Aircraft Missing Since 2006 Located With Help From Google Earth

[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.