Just heard through CNN that Steve Fossett has gone missing in his aircraft. CAP aircrews are in the air searching.
http://www.recordcourier.com/article/20070904/NEWS/70904002
CNN is saying 6 CAP aircrews involved.
BREAKING NEWS
CNN is reporting world aviation record holder Stephen Fossett is missing and a massive search is under way in western Nevada.
http://www.cnn.com
-Seattlesarge
Well here's a search that we'll probably never get to be a part of.
redacted - threads merged
I wish all well.
However, when two people went missing two weeks ago in Michigan and CAP spent several days and sent several aircrews and groundcrews searching, the highest amount of media coverage that got was a small blurb in the "other news" section of cbsnews.com. CNN, Fox and MSNBC never mentioned it - unless you count MSNBC having a blurb in the Detroit regional section several days later...
OK, so we are a part of the search. Awesome. Godspeed to the crews searching, and for a safe recovery of Steve Fossett.
CNN is trying to get the mission info officer on air for an interview. That combined with mentioning our name every 2 minutes should draw some attention to CAP.
Quote from: Bayhawk21 on September 04, 2007, 06:20:11 PM
CNN is trying to get the mission info officer on air for an interview. That combined with mentioning our name every 2 minutes should draw some attention to CAP.
The very fact that CNN is interfacing with a Mission Information Officer is a great sign. Good coverage for Civil Air Patrol, but potentially very unfortunate news for the aerospace education community and the Fossett family.
I'll take a living Steve Fossett over media coverage anyday.
Best of luck to all involved.
"Civil Air Patrol" in big red letters at the top of abcnews.com's page. That doesn't happen very often.
Best wishes all.
news conference scheduled for 1600
what the hell is up with CNN they keep on cutting in and out
also what's the Mission Information Officer doing giving out information like the target areas?
Quote from: A.Member on September 04, 2007, 06:43:28 PM
I'll take a living Steve Fossett over media coverage anyday.
I wholeheartedly agree but you have to admit, the media plugs are glorious
Quote from: NERMA002 Safety on September 04, 2007, 08:11:19 PM
also what's the Mission Information Officer doing giving out information like the target areas?
Lets all focus on the mission of finding Mr Fossett. We all can play armchair QB later.
Quote from: CadetProgramGuy on September 04, 2007, 09:15:25 PMLets all focus on the mission of finding Mr Fossett. We all can play armchair QB later.
OK, but this is a good time to discuss how each of US would go about finding him. That is a valid discussion.
I am thinking that if he had an engine out, that a Citabria has an excellent chance of a safe off field landing. If so, then they are looking for someone out stranded in the desert. But then, no radio signals. If he landed safely then we'd expect him to call for help. Or set off the ELT if he didn't have a radio (which would be sort of weird). Anyone look at the sectionals yet? How much mountainous terrain is there?
Tags - MIKE
Quote from: Nomex Maximus on September 04, 2007, 09:26:48 PM
Quote from: CadetProgramGuy on September 04, 2007, 09:15:25 PMLets all focus on the mission of finding Mr Fossett. We all can play armchair QB later.
OK, but this is a good time to discuss how each of US would go about finding him. That is a valid discussion.Tags - MIKE
I agree, that is a good discussion
Quote
Anyone look at the sectionals yet? How much mountainous terrain is there?
I'll hop on Flight Simulator and take a look at the terrain.
Looks like a lot of places to crash and a lot of places to land. Immediately around the airstrip he took off from is a dry lake bed. There are mountains and lakebeds all around the area. There are also some major thermals against the mountains so he could have been sucked in and hit a mountain. If he had something like engine trouble, there is TONS of lakebed all easily within gliding distance at altitude.
CAP mentioned on NPR with quote from the MIO.
OK, bad things: No flight plan filed, because the "Plan" was a recon for a place to drive a race car, and his intent was to meander around the desert. 5 hours of fuel.
Intermittent mountains with hot unstable air.
Good things: Seasoned pilot with experience in gliders. Aircraft that is structurally able to withstand off-airport landings. Aircraft with good gliding characteristics. Pilot in good physical condition.
Radio/ELT unknown. Probably old-type ELT and probably a single basic radio.
Questions:
1. Was there any distress call, and if there was, is there a receiving station near enough to hear it?
2. Is there any ELT signal coming from anywhere?
3. If he had a cell phone, is there a cell he could activate? Rich as he is, he might have a sattelite phone, but that's a question that we need to ask.
4. Did he tell anyone at his takeoff airport his general area of interest in finding a lake bed?
5. Did he have any survival gear? Water?
I see a couple of possible situations:
1. He took out a Citabria tail-dragger for a reason. He intended to land and check out the dry lake bed on the ground. He could have hit something on landing or trying to take back off again.
2. He got into some of the squirrelly winds that whip around mountains, and had a collision with the granite planet.
So... Are these dry-lake beds on a map?
So far it's just the Northern NV squadrons on but I've called in my availability for the next four days. I hope I'm called. My air crew bag is packed.
Folks, just a reminder that anyone with the answers to Kach's questions, should probably not answer them here.
True. Just thinking on line.
the coverage is pretty interesting. Seems like they need to set up a Joint Information Center of some kind as I'm seeing quotes from spokemen from at least 3 different agencies in the news stories.
And referring back to an earlier point, it is not surprising that this search has major national media attention when compared to other missing plane searches. Unfortunately, these searches are not that uncommon and not all are going to "rate" national coverage. Fair? Probably not, but thats the way it is.
I just ran over to the abcnews.com site and looked at the comments section. Lots of them directed at CAP. There is however one thing that caught my eye, and that was a former CAP PAO stating some facts, which were correct, but the grammar was atrocious. Just a thought.
