Missing Aircraft Search Team (M.A.S.T.) Critical of Air Craft SAR

[wingnut55]

A group of volunteers who met while working on the Steve Fossett search in 2007 have formed an ad hoc group called the Missing Aircraft Search Team (MAST),

Our team is made up of about 14 people from around the country, and we meet online or over the phone," spokesman Lew Toulmin.Toulmin added that MAST also will examine the way that searches are conducted and lobby for improvements. "The data are so scattered," he said. "We found in both cases [Fossett's disappearance and the 182 case] that there were myriad problems with coordination, funding, insurance, standards, routine destruction of vital search data, search command and control, and lack of 'lessons learned' analysis." Another group, InternetSAR, was formed after the Fossett search to promote the use of Internet resources for aerial searching. Toulmin said MAST also will organize ground searches. Two ground searches had already been planned for Arizona this month. The group is now looking at a couple of other cases and will take on another project soon, Toulmin said. He said about 100 light aircraft have gone missing since 1962

[Gunner C]

This is not good.  These folks are probably well-heeled (lots of money and time) and have connections.  Though I wasn't there, the problem seemed to be that the professionals (us) weren't necessarily running the search.  There were too many folks who just showed up and flew/ground searched.

It was probably impossible for the AOBD and GBD to adequately process the information that was gleaned from these amateur searches.  Just because some pilot flies over an area it doesn't mean that there was an effective observer on board (in fact, there probably wasn't).  How do you calculate a POD from this?  Impossible.

If there was a lack of coordination on the search, it was caused by the amateurs, not us.  But, they'll go to the press and say that there's no system for organizing searches or coordinating information.  There is:  it's us along with using NIMS.  I'm thinking that this is going to blow up in our collective faces:  CAP won't be there to explain to them how it works, but the press will.  If we're cited at all, it will be as ineffective SAR organization that needs to be replaced.

[wingnut55]

I was there and I was rather shocked at the situation CAP aircraft from other states could not communicate through the AZ repeaters, Mission base had lost control on what aircraft was in what grid, the Air Craft was found in the area of High probability but I never saw another CAP aircraft for days. I cannot believe that the Forest Service was so inept to not report the fire from the crash that day to SAR HQ. But I believe it was a big cluster %$#*

The fosset mission was 10x worse.

I know people who was there and they tell me it was very upended. Well we all saw 'What's her Face " on TV e-gads what a waste of SAR money on that search.

[Short Field]

How many CAP PSCs do you know that spend any time learning skills for planning searches?  Most are just on a two-mission sign-off along the way to IC.  Which means when they get to IC, they still don't know how to plan a good search.

[isuhawkeye]

How many CAP PSCs do you know that spend any time learning skills for planning searches?

raises hand

There are a few out there who push and develop increased education standards.

[RiverAux]

I agree with the statement regarding the lack of adequate after action review, at least as far as CAP goes.  CAP has absoutely no system for conducting after action reviews of significant missions and the few times I am aware that it was done, the results were never widely distributed so that they could be of use to anyone.  We should have a page on e-services where after action reviews can be posted and reviewed. 

[Larry Mangum]

I have yet to see or hear of a mission where the outcome did not result in a find, where the love ones of the missing were happy with the results. There also are always those who beleive they could have done a better job.

Many years ago shortly after I joined CAP a Lear Jet crashed in NH on xmas eve.  CAP Aircraft from 4 wings searched, ANG A-10's and army Blackhawks all searched to no avail. The family refused to give up and the next summer hired a "professional" SAR group to search, but alas no success. Three years later a forester performing a survey for a timber sale found the aircraft. It was located in a place that everyone had searched many times.

in 2003 I was involved in a search for a missing twin that took off out of Wenachee, WA.  We searched for the aircraft in very rugged terrain while dodging snow showers and mountain peaks in an area that had no road access until the snow melted in the spring. Three difference agencies including CAP searched for over two weeks.  We ahd a CAP member who decided that a rock formation under the surface of the lake had to be the aircraft, and would not let go of his beleif and after the search ended continued to pester the county sheriff, the state SAR Director and everybody else he could think of that might have some influence.  18 months later the aircraft was found by a helicopter ferrying fire fighting crews to a wild fire. Was not even close to where that member thought it was.

My point is that no one is ever happy if the outcome of the mission does not give the familes peace of mind and it is always easy to second guess the IC and mission staff afterwards. 

[wingnut55]

I think we all agree that an after action review and critique needs to be implemented from the top down, and in every wing. I also am shocked to see an IC running a downed aircraft mission  after not running a mission for an entire year. Is that the way to run a professional organization?? I think that the IC program is sadly behind the eightball.

We must be self reflective of ourselves because it makes us want to improve. Honestly I have been impressed by 80% of our membership, we are a diverse group of volunteers. We care about others and want to do the right thing.

