ELT Radio Direction Finding is still needed!

[Major Lord]

Here is blurb I clipped from a SAR website. Note that the PLB did not even vector the searchers into visual range of the target, and a helicopter had to find it the old fashioned CAP way!

PLB Helped Save Stranded Hiker in Big Bend National Park



On December 30, the U.S. Air Force notified the park that a personal locator beacon (PLB) signal had been received from a backcountry location within the park. Rangers headed to a backcountry campsite about six miles from the coordinates given by the PLB and found a vehicle registered to a visitor who had a solo hiker permit for that zone of the park. Two rangers then hiked to the approximate PLB coordinates, but were unable to find anyone in that area. They were joined by another team of searchers and a Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) helicopter the following morning. The crew of the helicopter homed in on the 121.5 MHz distress transmission from the PLB within minutes of arriving on scene and soon spotted the hiker, who was waving a space blanket at them. He had "cliffed out" on the side of Elephant Tusk peak, but gave the helicopter crew a thumbs-up signal indicating that he was okay. Although the helicopter was unable to land, the crew directed searchers to the man's location, then ferried rope and climbing equipment to the rangers on scene. They climbed to his location and helped him down. The man told rangers that he'd attempted to climb to the top of Elephant Tusk the day before. He'd cached his backpack, tent and sleeping bag and had made the ascent carrying only a space blanket, food, water, a whistle, an LED light, and a PLB. After topping a 40-foot chimney, he decided to turn back - only to find he couldn't climb down from his location. He spent the night on a 6-foot by 50-foot ledge wrapped in the space blanket, with his PLB tied to a bush to keep it from being blown away by high winds. Overnight temperatures were just below freezing. This incident marks the first time in Big Bend that a PLB has been used by a hiker to call in rescuers. Without the PLB and assistance from the DPS helicopter, it would have been extremely difficult to find and rescue the man in a timely fashion. The PLB probably saved his life

[RiverAux]

Okay, this means that there was a significant amount of daylight when the signal was received (if the rangers had the time to get alerted and hike 6-miles in), the guy stayed out overnight, and then the state spent probably at least a thousand dollars on a helicopter. 

If they would have called CAP our guys could have found them on the first day and vectored the rangers in.  The SAR site should have been critisizing them for not using the proper resources (us) to begin with.  Good thing no one died because of this. 

Yes, yes, I know no one has to use CAP but we were very obviously the right resource for this job.

[DNall]

Easy there. That's state parks & wildlife's ballgame & they're goo at the job. Doubt a CAP ground team could hike in six miles stay the night & climb down that face to do a techical rope rescue, even if it was an easy one. DPS is quite good also & was called in when it was appropriate (and probably cost closer to 10 grand transiting to/from & operating, probably a UH1). They do have cessnas they could have sent also, but then that'd be pretty difficult to ferry climbing gear with huh?

CAP would in fact have launched an aircraft on that right away, but the reason for that is cause it takes so long to scramble a CAP GT & get them transited to a remote location. We put a plane up so we can narrow the search before they get there & hopefully see if there's an emergency we need to send medical/rescue personnel to. It's not any bit of genius, it's just making up for us being spread out & slow.

[arajca]

Multiagency response.

CAP a/c, non-CAP ground team.

Interesting concept, no?

[RiverAux]

Note that I said that CAP could have directed in the park rangers.  I agree that a CAP ground team wouldn't have been appropriate, but CAP would have been the right agency to call to locate the source of the PLB.  I can't believe they just sent rangers out with a GPS unit and thought they would find something, especialy off a PLB signal. 

[Major Lord]

My point was not that we should try to poach missions from the park rangers (who have little to do anyway besides chastise bears that steal picnic baskets...) My point was that PLB's and ELT's cannot be relied on to precisely locate a victim, GPS equipped or otherwise, and that organizations with DF capabilities will more often than not be required to localize the distress transmitters. As to CAP ground teams remaining in the field overnight, I have done so and I assume that many of you have also. I believe that CAP ground teams and A/C would have been well utilized in this type of mission, and may have even kept the victime from having to shelter out doors over night. He lived, but it sounds like he was fairly well prepared.

