Aircraft Crash Mystery in Update NY Reason for Ground Teams?

[RADIOMAN015]

Here's an interesting story breaking on the MA/NY border at a ski area: 
http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/URGENT-Body-found-at-plane-crash-site-810175.php

Looks like no flight plan, and no ELT (that survived).  Closest airport is the next hill over in Great Barrington, MA.    Interestingly a hunter "boots on the ground" came upon the burned out crashed aircraft.

As well know even the Steve Fossett, it was 'boots on the ground' non CAP hiker that came upon that crash, even after all the sophisticated aero search didn't find.

In the above NY wreck would be interesting to see if the MA State PD helicopter was easily able to see the burned/crash from the air.

Although again it was "boots on the ground" that initial found the aircraft.   Perhaps CAP ground teams still have a valid place in ES
RM   

[NIN]

When I first moved to New England, it was two years after a Lear Jet went missing on Christmas Eve attempting to land at the airport in Lebanon, NH in an snowstorm.

CAP,  the NH Fish & Game & NHARNG searched for something like a month after the disappearance and the Lear's scenario continued to be a search target for practice missions well after I moved to the area in 1998.  It was eventually found by a forester surveying a tract of land for harvesting nearly 3 years later.

According to the ops people, the NHARNG flew one of their Blackhawks up there, and literally hovering over the side of the mountain it was difficult to determine there had been an aircraft there.   (this particular accident was as a result of CFIT with a mountain. They were at the correct altitude for where they thought they were in the procedure turn inbound to Lebanon, but they were outside of the safety zone due to higher than forecasted winds at altitude. IIRC, they were pushed  5-6 miles NE of where they expected to be. So while being at the correct altitude for the part of the approach they thought they were on, they were over the wrong piece of real estate, which resulted in the cumulo-granite surprise..)

Ground teams would have had negligible effect because, frankly, nobody had any clue where the plane was, either from the air or on the ground. Nobody in their right mind would have gone bushwhacking up the side of a random mountain that was 5+ miles outside of the expected search area in the first week of January. (heck, from what I understand, and judging by the topo, it was a mountain you wouldn't exactly go bushwhacking up in the last week of June, either...)

Same thing with this Catamount plane:   the site is a 2 hr hike from the ski lodge.  On a 2000 ft mtn. so its either on the far side of the mountain, or the terrain is a real pain in the backside. 

In either case, without additional evidence indicating a high probability of finding anything in a particular location, a ground team is likely not going to be just wandering around the mountains like a hunter, a forester, or hiker.

Air coverage is key in situations like this, but even then you might not ever find anything.  Ground searches of that magnitude would likely require literally thousands of searchers in order to fully canvas the search area, and even then: its going to take forever.   The long and the short of it is that you're not sending a ground team someplace where you don't have some fairly clear cut evidence (either visual or circumstantial) that there *might* be something to find there.

Yes, you need ground teams in some instances. But what if the better equipped/trained force is the local mountain SAR group or the sherriff's posse?  (lets not get into the whole "6 kids and some old dude equipped with completely inappropriate equipment" ground team model that embarrasses CAP in the face of more well equipped, more well trained teams that can actually handle the terrain and weather conditions..)

I'm not saying CAP ground teams are obsolete, but they're just one small piece of the puzzle, and not always the appropriate tool.  Wouldn't it be better to be able to communicate with, say, the local sherriff's dept SAR team, the highly-experienced mountain SAR group, and the National Guard's dustoff folks instead of attempting (and usually failing) to field an appropriately trained & equipped team?

[RADIOMAN015]

Here's an update:
http://www.berkshireeagle.com/ci_16606800

2 people were killed, and likely the plan was going to land at the Great Barrington MA airport (took off from Chicago & refueled in PA).  Federal investigators stated that the aircraft likely went down around 1950 hrs local on Wednesday  Interestingly the tail section and a small section of the aircraft frame were intact (see picture in the article), it's likely the ELT was destroyed by the fire.  Aircraft was all white with a yellow stripe on the tail.  I'm surprised the aircraft was at least using "flight following" along the route. 

As far as ground teams, surely if weather permits air search is the most efficient method.
RM 

[Eclipse]

Perhaps CAP ground teams still have a valid place in ES?

Still?

Who is saying they don't?

