AZ Self-deployment praised

[RiverAux]

I was reading the February issue of the Arizona Wing newsletter http://azwg.us/wingtips.aspx and they had quite an extensive article praising one of their members for apparently self-deploying after he learned of a reported plane crash near his home from another CAP member.  The self-deployer went to the scene where the sheriff's office command post was, called the "witnesses", got another member to call the FAA radar controllers for info, then talked to the FAA themselves and eventually determined that what the witness thought was a crash was a plane descending temporarily to do some low level work. 

Now, in terms of getting the job done this was first rate work.  But, as far as following CAP regulations and policies I'm not sure that anything was done right. 

Now, it is possible that the person in question actually is an IC qualified to act in this capacity on a mission and did get all the proper permissions, etc., but the article didn't point that out -- and they should have because as it now stands this article promotes just the sort of self deployment that has been known to cause all sorts of problems. 

[es_g0d]

Yikes.  Self-dispatching is a cardinal sin in my book.

[Major Carrales]

So, if I witness a cropduster crash on the way to Corpus Christi from Kingsville, I should wait until an IC gets there to try to save someones life?

I think the only self deployment that is a duty is in those eminently serious cases.  I would never allow a fellow to die merely to follow some regulation.

[bosshawk]

Sparky: you could do just as you suggest, as long as you don't do it in the name of CAP.  If you act as a CAP representative, you had best dot the I's and cross the T's: act as a good samaritan and you are on your own.

[hatentx]

So, if I witness a cropduster crash on the way to Corpus Christi from Kingsville, I should wait until an IC gets there to try to save someones life?

I think the only self deployment that is a duty is in those eminently serious cases.  I would never allow a fellow to die merely to follow some regulation.

Agreed completely.  If I witnessed the crash or suspected crash I would drive by to make sure everyone is alright.  Not cause I am CAP or Army but as a person.  However going out to a Sheriff and taking charge, ehh more room to get in trouble or be placed in a bad light.  Another SM told him about it not a mission from the AF.  In that situation I would wait for the phone call.  But if I am driving home or what not and see an aircraft looking as if it is going down or is in trouble I may watch it and make sure.  It sounds like he did great when he got there but it was all started the wrong way

[es_g0d]

+1 ! 

Well said ... although nothing says you can't smooth along the dispatch process by calling your known contacts, if the situation warrants.

[RiverAux]

As bosshawk said, this is all about whether or not you are serving as a representative of CAP.  If you see a plane crash in your backyard, of course you help in any way you can.  But, this is not that situation.  I very, very, very strongly doubt that this person went up to the deputies at the command post and only said, "Hi, I'm Joe Smith.  How can I help?" like any other member of the public would. 

There is just no way that those deputies would have given him the name and number of the witness and let him do all the investigation he did unless he said something about his CAP experience.  The article doesn't say whether or not he was in uniform, but again I have a hard time believing that he would have gotten this level of cooperation from LE if he was not (Unless he was personally known to the deputies already). 

[wuzafuzz]

Agree, self-deployment in the name of CAP or using CAP equipment is a bozo no-no.  If I remember anything from my ICS classes it is the repeated insistence that self-deployment is not appreciated.

It's a no-brainer to help to the best of your abilities when you witness something.  Hopefully all community members help when they can, as opposed to standing around and waiting for someone else to do something. (This assumes they are already on-scene.  Responding across town risks being regarded as a wannabe.)  Doing so under the auspices of CAP without proper activation is where the problem lies. 

Now for a discussion question...what if the fellow offered his services as a private citizen, to offer his skills learned in CAP?  If all he did was chat with a cop on perimeter, and said copper invited our enterprising volunteer to the command post, he might be forgiven.  That's not the norm but it is possible in some places.

[ltcmark]

Knowing the qualifications of the member would help.  If they were squadron commander or had the squadon commanders blessings, this could be classified as a local non funded mission.  Now, if they started to call out wing assets without a mission number or the wing commanders blessing with a 911-T mission, that would be whole different story.

Our squadron has been called my times by the local sheriff to assist in finding people.  The Air Force would not issue a mission number so we participated as a local unit.  There is really no difference if they call to ask for help or someone in CAP calls and offers to help.  It is up to the local agency to accept or reject the assistance.

[RiverAux]

Our squadron has been called my times by the local sheriff to assist in finding people.  The Air Force would not issue a mission number so we participated as a local unit. 

Assuming you got it approved as a CAP corporate mission, you are right there is no difference. But, a squadron commander cannot independently decide to go help the locals on an ES mission as a "squadron activity".  There must ALWAYS be a mission number whether is is being funded by the Air Force, the wing, or the squadron. 

Now for a discussion question...what if the fellow offered his services as a private citizen, to offer his skills learned in CAP?  If all he did was chat with a cop on perimeter, and said copper invited our enterprising volunteer to the command post, he might be forgiven.  That's not the norm but it is possible in some places.

