AZ Self-deployment praised

[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.