[DNall]

That's not what I'm saying. What I meant was the park rangers, especially there, are infinitely better prepared to deal with any SAR situation than CAP, that most CAP ground teams would respond very slowly by comparison & could very quickly find themselves in over their heads. That's just saying that CAP ground teams need to be better prepared & watch out for those NIMS-WSAR standards that we need to be looking to for teh future.

I've been on numerous missions w/ CAP aircraft & other GT or vice versa - a whole lot actually w/ CG helo & CAP GT. I've worked missions w/ lots & lots of agencies, & CAP has always been hands down better at signal SaR on both air & ground, and I mean a lot better & that doesn include CG much to their embarassment a few times.

It would be fine to use a CAP aircraft in such a situation, but lets look at this one right quick. Parks & Wildlife get the call cause it's in a park. They are automatically going to send rangers on the ground & won't call for air support unless/until they need it. You got an issue with that, take it up with them, they're better at this than we are. When they call AFRCC for air support, that call (in Texas) has to go to DPS. If they have the right tool in the right place then they're doing it.

In Texas, DPS is in charge of aviation, local sherriff's dept is in charge of missing persons. When a hit comes up to AFRCC they look at where it's at. If it looks like a non-distress ELT then CAP gets called, if it's in a remote area where it MIGHT be real then DPS must be called. They then send a unit (usually a patrol car but could be air) to check the coordnates (they can DF from the air  as well as anyone in CAP). If they don't find anything, then they tell AFRCC there was nothing there & if they want to get rid of it w/ CAP then be their guest don't call back unless there's a real emergency. THEN we can roll out & take care of it. Now, DPS knows our capability quite well, and if they think we are the right tool in the right place or it's going to be a sustained REDCAP type seach then they ask AFRCC to put us on it before it's even offered. Frankly, if DPS wants to dodge mountains in an aircraft of any kind, more power to them. I say good job on the save & keep it up.

[RiverAux]

Dnall, everyone understands local vs state vs federal authority.  The point is that everyone in that chain should understand their own strengths and weaknesses and that of other agencies.  Both the state (when they got the initial call from AFRCC) or the park (when they got called by the state) should have already known that a PLB signal, even with coordinates would not be sufficient to dispatch a ground team on, especially in a remote wilderness area.  Both the state and the park should have realized that the best resource to use to locate the signal location was CAP. 

Now, even if they decided not to use CAP, they should have sent some air unit out first even if it was an expensive helicopter.  Sending the rangers out on a 6-mile hike with just coordinates was almost criminally negligent and shows a major lack of understanding of PLBs that could have cost someone their life.  They could have very easily arrived at the site to find him frozen to death because of their mishandling of this incident.   

[carnold1836]

The real issue here still is response time. Even IF CAP could get an air crew to respond quickly we are dealing with your closest aircraft being in the Midland-Odessa area, 200 miles away. I will bet my next CAP paycheck that TX DPS has their helicopter a whole lot closer than 200 miles, possibly as close as Alpine, less than 100 miles away.

Should the National Park Service have called in for air recon sooner? Maybe, maybe not depending on their current SOP for missing persons. Remember this is the first time a PLB has been used in Big Bend so this is new to them in that park.

Am I disappointed that CAP was not involved in this rescue? A little. Did the NPS do the right thing when they realized they need to get air recon by calling TX DPS instead of CAP? I think so for the reasons mentioned before; response time and aircraft capability to support the GT.

[RiverAux]

Should the National Park Service have called in for air recon sooner? Maybe, maybe not depending on their current SOP for missing persons. Remember this is the first time a PLB has been used in Big Bend so this is new to them in that park.

I suppose I don't blame the park too much, but whatever state agency that first received the call from AFRCC should have been very familiar with PLBs and they should have provided some guidance to the park on this issue.   

Sure, if the DPS helicopter was closer and had the capability (which they obviously did in this case), they may have been the right choice to send in.  However, given the horrible waste of time they had it probably made very little difference. 

[carnold1836]

I suppose I don't blame the park too much, but whatever state agency that first received the call from AFRCC should have been very familiar with PLBs and they should have provided some guidance to the park on this issue.

If you reread the report, it was Big Bend that was notified by AFRCC not the state.

On December 30, the U.S. Air Force notified the park that a personal locator beacon (PLB) signal had been received from a backcountry location within the park.