Walking a very fine line there and I'm not sure how it could be done without "invoking" CAP in some way.

[JoeTomasone]

So, if I witness a cropduster crash on the way to Corpus Christi from Kingsville, I should wait until an IC gets there to try to save someones life?

I think the only self deployment that is a duty is in those eminently serious cases.  I would never allow a fellow to die merely to follow some regulation.

That's not technically self-deployment.   Self deployment would be hearing about the crash and then heading out there without being asked to by competent authority.

[RiverAux]

About once a year we hear about a plane crash happening at an airport where a CAP unit is doing something and the CAP members help out in some way until the authorities get there.  I wouldn't have a problem with that sort of situation either.

I actually am in favor of CAP offering its services to local agencies in SAR or DR situations in which we are not already involved.  However, when we do that, we must still technically get them to officially request our services through the normal mission approval system. 

Calling the sheriff's office and letting them know of CAP's availability and capabilities to help them with a particular emergency and instructing them on what they would need to do to officially get CAP help is different from an individual driving to a command post and getting this involved, apparently without involving higher authorities.   

Just as a reminder -- it is possible that the person in question actually did do everything right and got all the proper approvals -- in that case I'm mad at the public affairs officer for not making that clear in the article because without stressing that aspect of what happened the article would certainly be seen as encouraging people to self deploy in the future. 

[Major Carrales]

As I understand it, "self-deployment" in a form, may be the future of ELT searches.

Bear with me please...

Lets say that Capt Capman and 1st Lt Bennet are doing a proficiency flight when they hear an ELT or Major Stranger and C/CMsgt Blairgent are driving to a CAP meeting when they get an 121.5 tone on their radio?

Do they now call AFRCC or some other authority to request a mission number?

As I understand it, with no monitoring of 121.5 by the "Civil Space Patrol," my name for all the orbitial devices up there, it us up to private pilots to monitor it.

When a CAP Officer finds this, what are they to do?

[RiverAux]

Do they now call AFRCC or some other authority to request a mission number?

Report it to FAA via radio and let them notify AFRCC just as any other private pilot would be expected to do. 

Very unlikely that AFRCC would generate a mission #, find an IC, etc. before you land. 

As I recall from the SMC class, the AFRCC didn't really want to encourage CAP members to call them to report ELTs going off in order to generate missions.  I don't think that was official policy though.  With the loss of sat coverage, this might change.   

[RADIOMAN015]

We really shouldn't be self deploying TO A SCENE.  However, to a certain extent we might have to get a bit more aggressive in some circumstances.

Examples:  You are monitoring regional/local Air Traffic Control frequencies with your radio scanner/monitor and aircraft are reporting hearing an ELT signal.  You as a general rule have a scanner/monitor tuned to the 121.5 mhz in your vehicle & while driving by a particular location pickup an ELT signal.

In the first incident you will eventually be called.  IF you are more proactive (prealert UDF & aircrew personnel, perhaps you can close the mission quicker and not end up responding at night/darkness when you could have resolved it during the daylight hours.

In the 2nd incident, you are next to the emitter so you might as well call and advise of this.  Again being able to close the mission quicker with less resources.

It's important for all members to be aware of the procedures to request an imminent 911 mission within your wing & follow those procedures.

Also as part of your squadron's public affairs/ES orientation program, you might schedule briefings with local public safety officials in your response areas, so they know who to contact IF they need your assistance.   Types of ES Support will vary in each wing depending upon who the OPR is for certain types of emergencies.  For example in our state lost person searches are the responsibility of the State Police & they have a fleet of helicopters with FLIR and other devices which signficiantly reduce search time in many instances.
RM     

[Major Carrales]

A few people in our Group see the end of ELT Coverage via SPACE Borne sats as the end of CAP's involvement.  I think this is a misnomer.  I think the ELT UDF mission will simply evolve and become more challenging.

I, for example, will not miss deploying to Oilton, Texas at 0200 hrs (1 1/2 hr drive to 30 miles south nowhere) for a false signal on a periodic basis.

I have always maintained that the likely hood of distress calls will increase, however the routine non-distress ones will dwindle.

[RiverAux]

I agree that informally alerting your people to the possibiity of a mission in these sorts of situations is a very wise thing to do. 

[Stonewall]

In the past, I have had heartache with not being allowed to solicit our services.  For instance, I have not heard of CAP's participation in the Haleigh Cummings' search in North Florida. 

Here is something I wrote in a past discussion on CAP Talk....

October 2003 in Reston, VA.  A family 5 houses down knocks on my door asking if I've seen their elderly grandmother; she wondered off while they were at the store for about 45 minutes.  I hadn't seen her but I suggested calling the Fairfax County Police, which they did.