Good luck Nevada!
CNN right now, interview with CAP information officer...
Fox News is reporting that he did NOT have a cell or sattelite phone.
Interviews with two CAP members in flight suits, and B-roll shots of a Civil Air Patrol GA-8 were featured as part of the coverage this evening on the ABC World News Tonight.
God speed to the Fossett family during this difficult time, and safe flying to all our CAP brothers and sisters searching.
Quote from: Nomex Maximus link=topic=2935.msg54685#msg54685CNN, Fox and MSNBC never mentioned it - unless you count MSNBC having a blurb in the Detroit regional section several days later...
Is it just me, or do I see the same thing happening again? I watch Fox News almost daily and they have not mentioned CAP at all, despite the fact that there are 12 aircraft looking for Fosset (including an Air National Guard C-130), and numerous ground teams. Same goes for MSNBC. CNN is a different story.
I sense an anti-CAP bias in some of the media. Is it because they don't know about CAP, or have some of CAP's negative reputations made some of the media look the other way whenever CAP responds to a disaster? We already know that a lot of CAP's Public Affairs work is not expert quality and National could do a way better job of making the organization look good, like deleting photos of people wearing uniforms improperly (especially in regulations) and soforth.
There has to be some reason why not all of the media reports include CAP. Any thoughts?
Why would Fox News mention us? That would be like a recruiting effort, which wouldn't produce cash for them.
It sounds like several agencies are supplying resources to the search. The air time so far seems to be amazingly good.
You are right, Fox isn't talking about CAP, just "Search teams."
Quote from: Virgin ESO on September 05, 2007, 01:41:52 AM
Why would Fox News mention us? That would be like a recruiting effort, which wouldn't produce cash for them.
I'm not sure what you mean. When any news agency mentions CAP, it is like a recruiting effort. But you lost me when you mentioned the money. Why wouldn't it produce cash for Fox News, or any other news organization. They get paid on the basis of ratings. More ratings = more $$$.
It would not cost any money to mention CAP. I highly doubt Fox News would lose any ratings just because they mention CAP.
No, they wouldn't lose money. But you have to pay for ad space. Anymore, they charge for things like that. At least that's what I've been told by a few people who work behind th scenes at CBS.
I know its exciting to see CAP talked about in the news like this, but until the mission is wrapped up can we save the 'Oooh Looky Looky we're on the news' talk for afterwards.
A man's life is on the line here and it seems like we're more concerned with the PR value of the situation than the man himself.
Quote from: ♠ on September 05, 2007, 01:49:43 AM
Quote from: Virgin ESO on September 05, 2007, 01:41:52 AM
Why would Fox News mention us? That would be like a recruiting effort, which wouldn't produce cash for them.
I'm not sure what you mean. When any news agency mentions CAP, it is like a recruiting effort. But you lost me when you mentioned the money. Why wouldn't it produce cash for Fox News, or any other news organization. They get paid on the basis of ratings. More ratings = more $$$.
It would not cost any money to mention CAP. I highly doubt Fox News would lose any ratings just because they mention CAP.
The CAP Mission IO was just interviewed live by Greta Van Susteren on Fox News. It was a good interview, and we were definitely credited.
OK, Fox News just interviewed a female CAP major on the Greta Sustren show. The Major was good, knowledgeable, and wearing a flight suit with charts and stuff under her arm. But... I didn't know anybody still had the old round corporate seal patch anymore.
And Fox is reporting a very brief, weak transponder contact and negative on the ELT signal. The C-130 has FLIR and will continue searching until midnight. The plane was in good shape and had been flown by Bob Hoover earlier in the day.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on September 05, 2007, 02:43:45 AM
...
But... I didn't know anybody still had the old round corporate seal patch anymore.
...
Probably because they shouldn't be wearing them... :-\
Quote from: NERMA002 Safety on September 04, 2007, 08:11:19 PM
also what's the Mission Information Officer doing giving out information like the target areas?
Whats wrong with that? Dude you arent a top secret military mission. I would think you would want as many people as possible to know wher ethey search areas are.
Quote from: RiverAux on September 04, 2007, 11:33:43 PM
Folks, just a reminder that anyone with the answers to Kach's questions, should probably not answer them here.
Huh? Why not?
Quote from: Lancer on September 05, 2007, 02:33:39 AM
I know its exciting to see CAP talked about in the news like this, but until the mission is wrapped up can we save the 'Oooh Looky Looky we're on the news' talk for afterwards.
A man's life is on the line here and it seems like we're more concerned with the PR value of the situation than the man himself.
I don't think anybody is more concerned with the PR value than his life. But you have to take into account that several members of this board are so far from the search, that we will not be apart of the search. So, what's the problem with dicsussing PR. We may discover some positive points in regards to PR and might even discover some things not to do for PR. I think it is ok for those who will not be participating, using the event to learn valuable PR techniques.
Quote from: ♠ on September 05, 2007, 01:26:49 AM
Is it just me, or do I see the same thing happening again? I watch Fox News almost daily and they have not mentioned CAP at all, despite the fact that there are 12 aircraft looking for Fosset (including an Air National Guard C-130), and numerous ground teams.
Well, you must not watch during the day, because Fox News was on the story all afternoon, and for the first couple of hours, every Breaking News logo was accompanied by "Civil Air Patrol Searching for Steve Fossett" or words to that effect. And the female anchor (can't remember her name) interviewed Maj Ryan, the PAO, by phone at least a couple of hours before the 1600 news conference. Fox News gave Civil Air Patrol front-and-center credit throughout the afternoon (they even said at one point that Civil Air Patrol and "other law enforcement agencies" were searching for the missing pilot").