[Major Lord]

Okay all you cranky old guys out there, I did not intend to start a fight over jurisdiction, only to argue that our DF skills are still needed because next-gen ELT's have been over-sold. and many people have felt that the role of CAP will dwindle because of this. The idea being promoted was that PLB's would bring the rescue crews right  to the victim, and that only extrication would be required. While personally, I would love to have an ELT that vectored my rescuers to my location before I died of exposure, injury, or being devoured by badgers, it is just not there yet. ( Actually Ham radio APRS works much better for locating people, but that's another story...)

On my last sleep-in-the- woods mission, an aircraft crashed in Sequoia National park in winter (snow) The local sheriff would not permit CAP aircraft to overfly the area, considerign them a hazard to navigation and more of a liability than an asset. (it's nice to be loved....) He grudgingly allowed a ground team into the park.

I suppose if there is a fight brewing because of what I have brought up, its that our own people are pissing off other agencies because of unprofessional conduct, appearance, or responses ( I surmise) We have to be able to consistently and professionally provide services if we expect to be treated by other agencies as other than the red-headed step child of SAR. ( Of course, I could add that we should wear purple uniforms with red stripes to distiguish us from the park rangers, but that would start a uniform argument )

[RiverAux]

all you cranky old guys out there,

cranky younger middle-aged guy here!

I suppose if there is a fight brewing because of what I have brought up, its that our own people are pissing off other agencies because of unprofessional conduct, appearance, or responses ( I surmise) We have to be able to consistently and professionally provide services if we expect to be treated by other agencies as other than the red-headed step child of SAR. ( Of course, I could add that we should wear purple uniforms with red stripes to distiguish us from the park

In situations like this I don't think it is active dislike for CAP that is the problem, it is a lack of understanding of what we can do.  With the National Park in particular they may have been hesitant (if they even knew about us) because of very strict rules regarding aviation use in the Dept. of the Interior. 

I think if CAP stays humble most agencies will be happy to use the free resources we provide if we constantly keep up a good relationship with them so that they know what we can do. 

[DNall]

Okay all you cranky old guys out there, I did not intend to start a fight over jurisdiction, only to argue that our DF skills are still needed because next-gen ELT's have been over-sold. and many people have felt that the role of CAP will dwindle because of this. The idea being promoted was that PLB's would bring the rescue crews right  to the victim, and that only extrication would be required. While personally, I would love to have an ELT that vectored my rescuers to my location before I died of exposure, injury, or being devoured by badgers, it is just not there yet. ( Actually Ham radio APRS works much better for locating people, but that's another story...)

On my last sleep-in-the- woods mission, an aircraft crashed in Sequoia National park in winter (snow) The local sheriff would not permit CAP aircraft to overfly the area, considerign them a hazard to navigation and more of a liability than an asset. (it's nice to be loved....) He grudgingly allowed a ground team into the park.

I suppose if there is a fight brewing because of what I have brought up, its that our own people are pissing off other agencies because of unprofessional conduct, appearance, or responses ( I surmise) We have to be able to consistently and professionally provide services if we expect to be treated by other agencies as other than the red-headed step child of SAR. ( Of course, I could add that we should wear purple uniforms with red stripes to distiguish us from the park rangers, but that would start a uniform argument )

I understand what you're saying. No on eis saying DF skills still need to be out there somewhere. No one is saying ALL the missions would go away. What's being said is there's a point at which its not worth 25mil a year, a 100mil air fleet, 35mil comm fleet, 15mil vehicle feelt (just throwing out a number on that one). plus actual expenditure out of the AF O&M budget to reimburse for ops. At some point well north of missions going away other options become more effiecient & you can't hold back the tide anymore just cause we also run a cadet program. Exectly where that point is would be debatable, but it's out there. What we have to do is accept that it's there & evolve to other things as our primary focus. We'll still be here to do the DF work when the call comes, but only if we're also there to do lots of HLS flying & NIMS certified for GT ops so we can go to disasters & on lots more missions to do real work.

[lordmonar]

What we really need to do is get NHQ working harder to help sell us to the local agencies.

How many times have we not got the call because noone knows we exist, or do not understand our capabilities?

How many times has someone made a judgement about CAP based on one Ground Team or one Aircrew that they worked with 10 years ago?