[RADIOMAN015]

Yes, you need ground teams in some instances. But what if the better equipped/trained force is the local mountain SAR group or the sherriff's posse?  (lets not get into the whole "6 kids and some old dude equipped with completely inappropriate equipment" ground team model that embarrasses CAP in the face of more well equipped, more well trained teams that can actually handle the terrain and weather conditions..)

I'm not saying CAP ground teams are obsolete, but they're just one small piece of the puzzle, and not always the appropriate tool.  Wouldn't it be better to be able to communicate with, say, the local sherriff's dept SAR team, the highly-experienced mountain SAR group, and the National Guard's dustoff folks instead of attempting (and usually failing) to field an appropriately trained & equipped team?

NIN I agree with you --- it's interesting in that I've had cadets parents ask me about the ground teams and my answer has been that it is very unlikely the team would be called because of some state age restrictions for lost person searches;    HOWEVER, I also state that the training they will receive is very good and the instructors are very dedicated and one never knows when that training even 10+ years from now may be needed in a personal emergency. 

Recently we had some of our squadron personnel attend a wing GT training session, and none of them were even trained on the operation of a portable GPS (since most teams don't have).  I highly doubt that every GT in the state has topo maps for even their typical response area.   (As I side note though I am working on trying to get a donation for a portable GPS for our team).  Also for a winter time response, our squadron ES officer (who has VERY extensive winter wilderness hiking experience), felt that most GT members lacked the appropriate personal equipment to remain safe in a winter environment (of course he could be an "Army of one", and he definitely couldn't talk me into this in since I like the comforts of mission base :angel:) .  Also in many instances snow mobiles would be the quickest transportation to a potential scene and we don't have these and I'm not aware of any MOU with anyone that does have.

Our wing leadership currently sees our airborne assets (e.g. airborne recon activity) perhaps supplemented by a small (e.g. 2 to 3 people) command & control team (likely at a public safety EOC) as the most likely and highly "marketable" missions to the various public safety agencies in the state.
RM 

[Eclipse]

^ Excellent recruiting technique.

CAP GT's do a lot more than just missing persons.  In many states and regions CAP is becoming an increasing presence
in DR, which opens a number of doors to all sorts of work, not the least of which are sandbagging and well-being checks.

As to equipment, I'm not sure how you have "poorly equipped" GT's - the equipment list is the same for everyone, and is appropriate for CAP's missions. While there is no requirement that the individual own the equipment at the time of tasking and qualification, they do have to physically have it in their possession for missions, if they don't, they don't go.  Period.

If your state allows GT's to be just "6 kids and an old dude", poorly equipped, then you deserve to sit on the sidelines.

As usual we are our own worst enemy.

[NIN]

As to equipment, I'm not sure how you have "poorly equipped" GT's - the equipment list is the same for everyone, and is appropriate for CAP's missions. While there is no requirement that the individual own the equipment at the time of tasking and qualification, they do have to physically have it in their possession for missions, if they don't, they don't go.  Period.

While I don't disagree that the the "equipment list is the same for everybody," a CAP "SAR" team's equipment, and especially clothing, will be substantially different in the mountains of New Hampshire, or even the Rockies, than it is in the flat lands of Illinois or Michigan.  I submit to you that in some places it is, in fact, inappropriate for the METT.

There are volunteer mountain rescue teams here that possess all the neato peachy keen technical gear that allows them to hike up the side of a mountain in the pitch black, howling gale, etc, etc.  Stand six members of that SAR team alongside six of ours, and see the obvious differences.

If your state allows GT's to be just "6 kids and an old dude", poorly equipped, then you deserve to sit on the sidelines.

As usual we are our own worst enemy.

Indeed.  When I moved to New England in 1998, I came from a "flatland" wing (Michigan) that did a fairly good job of ground SAR (ELT DFs, ground searches, etc), but with terrain variations in your average search areas measured in terms of tens of feet.   Not so here, where terrain variations are measured in the tens of hundreds of feet. 

So I came to a wing that did -no- ground SAR at all.  Ground SAR in the state was covered by the State's Fish & Game Division, and they did not invite CAP to the party?  Why?  Because, as you mention, we're our own worst enemy.   

Apparently some years before, the way the story was related to me, during a search in the mountains, the CAP SAR team arrived at a staging area.  Out from the van hops a 60+ year old Lt Col and six or seven "kids" (cadets, but you know what I mean), all dressed in cotton uniforms, leather boots, crappy field jackets, carrying 1960s nylon LCE and nothing thicker than some 550 cord. 