There may have been some changes later, but then, as others have mentioned, Greta Van Susteren interviewed Maj Ryan on her show tonight, too.
It's certainly an unfortunate way to get public attention, but it's also an opportunity for our families and friends to see that this is what we do...
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on September 05, 2007, 02:43:45 AMOK, Fox News just interviewed a female CAP major on the Greta Sustren show. The Major was good, knowledgeable, and wearing a flight suit with charts and stuff under her arm. But... I didn't know anybody still had the old round corporate seal patch anymore.
She's also wearing loop earrings with a military style uniform. >:(
Honestly, that's just as bad as this:
(http://cadetlife.cadetstuff.org/data/media/4/ShowLetter.jpg)
Quote from: brasda91 on September 05, 2007, 04:35:31 AM
...several members of this board are so far from the search, that we will not be apart of the search. So, what's the problem with dicsussing PR.
Because it's flat out tacky and shows lack of good judgement.
There is a time and a place...this is neither. It's rather sad that this should have to be explained.
Quote from: A.Member on September 05, 2007, 05:22:36 AM
Quote from: brasda91 on September 05, 2007, 04:35:31 AM
...several members of this board are so far from the search, that we will not be apart of the search. So, what's the problem with dicsussing PR.
Because it's flat out tacky and shows lack of good judgement.
There is a time and a place...this is neither. It's rather sad that this should have to be explained.
I don't think it's tacky or shows a lack of good judgement. And I definately don't need an explaination. I know my Wing will not be activated, I'm not sitting here talking on CAPTalk instead of out searching. I hope Steve is found alive and well and we have a positive outcome. But since I can't help, the only thing we can do is use this as a learning experience regarding PR in order to learn what to do or not to do for PR on the next mission.
Quote from: brasda91 on September 05, 2007, 07:04:48 AM
I don't think it's tacky or shows a lack of good judgement. And I definately don't need an explaination. I know my Wing will not be activated, I'm not sitting here talking on CAPTalk instead of out searching. I hope Steve is found alive and well and we have a positive outcome. But since I can't help, the only thing we can do is use this as a learning experience regarding PR in order to learn what to do or not to do for PR on the next mission.
Opinions differ. At the very least those discussions should not occur in the same thread, especially while the search is ongoing. That is, indeed, tacky and shows a lack of judgement.
Does anyone know about how the chain of command is set up here? Are we the lead agency on this? I'm sure we're looking at a near-full-scale ICS implementation, I think this would be very relevant for our ICS 300 class this weekend.
As far as the PR stuff, I was in the FEMA PIO course when the VA Tech shootings hapened. We went to CNN and analyzed how the various PIOs and talking heads were handling the situation. Analyzing how the job of PIO is being handled is one thing..talking about what this news coverage means for our upcoming open house is quite another. Talking about how we can get good PR out of this seems...well a little creepy. I don't think some of us are ready to start looking for that silver lining yet.
Quote from: ♠ on September 05, 2007, 05:14:27 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on September 05, 2007, 02:43:45 AMOK, Fox News just interviewed a female CAP major on the Greta Sustren show. The Major was good, knowledgeable, and wearing a flight suit with charts and stuff under her arm. But... I didn't know anybody still had the old round corporate seal patch anymore.
She's also wearing loop earrings with a military style uniform. >:(
Honestly, that's just as bad as this:
(http://cadetlife.cadetstuff.org/data/media/4/ShowLetter.jpg)
That looks like the white shirt, but I can't tell. God I hope it's not CAP. If so, find that guy quick.
That was a RealAirForce® Lt Col who committed the faux pas.
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on September 05, 2007, 02:04:27 PM
That was a RealAirForce LtCol who committed the faux pas.
I still say find that guy. You gotta wonder where your advisors are when you need them to prevent a uniform boo-boo like this.
He looks like he's wearing the TPU. >:D
Quote from: flyguy06 on September 05, 2007, 04:28:04 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on September 04, 2007, 11:33:43 PM
Folks, just a reminder that anyone with the answers to Kach's questions, should probably not answer them here.
Huh? Why not?
Because the media might read this, and the answers to some of my questions may not be approved for release by the IC or the IO. We're on the team, but the forum is public.
Quote from: A.Member on September 05, 2007, 05:22:36 AM
Quote from: brasda91 on September 05, 2007, 04:35:31 AM
...several members of this board are so far from the search, that we will not be apart of the search. So, what's the problem with dicsussing PR.
Because it's flat out tacky and shows lack of good judgement.
There is a time and a place...this is neither. It's rather sad that this should have to be explained.
I disagree. Mission PR is an important part of the overall mission. Leads can come in from the public when they know that there is a search or an operation underway. That's why there is a separate qualification for Mission IO separate from the standard Public Affairs track.
Quote from: flyguy06 on September 05, 2007, 04:25:33 AM
Quote from: NERMA002 Safety on September 04, 2007, 08:11:19 PM
also what's the Mission Information Officer doing giving out information like the target areas?
Whats wrong with that? Dude you arent a top secret military mission. I would think you would want as many people as possible to know wher ethey search areas are.
Um, let's see OPSEC for one. And two we don't want people who aren't associated with the rescue mission in the area. If we have every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the area trying to help that could put a hamper on trying to find him safely.
Quote from: NERMA002 Safety on September 05, 2007, 02:53:54 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on September 05, 2007, 04:25:33 AM
Quote from: NERMA002 Safety on September 04, 2007, 08:11:19 PM
also what's the Mission Information Officer doing giving out information like the target areas?
Whats wrong with that? Dude you arent a top secret military mission. I would think you would want as many people as possible to know wher ethey search areas are.