[DG]

I think we all agree that an after action review and critique needs to be implemented from the top down, and in every wing. I also am shocked to see an IC running a downed aircraft mission  after not running a mission for an entire year. Is that the way to run a professional organization?? I think that the IC program is sadly behind the eightball.

Good point.

How are IC's selected for any particular mission?

By ability or by the buddy system?

[Larry Mangum]

I think we all agree that an after action review and critique needs to be implemented from the top down, and in every wing. I also am shocked to see an IC running a downed aircraft mission  after not running a mission for an entire year. Is that the way to run a professional organization?? I think that the IC program is sadly behind the eightball.

Good point.

How are IC's selected for any particular mission?

By ability or by the buddy system?

In my experience, it has been based both upon experience and availability.  When I have received a call from AFRCC, I first look at who is available and then based upon that I would try to determine if the skill set of any of them met the incident requirements and only then make a determination of who gets it.

[heliodoc]

Yep both experience and availablility

BUT

AAR's are a required after most DHS and State EMA exercises, if I am not mistaken

Also, IF I am not mistaken, CAP wants these type of DHS missions, also

IT would behoooooooooooove NHQ and Wing Kings to get in the mindset of AAR's

CAP has been running around WAY TOO LONG without doing these and maybe 1 AF needs to pick up on this and make it mandatory....more mandatory than worrying about 39-1 "crap" and how good we look.

We sure don't look good wheb there nor AAR's and no AAR on NHQ websites to conduct biz

Look at the LLIS.gov website and you'll know what an AAR looks like.

Time for CAP to get hot on it.  May require a little more than Inland SAR Course.

The SQTR system neeeds a revamp for 2009 standards and if CAP wants to be "a big boy " in more than just SAR, then it's time to man up to a AAR system and stop pretending all the safety stuff is going to make alll the wrong things going on to go away

AAR's and safety are and have been going on for a looooooooooooooooong time

Time for CAP to adopt and overcome all the criticms of IC's.....there needs to be a better system...... OH there is...its called table tops folks

When you don't have funds to put on a large exercise, its time to go cheap and non threatening and start doing tabletops

These things is NHQ reaaaaly on top of???  Better get with the EMA types in your State, they'll have a better idea on how one can put these together. 

IT time for CAP to standardize ALLL training.    CAP has been talking too long....NATO....No action, Talk only

Time to do AAR's to be a viable organization.   Plenty to talk about from the 1940's and subhunting......  PLenty to do and MORE in 2009

DO NOT KID YOURSELVES

[Al Sayre]

Ok, we need AAR's, better IC's, more training, etc. so my question is:  What are YOU doing to help the situation?  Throwing rocks from the sidelines doesn't help. 

How many missions/SAREx's have you been on where once the flying/GT portion of the mission/exercise was concluded, everyone jumped in their car/van or airplane and headed for the house?  Did YOU stick around to help the IC deal with the mountain of paper he/she had to deal with after the mission?  Did YOU offer to help write an AAR and document the lessons learned?  Remember IC's are volunteers too.  All of the things you describe as being needed add to his/her workload. 

People who wonder why it takes a month or better for the IC to process the paperwork to get them re-imbursed:  Have YOU offered to help organize and double check the 108's/104's/109's/WIMRS entries for accuracy and compile and match the receipts? 

Are YOU working on your mission staff qualifications or do you just want to be part of the aircrew/ground team?  What are YOU doing to obtain a staff position to implement the changes you would like to see? 

If YOU want to fix the problem, YOU have to get close enough to turn the wrench...

[heliodoc]

Thanks for the heads up , Al

Been pretty busy withthe REAL emergency response life and have suggested many of thwese tghings to the King of the Wing

backgrounds of many people there are only interested in theirselves and some time the folks act like ANYTHING HLS is a secret...... going into FOUO mode and not sharing

ME??  I wasn't directing AT YOU.  The organization in general NEEDS aTOTAL revamp and there ARE MANY RESOURCES CAP can tap into andf NAMELY the EMA community.

MAYBE it time to LAYOFF off a few SAREX's in turn to do table tops.

ME Looking for a Staff position???   Rarely does anyone credit anyone's previous tactical experience in the REAL world and this Wing may or may not recognize it...They all think CAP experience is the ONLY real deal.  I'll take your ideas into advisement when I get layed off in July.  We will see who will listen, then

Any hint of "that's not the way we do it around here" mentality, then I will leave to them to get to the real teachers of the IC world

[Short Field]

Rarely does anyone credit anyone's previous tactical experience in the REAL world and this Wing may or may not recognize it...They all think CAP experience is the ONLY real deal. 

I have only been in CAP for 3.5 years.  I found my previous experience was a factor - but that only meant it took lots less time to pick up how CAP did it and to satisfy each SQTR task as I progressed through mission base positions.  I still did all the tasks and worked missions in each position to understand how CAP does it.  If you have the knowledge and ability, then it is fairly easy to demonstrate it on the SQTR tasks.