How many wings actuall exercise with other SAR agencies?

One way to do this....is to put PCA to the test and offer our services to local, county and state law enforment in a more expanded role.

By working with them on their normal operations they will be more likely to call us when they are suddenly stuck with a SAR op.

The will know who we are and what we bring to the fight.

The USAF is a dead end in this respect.  With the expanding nature of warfare...there are less non-combatant jobs out there that a bunch of civilians in Cessnas can take on. 

[RiverAux]

The reg you're referring to gives the proceedure for AF to request outside CAP support for large scale operations with reimbursment & insurance coverage. It's not there as an impediment to normal low level interation & assistance.

They've developed a great brochure that explains CAP to everyone, but it is up to the locals to make the connections.

[DNall]

What we really need to do is get NHQ working harder to help sell us to the local agencies.

How many times have we not got the call because noone knows we exist, or do not understand our capabilities?

How many times has someone made a judgement about CAP based on one Ground Team or one Aircrew that they worked with 10 years ago?

How many wings actuall exercise with other SAR agencies?

One way to do this....is to put PCA to the test and offer our services to local, county and state law enforment in a more expanded role.

By working with them on their normal operations they will be more likely to call us when they are suddenly stuck with a SAR op.

The will know who we are and what we bring to the fight.

The USAF is a dead end in this respect.  With the expanding nature of warfare...there are less non-combatant jobs out there that a bunch of civilians in Cessnas can take on. 

I wouldn't say AF is a dead-end. It's true that we can't keep doing what we are & have been doing & still be as useful tot eh aF as we have in the past. So, does that mean we change to completely different things that the AF finds useful, or does it mean we try to keep doing our same old thing for whoever else will pay for it? Remember now, we can't operate w/o the AF money & that's the clencher for me. I don't have a problem with us doing stuff ofr state/local within reason, but I think the primary focus has to be on transformation to something new that we work out with the AF. Strictly the other seems like  amuch more definate dead end to me.

[lordmonar]

I wouldn't say AF is a dead-end. It's true that we can't keep doing what we are & have been doing & still be as useful tot eh aF as we have in the past. So, does that mean we change to completely different things that the AF finds useful, or does it mean we try to keep doing our same old thing for whoever else will pay for it?

I say the USAF is a dead end because there is very little that "we do" that the USAF wants or needs.  Sure we can complete change what we do and how we do it....but would we then be the Civil Air Patrol?  I mean if the Boy Scouts stopped camping and started only doing basket ball and band camps....sure the BSA organisation would still exist but it would not really be the BSA. 

Same for CAP.  We "do" ES, CP and AE.  If we stopped doing that what would we be then?

Remember now, we can't operate w/o the AF money & that's the clencher for me. I don't have a problem with us doing stuff ofr state/local within reason, but I think the primary focus has to be on transformation to something new that we work out with the AF. Strictly the other seems like  amuch more definate dead end to me.

I don't know why you keep saying this?  Why do you think we still can't do what we do with out the Air Force providing us money?

We have several options towards money.

1.  We can hit the states, counties and cities we direcectly support for the funds.
2.  We can hit up the local community/philantropists for the funds.
3.  We can go self funded.
4.  We can go directly to congress and get our own money.
5.  We can go to another Federal Agency/agencies for the money.

We cost a lot of money to the USAF....but we can also cut a lot of fat out of our budget is push came to shove.

I'm not saying it would be easy....but the Red Cross does very well without a lot of federal funding and almost none of it directly from the military.   The Boy Scouts do well too.  I'm not a big fund raiser type person...but CAP as a national organisation could survive a loss of sponsor ship from the USAF.

[DNall]

I say the USAF is a dead end because there is very little that "we do" that the USAF wants or needs.  Sure we can complete change what we do and how we do it....but would we then be the Civil Air Patrol?  I mean if the Boy Scouts stopped camping and started only doing basket ball and band camps....sure the BSA organisation would still exist but it would not really be the BSA. 

Same for CAP.  We "do" ES, CP and AE.  If we stopped doing that what would we be then?

See that seems like over mission identification to me. It seems like you're unwilling to adapt to a changing world cause you love what "we do" so much that anything else iss a threat. Sounds like simple fear of change.