Um, let's see OPSEC for one. And two we don't want people who aren't associated with the rescue mission in the area. If we have every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the area trying to help that could put a hamper on trying to find him safely.
OPSEC? Ok, thisis how I define OPSEC. When I was in Iraq and we were going to raid a certain village or area. We generally didnt tell anyone except those who needed to know. Thats OPSEC. OPSEC is not revealing the time or place soldier are leaving to go home. There is no security threat or security related info here.
I will say that while I am not really involved in ES I have a strong interest in it
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on September 05, 2007, 02:43:01 PM
I disagree. Mission PR is an important part of the overall mission. Leads can come in from the public when they know that there is a search or an operation underway. That's why there is a separate qualification for Mission IO separate from the standard Public Affairs track.
I think there is some 'disconnect' from my original post.
It was aimed at all the people who are getting excited about how this mission is generating exposure for CAP, and the 'who, what, where and how' of where this exposure is coming from.
As a PAO I love hearing CAP talked about in the news in a positive light, but discussing publicly, how this exposure will be a 'real shot in the arm' for us before the mission is even closed in bad taste, IMHO.
Please talk about how our MIO is functioning within the realm of the mission at hand, but let's leave the 'Wow, everyone knows about CAP now!!' talk for
after the mission, that's all.
Quote from: flyguy06 on September 05, 2007, 03:05:03 PM
I will say that while I am not really involved in ES I have a strong interest in it
Well once you go through our ES training you'll know we do stuff a certain way. And part of that is to not give out information like this to the general public. At least not while the operation is underway. Mainly so we don't have to then go and search for someone who's trying to help when they don't know what they're doing. That's part of the reason for the new frequencies we'll be getting so that no one can listen into our radios to prevent the same thing.
They're on now talking about using ARCHER in the search.
So what if a member of the media reads what's on CAPTalk? The media probably has the information they gathered on-scene. The media has more resources that a CAP Mission IC to start with. And should the PAO stop asking for public reports of hearing a plane in distress along a specific routing. The idea that CAP has that everyuthing they do is secret and the public doesn't need to know is laughable when a sherrifs deputy gives out the information, or in the case under discussion, the State Public Safety representative. CAP wants good media relations, but doesn't want to deal with the media. Does that make sense?
And the new radio frequencies are already out there in Scanners web sites. And the media already has P25 capable monitors, but why monitor CAP frequencies if the information the media seeks is available from other sources? As a Mission Commander for several years (I just dated myself) I often found the media had more information that AFRCC provided to me.
All the discussion about what they should or should not give out is really just an academic exercise unless you're part of the team involved. Maybe it was decided that giving out the search area would be useful. Yeah, there are valid reasons for not giving out that info, but we don't know what went into their decisions.
Quote from: BillB on September 05, 2007, 05:03:58 PM
So what if a member of the media reads what's on CAPTalk? The media probably has the information they gathered on-scene. The media has more resources that a CAP Mission IC to start with. And should the PAO stop asking for public reports of hearing a plane in distress along a specific routing. The idea that CAP has that everyuthing they do is secret and the public doesn't need to know is laughable when a sherrifs deputy gives out the information, or in the case under discussion, the State Public Safety representative. CAP wants good media relations, but doesn't want to deal with the media. Does that make sense?
And the new radio frequencies are already out there in Scanners web sites. And the media already has P25 capable monitors, but why monitor CAP frequencies if the information the media seeks is available from other sources? As a Mission Commander for several years (I just dated myself) I often found the media had more information that AFRCC provided to me.
What you say is true, Bill, but we still should not be the source of "Leaks." Some of what I asked has already been released in some form or another. But if it wasn't released by the IO, then we shouldn't be putting it on "Front Street." Such conduct undercuts the mission staff. That's what PM's are for.
Agreed,
Running a press conference, or just dealing with the press at all is delicate enough. Having information leaked through some other "credible" source and being confronted with it throws even the BEST IO's off balance. This stuff is going to be talked about, but why make it harder for people to do their jobs?
If the media comes at me with I heard this from CAPTALK.net, which is a Large group of CAP members that.... (insert stuff here) I would freeze. One of the things I do before I go before the press is sit with planning, IC, OPS, and chaplain. Get as much information as I can about what has been released, and then try to come up with a list of questions I am going to answer, and a list of how I will handle delicate information. If they already know the stuff I was going to avoid there is no reason for all this extra work.
Would this be the first real use of Archer???
As to frequencies - I got a kick out of a CAP official on the search in Michigan last week saying that we should not talk about stuff on the aviation radios "because they are not secure. Use the CAP radios instead." Yeah, right.
They might be if they have P25. Most of our radios here do.
No, it is not the first "real" use of ARCHER. Enough said.
I like how yesterday a reporter questioned the AF Captain, "Captain has the AF taken over operations, and are you putting all of the AF assets into the air?". The Captain responded "Your Civil Air Patrol, the Air Force Auxiliary, Responsible for almost all of the inland Search and Rescue in the United States, has taken command of the operation, the military has full confidence in CAP, and other agencies are cooperting with CAP's lead". Reporter then says "is CAP a new Air Force project..........
Quote from: mikeylikey on September 05, 2007, 08:46:14 PM
I like how yesterday a reporter questioned the AF Captain, "Captain has the AF taken over operations, and are you putting all of the AF assets into the air?". The Captain responded "Your Civil Air Patrol, the Air Force Auxiliary, Responsible for almost all of the inland Search and Rescue in the United States, has taken command of the operation, the military has full confidence in CAP, and other agencies are cooperting with CAP's lead". Reporter then says "is CAP a new Air Force project..........
Nobody wanted to believe me when I told you how stupid reporters are.
