Uh oh.. this is going to put a crimp in transportation

[Spaceman3750]

While it's doubtful that we have much of a need to scale the side of a mountain on a Jeep trail (and good luck getting the beastly Expedition up one), I've seen two-track service roads used a fair amount. In dry conditions it's mostly ground clearance that's the issue so 12-pax is fine. In wet conditions, probably not so much (haven't had the pleasure of getting a van stuck in the mud so I can't say that from personal experience).

One thing that I will sharply disagree with is the sentiment that if the mission is away from a paved road we shouldn't be doing it. People and planes have a tendency to go missing in areas where there aren't people to see them go down or get lost. Not many paved roads where there are no people.

What, you missed the statistic that clearly shows 99.9% of the plane crashes we respond to are within easy reach of a paved road?

All kidding aside, you are correct, but mostly we would use our heads and park the van when we can't go further, and proceed on foot. We did just that this past weekend on our FTX. We didn't see the van for more than 24 hours.

And I agree with walking, though in a hilly or rugged area I'd rather get my people as close as possible and wear them out searching rather than wearing them out walking to the search area.

Not a problem I face with any frequency living in central IL, but in the southern reached of the state it could be an issue at some point. Then again, you also don't make logistical decisions based on "could happen", but if you're in Idaho and have a routinely demonstrated need for a higher ratio of 4x4s then by all means, go buy them.

[The Infamous Meerkat]

Sir,

I would venture to say that we both have very different understandings of the term winter given our obvious Geographic differences. I am only familiar with North Carolina's and Pensacola Florida's versions of winter, and while it has parts that make it no fun to work in, Idaho's winter is considerably different. Snow is a given reality, it's going to be there regardless of any factors that could possibly affect our weather. We live in a state that has extreme elevation changes throughout its landscape, aptly named the Rocky Mountains. The most inhabited part of the state is the lower area which has the good fortune of being leveled by the Yellowstone hot spot millions of years ago. In Idaho we don't have the ability to choose which day we will drive in the snow or not, as me may have several feet of snowpack on our roadways for weeks on the busy city streets of Boise. Smaller towns fare worse, and outlying mining towns like Yellow Pine and Warren fare still worse than that.

In Idaho we do often see 4x4 vehicles in the ditch, and often they have stickers or license plates from California or other states!     just kidding!

One difference in Idaho you won't see in many places is that we stop to help in any way we can. Most people carry chains and traction material,  jackets and other equipment and will help each other out of these situations. In Idaho, sticking your vehicle in the ditch isn't a comical happening to most passersby, it's a threat to life.

I hear a lot of argument that says we shouldn't be driving in the snow with cadets because it pushes ORM boundaries. To that I would say that our ORM boundaries have significant differences from each other. Snow is not a boundary, snow is baseline, and treacherous mountain roads are where we do our business to help people.

Some decided not to go on this mission with me, and I still respect them and their choices. But as CAP was the first team other than the counties' own SAR team, I feel pretty good about the fact that we are able to operate safely enough within our means using these vehicles to save lives, or at least make the attempt to. The mountain that plane crashed on gains 4,000 feet over less than a mile, and the snow covered rocks and dead fall made it very difficult to move on foot. Even using a UTV, my team and our Sheriff's Detective driver took more than two hours just to make it a half mile up one of the trailheads, cutting trees every several feet, just to gain a bit of elevation. We can't simply claim it's too dangerous when there could be living victims on the side of that mountain needing our help.

I respect the reasoning behind having vans, we use the heck out of them like any other wing does. But we do have the problem in Idaho that there are places a van just can't (or shouldn't) go for any reason in any weather, and it's a world where HF comms is the only effective  way to pass information. When it creates more danger to have the top heavy non-4x4 vehicle, I feel very strongly that we need these vehicles. Our command does as well, as nearly every squadron has one, and more are on the way.

[Eclipse]

I hear a lot of argument that says we shouldn't be driving in the snow with cadets because it pushes ORM boundaries. To that I would say that our ORM boundaries have significant differences from each other. Snow is not a boundary, snow is baseline, and treacherous mountain roads are where we do our business to help people.

No one said "cadets", ORM applies to everyone.  As to the bold, there are many who would have issues with that statement.

Some decided not to go on this mission with me, and I still respect them and their choices. But as CAP was the first team other than the counties' own SAR team, I feel pretty good about the fact that we are able to operate safely enough within our means using these vehicles to save lives, or at least make the attempt to. The mountain that plane crashed on gains 4,000 feet over less than a mile, and the snow covered rocks and dead fall made it very difficult to move on foot. Even using a UTV, my team and our Sheriff's Detective driver took more than two hours just to make it a half mile up one of the trailheads, cutting trees every several feet, just to gain a bit of elevation. We can't simply claim it's too dangerous when there could be living victims on the side of that mountain needing our help.

This was a CAP operation?

UTV?  How does that align with 77-1?

Cutting trees?  What did you cut them with?

That paragraph above alone is over the ORM for CAP.

[The Infamous Meerkat]

I hear a lot of argument that says we shouldn't be driving in the snow with cadets because it pushes ORM boundaries. To that I would say that our ORM boundaries have significant differences from each other. Snow is not a boundary, snow is baseline, and treacherous mountain roads are where we do our business to help people.

No one said "cadets", ORM applies to everyone.  As to the bold, there are many who would have issues with that statement.