FCPD passively placed patrol cars at nearby intersections thinking they'd see her crossing the street.  There are 65 miles of paved trails in Reston, 90% of which are heavily wooded with creeks, streams and 3 very large lakes; all walking distance from the last known location of the elderly lady.

In front of my house was my squadron van, clearly marked with the CAP seal.  A police officer asked me if we were searching and I said no, we hadn't been called.  He looked at my like I was joking.  I had gotten on my mountain bike and began riding, but after the conversation with the cop decided to at least call the Wing CC who was one of our ICs.  He told me it was VAWG jurisdiction and they hadn't been called.  The duty lieutenant made several attempts to try and call out CAP to no avail and gave up.  I had already contacted my entire squadron and sister squadron in anticipation of being "activated".  I got a very rude call from some old hag from VAWG who demanded I stand down and stop trying to be a cowboy.  FINE!

I sent everyone home, most of them in disbelief and mad at me for not fixing the breakdown in the system.   We already had a plan to send "scout teams" to do hasty searches along the creek beds and head to the 3 lakes within a mile or so of our location (my house).  Bud again, I was ordered to stand down.  THAT WAS MY PLAN OF ACTION HAD WE NOT BEEN GIVEN A SPECIFIC TASK.

2 weeks later they found the woman dead along the bank of one of the very lakes we would have searched.  The cops sent a couple (actually 4) bicycle cops to do some hasty searches along the paved trails and got nothing.  I actually feel like we should have been sued.

I do understand the reasoning for not allowing "self deployment" of CAP resources, but I also think there could be some latitude given to squadron commanders, ICs or even ES officers.  I have had to sit back and watch 4 or 5 times while local yokels searched for a missing child and did not call for CAP's assistance.

OTOH, I have been on several missing person searches in Virginia as part of National Capital Wing.

[DrDave]

Do they now call AFRCC or some other authority to request a mission number?

Report it to FAA via radio and let them notify AFRCC just as any other private pilot would be expected to do. 

Very unlikely that AFRCC would generate a mission #, find an IC, etc. before you land. 

As I recall from the SMC class, the AFRCC didn't really want to encourage CAP members to call them to report ELTs going off in order to generate missions.  I don't think that was official policy though.  With the loss of sat coverage, this might change.   

I just completed the AFRCC SMC course a week ago and specifically asked the AFRCC instructors this question on behalf of my Wing Director of Emergency Services.

AFRCC said to call the FAA, they will NOT issue a mission number for a (former frequency) hit by a passing pilot or tower.  AFRCC will call US out if they have a (former frequency) associated with a (new frequency) hit.

Dr. Dave

[JoeTomasone]

I just completed the AFRCC SMC course a week ago and specifically asked the AFRCC instructors this question on behalf of my Wing Director of Emergency Services.

AFRCC said to call the FAA, they will NOT issue a mission number for a (former frequency) hit by a passing pilot or tower.  AFRCC will call US out if they have a (former frequency) associated with a (new frequency) hit.

Dr. Dave

I've had 3 missions tasked by AFRCC in the past two weeks with 121.5 or 121.5/243's that were overheard and called in by a pilot or a tower, and I am awaiting the arrival of another team member to go on one as I type this -- 121.5 heard on the ground at a municipal airport.

[DrDave]

Just telling you what the AFRCC instructors told me last week.

Good luck on the mission!

Dr. Dave

[RiverAux]

AFRCC said to call the FAA, they will NOT issue a mission number for a (former frequency) hit by a passing pilot or tower.

That answer makes no logical sense.  If they won't issue a mission number for a reported 121.5 signal, then why bother having us call the FAA? 

Might they have said that CAP shouldn't call AFRCC directly to request a mission number for an ELT overheard by CAP and that we should call FAA instead?   

I do understand the reasoning for not allowing "self deployment" of CAP resources, but I also think there could be some latitude given to squadron commanders, ICs or even ES officers.  I have had to sit back and watch 4 or 5 times while local yokels searched for a missing child and did not call for CAP's assistance.

Your experience is one of the reasons it is good that now local agencies are told to call the NOC to request CAP rather than trying to work with the Wing directly.  Now that LT should have just had to make 1 phone call and NOC would have gotten VA wing activated and on board. 

[wingnut55]

I think this whole ELT thing is a [darn] mess, The USAF should have never stopped the program, we are putting people at risk.  As a private citizen and aircraft owner i have written several letters to my congressmen complaining about the actions of the USAF. As far as I can tell the system is now in chaos.

We shall see

[DrDave]

AFRCC said to call the FAA, they will NOT issue a mission number for a (former frequency) hit by a passing pilot or tower.

That answer makes no logical sense.  If they won't issue a mission number for a reported 121.5 signal, then why bother having us call the FAA? 

Might they have said that CAP shouldn't call AFRCC directly to request a mission number for an ELT overheard by CAP and that we should call FAA instead?   