[Larry Mangum]

AAR's can be very useful, however unless a) memebrs stick around to participate in, b) some action is taken to correct the identified deficencies or to renforce what went well. 

In the first case, it has been my experience that if the AAr does not happen within 2 weeks of the exercise or mission that it does not happen, and if it is not done before key staff disperse, the results are less then idea.

For the second case, it soes not matter wither the wing king, the DO, DOS or the IC want the changes to happen, if the members do not support the changes. Yes the changes can be mandated, but this board is full of gripes from member who do not want to comply with policy changes.  People resist change wither it is for the good or not.  If you want to see changes in how things are done, you must step forward and help lead change and be ready to compromise if not everyone see's it your way. Micro-changes can lay the foundation for making bigger changes.

For those of you who were not part of CAP before the change over to CAPR60-3 from CAPR 50-15 and CAPR 55-1 and think that CAP has botched NIMS, the system for becoming a Mission Coordinator was exponetially more political and murky then becoming an IC ever will be.

[RiverAux]

I have written AARs on missions before and do staff and field work.  One was received fairly well while several others generally got me in warm, but not hot, water. 

I think that our military has shown that self-critcism can do wonders for your performance, but the organization as a whole has to be receptive.  So far, I'm not seeing this on a regular basis in CAP. 

[wingnut55]

I agree the After Action Report should be self reflective and subjective. People should be allowed to voice their opinion without fear of retaliation.

A professional organization would allow that, with the intention of reviewing mistakes or looking for better ways to get the job done. However, most missions are run by the same people over and over again we see the same mistakes. The leadership will not take suggestions or a critique because they see it as a personal attack on them.

So entire Wings wallow in the mud, criticized by the local SAR community for not being a team player, or living in a Fantasy world of old Fat Guys playing pretend soldier. I am saddened to say that this was a comment I received during a Very High Profile Mission from a very well respected person in Aviation.

We open CAP to criticism from organizations like M.A.S.T. who show up looking for our mistakes to make them look good. They are right if we spend 1,000 man hours on a goose hunt and the plane crashed 10 miles from its last radar hit. Two crashes 2 years apart in the same area and both had critical information ignored or overlooked. WHY?? because the same people keep making the same mistakes and we have no available recourse to correct our ineffective leaders in the SAR arena.

[Larry Mangum]

They are right if we spend 1,000 man hours on a goose hunt and the plane crashed 10 miles from its last radar hit. Two crashes 2 years apart in the same area and both had critical information ignored or overlooked.

I will grant you that we have people in leadership positions who keep making the same mistake, however your I will grant you that we have people in leadership positions that keep making the same mistakes; however your example is not valid. There can be many reasons why an aircraft might not be found even if it is within 10 miles of the last radar hit.  Out west we have some incredibly hostile terrain, that can be heavily wooded or snow covered and let's not forget that an airplane that breaks a part in flight or impacts the side of a mountain no longer looks like an aircraft. 
I personally, was involved in the search for an aircraft that eventually was found within less than a mile from the last radar hit, however it came apart in flight and the pieces all came down into rugged snow covered, wooded terrain.   The state was the lead Agency for search and CAP was only one of 4 or 5 organizations involved.  After 7 days of searching the mission was suspended and the wreck was not found until the next hunting season by a hunter.  The grid the engine was found in was searched many times by aircraft and helicopters, yet not by ground as the area could not be access by a ground team.  Weather during the search varied from extreme turbulence, to snow squalls, and overcast days.  So before you rush to the conclusion that an aircraft not being found within ten miles of the last radar hit, is proof of incompetence upon CAP's part, you might want to consider all of the variables the mission staff have to deal with and the constraints they operate under, for many of those constraints are beyond their control.

[arajca]

This initial post is similar to what happens everytime a new technology is introduced. The new is supposed to render the old obsolete. What I getting is that this group is complaining that searches were not using this new technology, even though the search was conducted before this technology was available. What should be happening is this new technology being worked into the search toolbox.

[Larry Mangum]

This initial post is similar to what happens everytime a new technology is introduced. The new is supposed to render the old obsolete. What I getting is that this group is complaining that searches were not using this new technology, even though the search was conducted before this technology was available. What should be happening is this new technology being worked into the search toolbox.

During the search I mentiond above, digital topo maps where used to brief the aircrews, with each crew provided print outs of their search grids, and handed a gps to place on the dash of the aircraft.  When the aircrews returned the gps was handed in, downloaded into the mapping program and used to debrief the crews.  It allowed planning to more accuratly compute POD and allowed us to see which grids had been covered rather easily. 

Technology is being integrtated into search planning.  In fact, I will be lecturing on the use of topo software and the use of hand held GPS receivers at NESA this summer.