In Honduras, one was having breakfast with me, and I gave some orders to my NCO. After the NCO left, the reporter asked me how I could "Push a sergeant around like that." I asked what he meant, since all I did was tell him what I wanted him to do that day. He said: "But you're only a captain. Sergeants are higher than captains."
Article from the AP on Yahoo, with a picture of the Gippsland and blurb about ARCHER.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070905/ap_on_re_us/steve_fossett_45
This probably has already been thought of, but when Fossett went around the world with the support of Branson, Branson gave him his Brietling ELT Watch.
Does he still have it?
Branson indicated he does still have it.
Quote from: tedda on September 05, 2007, 09:38:53 PM
Branson indicated he does still have it.
I am inexperienced in SAR's but that tells me a few things...
The reason I said that specific facts relating to this specific search should not be given here is that CAP regulations require that the IC approve all release of information to the media in ES situations. They have a specific public affairs strategy that they're using and we don't need to have it messed up by somebody who heard something (that may or may not be correct) while sitting around the mission base.
Now, if we want to talk general strategy and we can even talk about this particular search, but anyone with any real facts that they obtained while working the mission, should not give them out here unless they've already gone out in a mission press release or otherwise been made public.
The 24 hour news networks are already engaged in wild and random speculation. I don't want to feed that.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123066968
^ Nice article from the AF. However they could have said " Civil Air Patrol, the Air Force Auxiliary".....instead of "an air force auxiliary". I guess there are other Air Force Auxiliaries??
Quote from: Bayhawk21 on September 05, 2007, 10:29:42 PM
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123066968
If I'm reading this correctly, apparently even the USAF information officers make boo-boos. From the above referenced article:
"...using the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center located in the 601st Combined Air and Space operations Center at
Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla."
Hmmm, I always thought AFRCC was at Langley VA. And sure enough it is, according the the AFRCC fact sheet accompanying the above article:
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=193 (http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=193)
"The AFRCC operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The center, located at
Langley Air Force Base, Va., ..."
They moved to Florida a couple months back just haven't updated everything.
Quote from: CadetProgramGuy on September 05, 2007, 09:39:58 PM
Quote from: tedda on September 05, 2007, 09:38:53 PM
Branson indicated he does still have it.
I am inexperienced in SAR's but that tells me a few things...
I don't think we should read too much into that - they have to be activated manually, assuming they survive a crash, and they are not SARSAT compatible - too low power. They are really only useful when you have a good idea where someone is.
Frankly, as much as I would like to be in the soup with these guys, I don't envy their task. Just as after 911, the eyes of the world are being thrust upon an organization most people had never heard of until yesterday.
And as the clock ticks, the likelyhood of a positive outcome diminishes.
The spot we all find ourselves in is the what I refer to as the "Fireman's Dilemma" - you train for years to be the best at what you do, and the only chance you get to prove yourself requires someone else's pain or tragedy.
I am still hopeful that Mr. Fossett is given the opportunity to pay for the plane in person.
Quote from: BlackKnight on September 05, 2007, 11:14:35 PM
Quote from: Bayhawk21 on September 05, 2007, 10:29:42 PM
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123066968
If I'm reading this correctly, apparently even the USAF information officers make boo-boos. From the above referenced article:
"...using the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center located in the 601st Combined Air and Space operations Center at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla."
Hmmm, I always thought AFRCC was at Langley VA. And sure enough it is, according the the AFRCC fact sheet accompanying the above article:
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=193 (http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=193)
"The AFRCC operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The center, located at Langley Air Force Base, Va., ..."
Langley AFB built a nice brand new building for the AFRCC in the new "Ryan Center" that serves dual purpose an 'admin' type building for the new operations that are moving to Langley. It is a really nice building with granite window sills and even smells new.
However, AFRCCs life there was short lived and they recently moved to Tyndall. It takes a little while to clean up all the trails left everywhere.
AFRCC completed the move to Tyndall in the spring. They are located in the new Air and Space Operations Center which was formally opened on June 1. Here is a link to the opening ceremonies with pictures. The RCC controllers are located in a couple of rows near the front.
http://www.1af.acc.af.mil/media/archive/story.asp?id=123055686&page=1
Mike
Quote from: Bayhawk21 on September 05, 2007, 11:16:54 PM
They moved to Florida a couple months back just haven't updated everything.
I know that for a fact. I am a nalert officer and I got a cal lone morning at 3 am with an 850 area code. It was AFRCC. It was my first time and I didnt know what to expect
I can confirm they are at Tyndall, I'm sitting in my office looking at the We're moving letter they sent dated 26 Feb 2007, and as an IC I talk to them 2-3 times a month...
Can anyone tell me what the AF is using in this video:
javascript:void(window.open('http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/news;_ylt=AjnyuuaGdRtvr.xiaGY4GJ5H2ocA?ch=61492&cl=3983509&lang=en','playerWindow','width=793,height=608,scrollbars=no'));
I'm just not sure if it's HSI or something different.
I think it's just FLIR. When they interview the aircrew member you can see what looks like a FLIR camera under the nose.
Quote from: mikeylikey on September 05, 2007, 08:46:14 PM
I like how yesterday a reporter questioned the AF Captain, "Captain has the AF taken over operations, and are you putting all of the AF assets into the air?". The Captain responded "Your Civil Air Patrol, the Air Force Auxiliary, Responsible for almost all of the inland Search and Rescue in the United States, has taken command of the operation, the military has full confidence in CAP, and other agencies are cooperting with CAP's lead". Reporter then says "is CAP a new Air Force project..........
What was the Captain's response, considering CAP is older than the USAF.
