Over-Water Patrols: Which Wings Do This?

[notaNCO forever]

Sorry I didn't read the whole post and I was having a hard time modifying it. From what I hear most are Ct pilots don't have the proper gear to go beyond gliding distance from land.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I thought I was on the right track! Still, we could have saved them a lot of man hours in that particular seach.

Ryan:

I remember that crash.  It was off one of the Lake Erie Islands... North Bass Island if I recall correctly.

The CG took about two weeks to find it, and their Aux Air was never called.  Since they didn't call their own Aux Air, they also didn't call us.

We would not have needed any special overwater equipment or training, since we would have always been within gliding distance from land.  In fact, I have flown over those islands a lot, and you are usually within gliding distance of an airfield, even if it is the grass strip on Rattlesnake Island where all the Cleveland Mafia guys have built mansions on their private little island.  (I always wonder how many mobsters are buried under that sod strip.)

In fact, running a mission out of Put-In-Bay would have been a big morale boost.  No night flying, and finally a CAP mission in a good "Liberty port!"

[BigMojo]

Florida does over-water flying, especially down here in the Southeast Part of the state from time to time. There is a water survival class and a swim test you must pass before you are allowed to fly those missions.  If I remember right, you have to swim three lengths of an Olympic size pool and then crawl into a life raft wearing flight suit and footwear.

[DNall]

Texas does a water survival course conducted by CG & CGAux Air personnel. I think it's just a class - no swim test - but, we do have the right gear & comply with that reg. We don't do any kind of regular sundown patrol, but some of our CD & HLS work, as well as some joint-ops w/ CG are over water. Some of that may or may not be happening right now.

[CFI_Ed]

Texas does a water survival course conducted by CG & CGAux Air personnel. I think it's just a class - no swim test...

You guys do have a swim test...

[DNall]

Texas does a water survival course conducted by CG & CGAux Air personnel. I think it's just a class - no swim test...

You guys do have a swim test...

Yeah I don't know on that. I know CG does the course. When they're not avail then CGAux Air fills in for them. I understand the formal CG course that Aux takes involves a swim test, and I have no doubt a bunch of our folks have done that one. But, we're not required to be certified to that standard either. I know for a fact we've done classroom only presentations on several occasions. What standard we're applying for operational flights I couldn't say, I haven't been involved in that aspect for prob 10 years.

What I would suggest is... we have mountain flying as a specific ES qual. I'd suggest adding over water as another aircrew qual on the 101. By doing that we can state the CG course or authorized equiv, and we can include some material on air observation of water targets.

I'm not suggesting we knock out CGAux Air, but it's a good idea for us to be able to back them up on the SaR front, and there are other mission areas where we can make great use of the skill set.

[CFI_Ed]

Texas does a water survival course conducted by CG & CGAux Air personnel. I think it's just a class - no swim test...

You guys do have a swim test...

Yeah I don't know on that. ...

What I would suggest is... we have mountain flying as a specific ES qual. I'd suggest adding over water as another aircrew qual on the 101. By doing that we can state the CG course or authorized equiv, and we can include some material on air observation of water targets.

I'm not suggesting we knock out CGAux Air, but it's a good idea for us to be able to back them up on the SaR front, and there are other mission areas where we can make great use of the skill set.

Well, the guys from OK who deployed to Corpus to fly with TX Wing said they had to pass a swim test after academics.  I guess the same for the next crew.

Over Water qual is a good idea and would be easy to track.  One of these days I should learn how to swim (without floaties ).

[DNall]

^ I think the deal is the CG course is the standard we're trying to go by, but it's not enforced by anyone (us or them). I know some people have done the full course. I know we've also had a CGAux Air officer out to do a couple hour brief at a conf & then declared the participants trained for subsequent mission purposes - not only trained, but CG trained.

I really don't like that. It's a simple course/certification. It'd be easy to track on 101, like I said.