Some decided not to go on this mission with me, and I still respect them and their choices. But as CAP was the first team other than the counties' own SAR team, I feel pretty good about the fact that we are able to operate safely enough within our means using these vehicles to save lives, or at least make the attempt to. The mountain that plane crashed on gains 4,000 feet over less than a mile, and the snow covered rocks and dead fall made it very difficult to move on foot. Even using a UTV, my team and our Sheriff's Detective driver took more than two hours just to make it a half mile up one of the trailheads, cutting trees every several feet, just to gain a bit of elevation. We can't simply claim it's too dangerous when there could be living victims on the side of that mountain needing our help.

This was a CAP operation?

UTV?  How does that align with 77-1?

Cutting trees?  What did you cut them with?

That paragraph above alone is over the ORM for CAP.

And now you're oversimplifying the story to match your premise Sir. The UTV was owned and operated by VCSO, not us, as was the chainsaw used to to cut trees, which we moved after he was done. Frankly, I'm insulted you would jump to conclusions that I violated regs that badly.

Furthermore every road in Idaho has treacherous points, even Highway 55 (the case in point) runs along a cliff beside a river for most of the journey. No other road goes there without jumping outside the state at some point, and they are no different. These roads are not unsafe when driven by people skilled and experienced enough to know their limits and follow the rules of the road, but that doesn't mean they can't be treacherous...

[Eclipse]

And now you're oversimplifying the story to match your premise Sir. The UTV was owned and operated by VCSO, not us, as was the chainsaw used to to cut trees, which we moved after he was done. Frankly, I'm insulted you would jump to conclusions that I violated regs that badly.

It's your story. Were you >in< the UTV?  If so, I'd say that was a stretch of 77-1 at best.

Regardless, any search that requires off-road vehicles and chain saws to clear the area is not one where CAP belongs.

[The Infamous Meerkat]

I respectfully disagree Sir. That's the mission here in Idaho and you are not the only one who doesn't understand it. Three aircraft wrecks in the past year, all on mountainsides, 2 out of 3 being CAP finds. If you had control of it you would seriously stop us from going to help, even though we are the primary outside resource for that Sheriff in aircraft accidents? I'll never forget the sigh of relief and the look on that Forest Service Officer's face when we showed up beside him on the road, and I can't believe you would be do willing to keep your workers out on the sidelines.

Us being in a vehicle owned and operated by another group isn't discussed by that regulation, and as a Sheriff's Detective he and his agency retain the liability over that vehicle and it's passengers, while CAP retains none. I fail to see how this is skirting regs when it is specifically left out in a regulation titled "Operation and Maintenance of Civil Air Patrol Vehicles" Emphasis mine.

[Spaceman3750]

And now you're oversimplifying the story to match your premise Sir. The UTV was owned and operated by VCSO, not us, as was the chainsaw used to to cut trees, which we moved after he was done. Frankly, I'm insulted you would jump to conclusions that I violated regs that badly.

It's your story. Were you >in< the UTV?  If so, I'd say that was a stretch of 77-1 at best.

Regardless, any search that requires off-road vehicles and chain saws to clear the area is not one where CAP belongs.

You and I agree on many things, but here I'm going to say "cite please". If the activities he describes that you take issue with are being conducted by qualified personnel not on our insurance, what's the problem? Do we close up shop in any non-flat state because we don't want the chance of someone hurting themselves? Do we stop there? There's lots of areas in flat states full of uneven ground, holes, downed trees, and other obstacles that people do a pretty good job of hurting themselves on. In our state, pretty much any time you walk into the woods you risk running into uncapped wells and even the occasional mine shaft, especially in the southern tier. And since the stuff we look for (outside of the non-distress ELT) are generally not on pavement, that's a problem. Of course, you try to limit the time you spend beating through the bush, make sure your team is rested, and constantly looking for those obstacles, but you're going to have to get off of the trail at some point.

I will never put my people at risk of injury for no reason (I'm almost always going to be the one calling an all stop for a safety issue), but we willingly accept that SAR is a higher-risk activity that we do in order to save lives. I highly doubt that in the situation described, moderate-severe injury or death was a risk with a very high likelihood, as long as our personnel were staying far away from the man cutting trees down and their path to the ground. Terrain would have been the biggest risk, and the resulting potential issues of ankle/leg injuries or wildlife related injuries are pretty universal. Nobody's repelling down a cliff in this story. Since neither you nor I can get a fully accurate picture of the situation being described from where we're sitting now, I can only trust that the leaders at all levels of the described operation assessed the risks, implemented controls, used personnel experienced in working with the terrain, and determined that the benefit outweighed the risk.

[Garibaldi]

Situations aside, the vast majority of our ops do not involve what you experience up in the hills. We have hills here in Georgia, you have mountains.

The fact is, CAP will never, ever, take the easy path and accept liability for the use of these vehicles. One of the main reasons they took them away from us in the late 80s, early 90s was the maintenance. We used 1 1/4 ton Army jeep pickups back in those days, sitting on a bench over the wheels. Going out, way out, in the boonies for FTXs was fun for us, but it could have easily led to some sort of disaster. We used a 4WD Dodge ambulance to go up Stone Mountain to maintain our repeater up there, instead of taking the cable car. In short, safety protocol was "Well, if something happens, try to jump out before we plummet to our deaths".

I still maintain that if these 4WD vehicles are used, there is a major potential for disaster, unless they are kept in reserve for such an emergency as you described, and driven by someone who knows what the F they are doing. Letting any Lt. Hotrod drive it is a recipe for disaster. Monthly proficiency tasking would be good. But, I doubt CAP would take on the liability insurance for the use.