One of my officers scanned this, his wife just got back from Burning Man and had snagged a local paper on the way home...
So, is Civil Air Patrol the lead agency on this mission? Wow. If thats true, i think thats great. I would love to see a copy of that tape
I spent 7 hours flying over the Ownes Valley yesterday on that search. I can tell you....Its a CAP Operation 100%. The ANG is assisting, but the Bishop base is all CAP. There were probably 10-15 CAP planes.
The C-130 is using the FLIR STAR Q or the Brite Star. Its just a more expensive FLIR.
Rob: good on ya!!! The official tally this AM was 18 CAP aircraft at Bishop yesterday, 29 sorties, 68 hours of search. The effort today is likely to be even larger and more so over the weekend.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/06/fossett.missing/index.html
CAP has a C-130? ;)
California Wing has 2 F/A-18's, if you believe the news media.
I'm just glad that Ryan is finally in a current uniform. Today she was wearing the "US Air Force Aux" Command Patch (Not the new TP one) and she lost the loopy earrings.
cnn.com's article as of a few minutes ago was actually reasonably intelligent. Sounds like the CAP PAO is explaining some SAR basics to the news people.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on September 06, 2007, 05:25:06 PM
California Wing has 2 F/A-18's, if you believe the news media.
I hope they're the 2-seater Super Hornets! I totally want to fly Observer in one of those babies! :o ;D
Quote from: Pylon on September 06, 2007, 06:24:56 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on September 06, 2007, 05:25:06 PM
California Wing has 2 F/A-18's, if you believe the news media.
I hope they're the 2-seater Super Hornets! I totally want to fly Observer in one of those babies! :o ;D
"Time to test our shiny new digital camera" - Owen Wilson
They're adding crews. I'm on in the am. Thoughts, vibes, prayers, whatever please.
Quote from: flyerthom on September 06, 2007, 06:35:42 PM
They're adding crews. I'm on in the am. Thoughts, vibes, prayers, whatever please.
Good luck! You'll get some prayers for sure.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on September 06, 2007, 05:25:06 PM
California Wing has 2 F/A-18's, if you believe the news media.
I'm just glad that Ryan is finally in a current uniform. Today she was wearing the "US Air Force Aux" Command Patch (Not the new TP one) and she lost the loopy earrings.
You're focused on the wrong things at this point I think
Quote from: flyerthom on September 06, 2007, 06:35:42 PM
They're adding crews. I'm on in the am. Thoughts, vibes, prayers, whatever please.
Go find him first so we can get the details before everyone else!
Seriously, good luck, fly safe and do well.
Quote from: flyguy06 on September 06, 2007, 06:45:50 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on September 06, 2007, 05:25:06 PM
California Wing has 2 F/A-18's, if you believe the news media.
I'm just glad that Ryan is finally in a current uniform. Today she was wearing the "US Air Force Aux" Command Patch (Not the new TP one) and she lost the loopy earrings.
You're focused on the wrong things at this point I think
Probably.
But I was a PAO in the Army, and things like the PAO on National TV not representing the service precisely is a pet peeve of mine. And, what is even more irritating, she is well-spoken and knowledgeable, and is doing an otherwise great job. It is VERY hard to explain SAR procedures, FAA rules, and other kinds of military and aviation stuff to reporters, since they have virtually no background in either the military or aviation. It is like trying to explain physics to third graders. She is patient and keeps the explanations to a level that they can understand.
Therefore, I can't understand why she spent two days in an improper uniform.
Just noticed on the recent briefing that the CAP PAO has updated her flight suit and she has no apparent ear rings today. Looks like someone had a talk with her. I agree that she seems quite proficient in her job, uniforms aside.
Am I the only one who has noticed this? Isn't Major Ryan the same woman who is on the front of the "Opportunity Knocks" CAP recruiting brochure???
Since I haven't seen the brochure in a while, I am about 99% sure I know who the person on it is and I can tell you that it isn't Maj Ryan. I will say that it is a Maj from New Jersey Wing.
Courtesy of cnn.com....
"A Nevada Civil Air Patrol C-130 used a thermal imaging camera during a nighttime flight but found no sign of Fossett"
Quote from: CASH172 on September 07, 2007, 12:25:11 AM
Since I haven't seen the brochure in a while, I am about 99% sure I know who the person on it is and I can tell you that it isn't Maj Ryan. I will say that it is a Maj from New Jersey Wing.
And isn't that comedian and talk show host Ben Stein standing next to her?
EDIT: I'm kidding. They all look fine.
I don't have a copy of the brochure itself. But if I do remember correctly, the three individuals on there are: Col Robert Diduch the NER Commander, Maj Jennifer Rudolf Sweiker Composite Squadron Deputy Commander for Cadets, the third person whom you are also referring to, is someone I don't believe I've met, so I can't help you there. However if my recollection serves me right, the third is a NJWG member, definitely not Ben Stein.
EDIT: If you wanna see these three more, they're the aircrew in this video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=VVK7tsFALZE
EDIT AGAIN: I just asked around and the guy you're thinking as Ben Stein is actually Lt Col Capasso of NJWG Staff.
Just to keep all you peeps informed about the search. CAWG had 15 aircraft and almost 60 people at a base at the airport at Bishop(BIH) today. Tomorrow looks like an even bigger day and the weekend will likely go bonkers. Remember, we have 26 corporate aircraft in CAWG and most of them will be there. If you ES nuts are really interested, BIH is about 30 miles southeast of Mammoth on the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada Mt. Absolutely beautiful place with mountains going up to 14000 ft right out of town.
Don't have a report on what Nevada Wing had on scene today: this is a coordinated search operation between the two wings.
Cheers.