Remember now, we can't operate w/o the AF money & that's the clencher for me. I don't have a problem with us doing stuff ofr state/local within reason, but I think the primary focus has to be on transformation to something new that we work out with the AF. Strictly the other seems like  amuch more definate dead end to me.

I don't know why you keep saying this?  Why do you think we still can't do what we do with out the Air Force providing us money?

We have several options towards money.

1.  We can hit the states, counties and cities we direcectly support for the funds.
2.  We can hit up the local community/philantropists for the funds.
3.  We can go self funded.
4.  We can go directly to congress and get our own money.
5.  We can go to another Federal Agency/agencies for the money.

We cost a lot of money to the USAF....but we can also cut a lot of fat out of our budget is push came to shove.

I'm not saying it would be easy....but the Red Cross does very well without a lot of federal funding and almost none of it directly from the military.   The Boy Scouts do well too.  I'm not a big fund raiser type person...but CAP as a national organisation could survive a loss of sponsor ship from the USAF.

The Red Cross serves a purpose that's fills a critical need of society & they started with a fortune to spend getting donations. CAP fills no such need. Certainly not in the eyes of Congress if the AF isn't interested in us anymore.

The fact is that yes we can do missions for state/local & they can pay the per hour cost, but that's not the real cost, it's subsidized. If you program in the replacement, training, & annual operating costs of all our stuff & divide it among the hours we fly, the price would be a couple grand a mission flying hour while still using volunteer personnel.

There's just flat out a cheaper way to do what "we do" w/o CAP, and that's going to get worse as traditional missions decline. So, we have to evolve to other mission sets. That doesn't mean we quit doing what we do, but it does mean we diversify significantly & put other things first as necessary to make ourselves useful in Auxiliary roles to the AF.

[lordmonar]

See that seems like over mission identification to me. It seems like you're unwilling to adapt to a changing world cause you love what "we do" so much that anything else iss a threat. Sounds like simple fear of change.

I won't say a fear of change....I just don't want it.  I joined CAP to work with Cadets and do ES work.  If CAP changes and ends up doing something else....I have no need/desire to stay with the organization.  Maybe I just find some ex-CAP ES types and form a Boy Scout Explorer Post and keep on working with young Americans and doing ES work.

The Red Cross serves a purpose that's fills a critical need of society & they started with a fortune to spend getting donations. CAP fills no such need. Certainly not in the eyes of Congress if the AF isn't interested in us anymore.

Right on the first part but wrong on the second.  We will still need to fly SAR.  There will still be lost hikers without PLBs, there will still be a need for small town agencies for a cheap air service, there will still be downed aircraft who's ELT's fail.  There are at least other volunteer Aerial SAR organizations I can find on the web and several commercial air surveillance companies with SAR capabilities.  The BSA flies SAR for gosh sakes.  It would not be all that hard to find customers with money....just look at Iowa.  The got $100K a year without even trying all that hard (don't flame me....you guys are working very hard...and doing a good job....it was just a easier that a lot of people think it would be).

The fact is that yes we can do missions for state/local & they can pay the per hour cost, but that's not the real cost, it's subsidized. If you program in the replacement, training, & annual operating costs of all our stuff & divide it among the hours we fly, the price would be a couple grand a mission flying hour while still using volunteer personnel.

So we can the corporate fleet and fly member owned aircraft...kill the comm net and eliminate about 90% of the cool stuff cadet activities.  In stead we take a page from the boy scouts and get local funding for the same programs and extend the time between event.  NCC and IACE ever 4 years, kill all the FAM/orientation course that do not really help with our cadet program or our ES mission.  Consolidate our encampments to regional level to hold down costs and staffing.

And again....what is our annual budget?  $20M-40M?  The Boy Scouts raise that kind of money at the state level!

There's just flat out a cheaper way to do what "we do" w/o CAP, and that's going to get worse as traditional missions decline. So, we have to evolve to other mission sets. That doesn't mean we quit doing what we do, but it does mean we diversify significantly & put other things first as necessary to make ourselves useful in Auxiliary roles to the AF.

I don't understand your reluctance to move away from the USAF?  If the USAF could use us in any other way....they would.  Again I ask you....name one mission that the USAF does right now that we could do cheaper/better than they do that does not involve us crossing the line into combat operations?