And they acted in one of those "You all can go home now, CAP's here to get the job done.." ways that we've all heard about, and got laughed at by the real-deal SAR teams who were all duded up in their "Gucci gear" : technical fabrics, appropriate gear for the mountains & weather, *real* rope, crampons, etc.  The civilian SAR guys were like "Uh, yeah, let us know where you think you're going to be up there, cuz we're pretty sure we're going to have to pull your butts off the mountain, too..."

Pretty soon, CAP isn't invited the ground SAR party cuz it basically can't keep up with the legitimate players.  And honestly: why would they? CAP squadrons don't have snowmobiles, SnoCats, full goretex outfits, good Kelty or other rucksacks, ice axes, etc. You know: the appropriate equipment to be getting the job _done_ on the side of a mountain in crappy weather.  Our ground teams, sadly, are more interested in making sure their orange ascots and whistle chains are appropriately straightened and affixed..


Really.  In 4-5 years as a GTL, I did 1 non-distress ELT search (we did many more as a wing, but that was all I ever got called on), multiple practice missions, and that was it.   No missing persons, nothing.

After I was inactive for a year or so, after handing over my squadron, there was a big missing persons search about 2-3 miles from where I live, and there was CAP, finally invited to the SAR party, on a canvas of this good sized state park.  Right there on the evening news.

Of course, they're all out there prancing around in their orange hats, ascots, white boot laces, white pistol belts and whistles in front of the TV cameras, and I'm thinking to myself: "Remind me again how the white boot laces & pistol belts help you when you're knee deep in a swamp looking for a lost hunter?" 

Wouldn't their gear needs be better served by "gear that works" instead of "stuff that looks good?" (and, in some cases, the "military surplus" solution is clearly inferior to some of the commercial solutions, yet we steadfastly stick to the hand-me-down M1968 pattern field gear cuz "its uniform.")

Since our air assets are our "key differentiators," I tend to think that CAP would do a much better job if they put a 2-3 member liaison team (coordinating cell, whatever you wanna call it) in an EOC/NOC/ICP to coordinate our air assets with the extant incident command structure and leave the actual ground stuff to the guys with the higher degrees of training, practice, equipment, and skill. Especially when it comes to putting guys into more "technical SAR" situations like mountains, night, weather, etc.  That would be a true move on CAP's part toward "jointness" and interoperability with other agencies and organizations.

Maybe for the purposes of DR and the like (sandbagging, wellness checks, etc), there should be a totally different sort of qualification/task organization thats not "ground team."

[Eclipse]

I've been there when the idiots show up - both the geardos and those with a PB&J and a leatherman, so I feel your pain, but in the
actions you're indicating, CAP probably had no business being on the front line to start with.

We don't do technical rescue, nor mounted rescue, nor extended activity in extreme climates, that isn't what we are about, and whoever
put those teams there are the real culprits.

In my AOR an attitude of "undersell, overprovide, and STFU" have served us well in fixing some of the challenges our forebears have wrought upon us, but we still have a long way to go to be equal players, and there is always some goober that is waiting to kill 5 years of image enhancement with 15 minutes of "I know better..."

[Flying Pig]

I think CAP GT use is very much location specific.  Where I am, CAP ground teams really serve no purpose in SAR.  UDF, sure.  Actual SAR, no. 
Break out the sticks and walk online.  But real world SAR in the Sierras is so far out of CAP's realm its not even funny.  Because of the terrain all of our SAR members are almost always inserted and extracted by helicopter and all have rappelling and extensive mountaineering training.  Not to mention monthly mountain skills and survival training and.....everyone sit down, physical fitness tests they have to pass.  The volunteers go through the same training as the full time deputy SAR members.
Cadets would have no place on GTs where I am either.  As soon as a 16 yr old showed up, the Sheriff would kindly thank them for their help and then show them the door.  Now....Aircraft searching, High Bird duties, etc.  Sure, bring it on.  But GT, no.  CAP doesnt have the training, resources or equipment or, in many cases, the BODY types to keep up.  But my department will trip over itself to get a CAP aircrew overhead to do radio relay.  Thats where the need is, and CAP fits quite nicely and is respected for the tools they bring to the table.