Quote from: sardak on September 06, 2007, 02:45:41 AM
AFRCC completed the move to Tyndall in the spring. They are located in the new Air and Space Operations Center which was formally opened on June 1.
Mike, et. al.,
Thanks much for clearing that up. Now I get to revise my "This is how SARSAT works" lecture. :)
cnn.com now has a video of Miles O'Brien piloting a Cirrus along with Major Ryan with the major explaining SAR to him.
I posted the link, stills, and a KMZ file of the departure point here:
CAP flies with CNN to Tell the Story
http://capblog.typepad.com/capblog/2007/09/cap-flies-with-.html (http://capblog.typepad.com/capblog/2007/09/cap-flies-with-.html)
Nice job Nevada!
- M6
Quote from: mikeylikey on September 05, 2007, 08:46:14 PM
I like how yesterday a reporter questioned the AF Captain, "Captain has the AF taken over operations, and are you putting all of the AF assets into the air?". The Captain responded "Your Civil Air Patrol, the Air Force Auxiliary, Responsible for almost all of the inland Search and Rescue in the United States, has taken command of the operation, the military has full confidence in CAP, and other agencies are cooperting with CAP's lead". Reporter then says "is CAP a new Air Force project..........
This is an excellent example of why I DONT LIKE the name of CAP or Civil Air Patrol or USCAP or anything to identify us. ... Why for example our uniforms should say US Air Force Aux. (even if its hook and loop and interchangable with a CAP id tape.
If Ryan could identify herself as a Major in the Air Force Auxilliary, then those questions wouldnt be given and we wouldnt be lost to media and the public at large.
JMHO
PS - has Ran thougt about giving out CAP factsheets to the media? ae- for background info?
Also this quote from af.mil
"It's a team of military active duty, Guard and Reserve members, Civil Air Patrol, FAA, local authorities and concerned citizens working together on this rescue ... collectively we're doing everything possible to locate Mr. Fossett quickly and safely," said Major Williamson.
would it have been better ha they said
"AD, Guard, Res and AUX" ..... ?
No I dont think so. I think saying Civil Air Patrol was best. The general public doesnt know what AF Auxiliary means. When they look us up out of interest or curiosity, they are going to type Civil Air Patrol into their web browsers.
I have to agree with Flying Pig...until we ever get the name formally changed (the right way!), we should stick with "Civil Air Patrol" in order to build upong the small amount of name recognition we have now. Ulimtately, I would rather have us be the AF Aux, but until its officialy, there isn't much point.
Quote from: MidwaySix on September 07, 2007, 05:47:48 PM
I posted the link, stills, and a KMZ file of the departure point here:
http://capblog.typepad.com/capblog/2007/09/cap-flies-with-.html (http://capblog.typepad.com/capblog/2007/09/cap-flies-with-.html)
- M6
To go along with M6's kmz file, here is a link to overlay sectionals on Google Earth.
http://www.gelib.fox-fam.com/aeronautical-charts-us.htm
Open or download and open SectionalCharts.kml.
In Google Earth, open the Aeronautical Charts folder and select San Francisco. Only one sectional can be open at a time.
You can fly the GE flight simulator with a Cirrus SR22 and the sectional chart open.
Mike
I was disappointed that the DoD left CAP out of their story on the Fossett search that ran on the Military Channel's "Around the Services" series today. Just talked about the Air National Guard.
Quote from: RiverAux on September 07, 2007, 08:41:01 PM
I was disappointed that the DoD left CAP out of their story on the Fossett search that ran on the Military Channel's "Around the Services" series today. Just talked about the Air National Guard.
Face it sir, it's hard to get publicity for this organization. CAP is just not that important in the eyes of many, and it's unfortunate. This is a great organization that I'm proud to serve in. We need publicity.
Well, I don't think its out of line for the DoD to mention all their assets involved in the search, including CAP.
Oh the other thing is....whats up with the CA and NV wing web sites? No news at all about this search!
No one's home at their HQ's, they're all out looking for Fossett! :)
Dr. Dave
Just an aside -- a CAP plane in Colorado found 2 missing hikers in Colorado this week.
I was listening to a Colorado radio station on the internet the day those hikers were found. CAP got very good coverage in the local news reports. They mentioned the hikers right after reporting on the Fossett search.
If we keep this up, we might not be the "best kept secret" anymore...
I was just wondering something, does Steve Fossett even know who we are? It'd be weird if the lead agency involved in one of the biggest search operations in the area hasn't even heard of CAP.
I'm certain he does, and I bet he's met a bunch of CAP members at the various places he's been to, like say, EAA.
But if he hadn't, would it matter much?
Quote
It'd be weird if the lead agency involved in one of the biggest search operations in the area hasn't even heard of CAP.
Uh, CAP has not heard of CAP?
And you thought that the new generation of ELTs would put us out of the SAR buisness? I guess old fashioned SAR techniques still have some value. I still hope that we will find Mr. Fosset eating Buffalo Burgers at the Catalina Island airport, blissfully unaware that everyone is looking for him....
Major Lord
Quote from: tedda on September 08, 2007, 02:43:33 AM
Quote
It'd be weird if the lead agency involved in one of the biggest search operations in the area hasn't even heard of CAP.
Uh, CAP has not heard of CAP?
Carlos Mencia says it best....
durh-da-durh.
Just playing. Don't smite me.
I hope we find something. Otherwise, about 2 weeks from now, CNN is going to go from singing our praises to singing "Why are we (the tax payers) paying to fund this organization and it's activities when they can't even find an old rich guy in a taildragger?"
