."

For a fairer assumption of what could and should be done, please read paragraphs 165 - 168 ("Information Accessibility") in this New Zealand study:
http://www.nzsar.org.nz/SAR%20Reports%20media/Documents/ZK-HTF%20Independent%20Review%2028%20April%202006.pdf

Should we take a lesson here from the Kiwi's? We certainly think so, but we've "been there." All we ask (again) is that you try and put yourselves in our shoes before you sign-off on the status quo.

[Ranger75]

us11cav  --  No matter the strength of your personal conviction, engagement with a limited number of individual members on an unoffical forum, none who have the authority to represent the organization's governing bodies, is unlikely to result in the change you seek.  I proffered a recommendation based upon my own experience in moving bureaucracies.  It was offered in good faith and not in some attempt at cruel humor.  I regret that you view it in a different perspective.  I believe I comprehend your objectives, what I don't understand is your expectations of this forum's membership toward attaining that objective.     

[us11cav]

...previous comments deleted...

You're right, of course. We respectfully withdraw.

(Questions regarding the search for N2700Q may be directed to our website: www.n2700q.com)

[RiverAux]

uscav, I think you and your issues have received a very fair hearing from those of us active on this board and I believe most actually agree with you on things that should be addressed.  However, you've quickly losing your credibility, with me at least, by your comments chastising CAPTalk members for not waving a magic wand and making everything right with the world.

You've been told what restrictions we operate under and been given some very sound advice on ways that you can adapt to that and also been given advice on how you might try to encourage CAP to change some of these restrictions.

The thing you're not getting is that you may actually be able to get things changed faster than just about any CAP Talk member.  We have to try to battle our way through layers and layers of command before getting the decision makers to even hear what our issues are.  You can start right at the top.  But stop critisizing us for trying to help you.