[notaNCO forever]

^ I think the deal is the CG course is the standard we're trying to go by, but it's not enforced by anyone (us or them). I know some people have done the full course. I know we've also had a CGAux Air officer out to do a couple hour brief at a conf & then declared the participants trained for subsequent mission purposes - not only trained, but CG trained.

I really don't like that. It's a simple course/certification. It'd be easy to track on 101, like I said.

I agree they need a definite guidelines for over water patroles and qualifications for them that way if something ever happens they can at least have somesort of standardized training.

[CFI_Ed]

^ I think the deal is the CG course is the standard we're trying to go by, but it's not enforced by anyone (us or them). I know some people have done the full course. I know we've also had a CGAux Air officer out to do a couple hour brief at a conf & then declared the participants trained for subsequent mission purposes - not only trained, but CG trained.

I really don't like that. It's a simple course/certification. It'd be easy to track on 101, like I said.

In any event, I just noticed that there is a spot in Ops Quals to enter a Flight Crew Over Water Survival Training date.

[DNall]

Nice, now if we can just get a standard for what that means (ie CG course or approved equiv), and tracking on 101, we'll be all set. They put NIMS on there awful quick. Shouldn't be too hard to add this. Bonus is that as a 101 rating it requires recurring trng once every three years.

[Jolt]

Connecticut Wing is clearly in violation of our AOR. We are Long Island Group!

At least one crew has already received credit for a distress find on one of those very missions.

[RiverAux]

Looks like NC wing is out this weekend: http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/2936827/

[DG]

It is great to see the many Sundown Patrols that are active.

I knew Mississippi Wing has done Sundown Patrols for many years.

Question:  Where does the funding come from for these flights?  I always thought it was under an MOU with the USCG, but now have my doubts after reading many of the posts here which reference the USCG. 

[Turk]

Maryland gets something from the Guard.

I think Connecticut managed to get their state EMA to pony up.

I'm not sure about Florida.

[RiverAux]

I was under the impression that they were often being funded by local governments for the most part.  I think it will vary depending on the situation.  However, I very much doubt the USCG would pay for it since they have CG Aux aircraft that they use for that purpose that are pretty active in coastal areas. 

[Turk]

I was under the impression that they were often being funded by local governments for the most part.  I think it will vary depending on the situation.  However, I very much doubt the USCG would pay for it since they have CG Aux aircraft that they use for that purpose that are pretty active in coastal areas. 

Quite right. Even though they operationally cooperate with CAP wings doing over-water patrols (we can search out there, but they need to rescue), we have not, and will not get Coast Guard funding.

Maine also escorts Navy ships down the Kennebec River, and they do fire atch patrols, too. Long story short - our ELT mission nationwide is going to dry up and blow away with the new freqs. We must adapt like these wings are doing, or become irrelevant.

[isuhawkeye]

turk. 

you really know how to stir the pot.  First you dive into the uniform discussion, now you are laying out the future of ES missions.  These are both very controversial topics, and have been beaten to death repeatedly.

Have fun storming the castle

.....Runs for cover.....

[Turk]

turk. 

you really know how to stir the pot.  First you dive into the uniform discussion, now you are laying out the future of ES missions.  These are both very controversial topics, and have been beaten to death repeatedly.

Have fun storming the castle

.....Runs for cover.....

The gradual fading of ELT searches is obvious, not controversial.

To illustrate how missions morph, a key CAP mission in the late 1940s was painting directional signs on rooftops for pilots to see.  I have no specific recommendations on what our ES programs should become - only only pointing out a few examples of what some proactive wings have already accomplished. 

[RiverAux]

An interesting turn of events for the NC mission I mentioned earlier.  Here is another news story on it: http://www.wbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=8378550&nav=menu1434_3_1

Several times the fellow mentions contacting law enforcement, but mostly in context of being helpful, but then ends on this:

"The only people that have got to worry are the people doing something wrong."