Sorry, that's what I meant.  That AFRCC won't assign a mission number not the FAA (I am unaware that FAA assigns mission numbers).  I thought I was pretty clear in my original comment above, I guess not.

Dr. Dave

[PHall]

I think this whole ELT thing is a [darn] mess, The USAF should have never stopped the program, we are putting people at risk.  As a private citizen and aircraft owner i have written several letters to my congressmen complaining about the actions of the USAF. As far as I can tell the system is now in chaos.

We shall see

But it's not the Air Force who did this. It's the International SARSAT folks who made the decision.

Yeah, we could leave the transponders on the US satellites on, but that's only about a third of the satellites.
You're also dealing with Russian, French and British satellites too.

[Eclipse]

I just completed the AFRCC SMC course a week ago and specifically asked the AFRCC instructors this question on behalf of my Wing Director of Emergency Services.

AFRCC said to call the FAA, they will NOT issue a mission number for a (former frequency) hit by a passing pilot or tower.  AFRCC will call US out if they have a (former frequency) associated with a (new frequency) hit.

Sorry Dave, that's either a misunderstanding or misinterpretation by someone.

That is specifically 180 off what is actually going to happen.

AFRCC will be issuing mission numbers the same as always, with the difference being that the reports will be coming in from overflights or FBO reports, etc.

There's no point in getting into a "my source aims higher on the wall than your source..." discussion, but if there was going to be that radical a change to SOP, don't you think there would be more announcement than a random question at an AFRCC class?

Up until 1 Feb, a tower with an active ELT called the FAA, not the AFRCC, and the FAA then placed the request for assistance to the AFRCC, so why would that chain change now that the sats aren't listening on 121.5

As to the comment that its a "mess", I disagree - the only mistake the FAA made was not mandating the new ELT's because of political pressure from AOPA and similar groups.  Had they mandated them, the majority of aircraft would have GPS-located beacons, and no one would be left on a frequency without a listener.

"Bad" for us, but better for general aviation.

If CAP becomes the last buggy whip manufacturer, so be it, we should own that and move on instead of simply assuming that the whips can be used somehow with the new-fangled horseless carriages.

If "owning it" somehow results in CAP's ultimate demise, we'll all find something else to do with our weekends - Better to burn out than fade away.

[ol'fido]

If we go and press the flesh with our local EMA, sheriff's,fire/EMS agencies and let them know of our capabilities and the types of missions we handle and the resources we have available, we wouldn't have an issue in most cases of "self deployment". The locals would know how to request our presence through official channels and they could give the local CAP unit a heads up to be ready to deploy as soon as authorization comes in.

[Ricochet13]

Do they now call AFRCC or some other authority to request a mission number?

Report it to FAA via radio and let them notify AFRCC just as any other private pilot would be expected to do. 

Very unlikely that AFRCC would generate a mission #, find an IC, etc. before you land. 

As I recall from the SMC class, the AFRCC didn't really want to encourage CAP members to call them to report ELTs going off in order to generate missions.  I don't think that was official policy though.  With the loss of sat coverage, this might change.   

I just completed the AFRCC SMC course a week ago and specifically asked the AFRCC instructors this question on behalf of my Wing Director of Emergency Services.

AFRCC said to call the FAA, they will NOT issue a mission number for a (former frequency) hit by a passing pilot or tower.  AFRCC will call US out if they have a (former frequency) associated with a (new frequency) hit.

Dr. Dave

Let me be sure I understand this.  AFRCC will NOT call out CAP and issue a mission number unless there is a 121.5 associated with a 406 signal?   I crash (having only a 121.5 ELT on board), and AFRCC will not respond based on passing hits or reports to a FAA tower? 

[RiverAux]

I think what he meant by his "clarification" later was that if a CAP member hears a 121.5 ELT signal we should report it to FAA and NOT to AFRCC.  If we call AFRCC anyway, they aren't going to give us a mission number.  They will only give a mission number if the report comes through FAA.  At least I think that is what he meant (he had a double negative in the sentence which threw me a bit). 

[JoeTomasone]

When we spoke to the FBO today while working the mission, and they said that they called it in to the FAA -- so apparently those reports can still generate a mission number.  The IC was about to call AFRCC to close out, they called and tasked us to prosecute 2 airborne reports of a 121.5.   So, apparently both types of reports will still be accepted in at least some cases.

[DrDave]

Well, I stand corrected by the general krewe.  Was just passing along what AFRCC told me (Dan Conley).

All good comments and questions, unfortunately I don't have any additional answers. 

(Not an ES guy, just a Group CC and PAO.  )

Dr. Dave

[Eclipse]

We had one this week - our crew heard it, called AFRCC direct, pulled a mission #, 2 GTs and an (different) a/c later they found it.

Status quo except the plane went up right away.