Quote from: CaptLord on September 08, 2007, 02:45:19 AM
And you thought that the new generation of ELTs would put us out of the SAR buisness? I guess old fashioned SAR techniques still have some value. I still hope that we will find Mr. Fosset eating Buffalo Burgers at the Catalina Island airport, blissfully unaware that everyone is looking for him....
Major Lord
That's cuz it's Steve Fossett that's missing. If it was Steve Fedor that went missing, I'd be impressed if I got a 2 person UDF team out looking for me. And I don't even emit a signal!
Quote from: tedda on September 08, 2007, 02:43:33 AM
I'm certain he does, and I bet he's met a bunch of CAP members at the various places he's been to, like say, EAA.
But if he hadn't, would it matter much?
Quote
It'd be weird if the lead agency involved in one of the biggest search operations in the area hasn't even heard of CAP.
Uh, CAP has not heard of CAP?
Opps I think you guys know what I meant, but if you didn't I meant that it'd be weird if Steve Fossett hadn't even heard of the lead agency looking for him.
Quote from: SJFedor on September 08, 2007, 02:48:40 AM
That's cuz it's Steve Fossett that's missing. If it was Steve Fedor that went missing, I'd be impressed if I got a 2 person UDF team out looking for me. And I don't even emit a signal!
Actually, I have a team constantly on standby, prepared to search for you.
No, wait, that's Ski...
Ski needs a big balloon or flag tied to him and one of those phones that does the GPS tracking so you know where he is at all times.
Speaking of, I'm surprised that Steve Fossett didn't have one of those toys. I know if I was rich and famous, I'd have one.
Quote from: JC004 on September 08, 2007, 03:54:17 AM
Quote from: SJFedor on September 08, 2007, 02:48:40 AM
That's cuz it's Steve Fossett that's missing. If it was Steve Fedor that went missing, I'd be impressed if I got a 2 person UDF team out looking for me. And I don't even emit a signal!
Actually, I have a team constantly on standby, prepared to search for you.
No, wait, that's Ski...
Inside joke? Cause if it was......I laughed anyway!
Greeting from MEV. No joy today.
many CAP aircraft, a GA 8, a C 130, NV National guard, Naval Air Station Fallon (where Topgun is now) , Police rotor, and some personal aircraft working in non CAP areas . Strong police presence for media control. A ton big media vans. Major Ryan is a very nice person.
Things are complicated by the amount of old mining material left out in the desert. We flew around a couple of prospects only to find out they were old pieces of steel. There are also a few old abandoned runways out there.
Latest News
We are in the process of recovering our final wave of aircraft at this time. Utah Wing is providing additional leads with ARCHER. Several false ELT signals were df'ed as well as locating a few known wrecks. Early in the afternoon, we had a report of a SAR asset crashing in Nevada. That proved to be a mis-communication regarding a witness seeing an old crash site.
So far today and counting, we had 13 aircraft, 41 personnel, flew 20 sorties, 2000 sq. miles.
To date, California has used 26 aircraft, flown 177.4 hours, 69 sorties, 1822 man-hours in grid.
Today I flew 7.8 hours in the Mountains of Yosemite, 12,000 ft peaks all around. We are operating with the greatest professionalism. The Hiltons flew lunch to us on a Lear jet. Steve Fossett is an Icon to the rich and Famous and the powerful, all are greatful for those of us taking a week off to fly in desert canyons. I am very proud of the guys and gals that are here. But more importantly CAP is in the front and we are doing what we do best. To all of you who blog here your part of the same team wear the uniform with pride because we are. I know you would all be here to help if you could.
Bob Kirby
Capt. Squadron 35
Whiteman Airport, Pacoima Ca.
Well put, wingnut! God speed to your search.
Aboiut noon EDT I saw a FOX news clip reporting current situation in the search, mentioning the old crash sites found in the course of the search, and how these are complicating matters.
Maj. Ryan did a fine job explaining how these 'finds' bring closure to families who have lacked it, in some cases for more than 30 years, and also helps narrow down the parameters of the ongoing search mission.
Just for clarification, did they find a crash site in the active search area that was previously undiscovered?
I haven't been clear on that and heard bits and pieces. As an IC myself, I know it's a possibility to find something old and clarify with the AFRCC and FAA databases or to brief known existing sites in the area of operation to aircrews on the way out to the grids.
Just not clear from here....
I unfortunately don't remember the name or rank of the National Guard's Information Officer - a very beautiful, well spoken redhead - anyway...
On NBC's Today Show, she was asked how can you possibly coordinate a search of the entire Nevada desert? She responded with something like, "The Civil Air Patrol is very effeiciant with doing this, they are very well trained and very methoical in these types of searches. They have gridded maps..."
Etc, etc... she answered the question for about a minute all about praising the work of CAP. It was really cool. She was really hot.
-Ace
Quote from: kycap on September 08, 2007, 11:36:11 PM
Just for clarification, did they find a crash site in the active search area that was previously undiscovered?
At least two or three, possibly more.....it was not entirely clear in the TV piece, except that there have been at least a few crash sites that were previously unlocated.
I just viewed the cnn.com videos, they indicated that there have been 6 undocumented crash sites they have found, [my opinion] some which it seems to have been there for a decade or more [/my opinion]
They did find several old crash sites which were not listed in the archives. Some had been there for possibly decades, but no signs of remains----seems the local inhabitants ...aka critters....made off with what was left.
This was the 1300 update for today from CAWG...
Today, 58 personnel on base, 118 members have responded for this mission
16 aircraft at Bishop, 31 different aircraft used on the mission to date
91 in grid sorties for the mission for 213.4 hours
We have search over 7,000 square miles in California.
The Utah ARCHER aircraft will be reassigned to the Nevada Base this afternoon and will be replaced by the California ARCHER Air van.
Under a unified command with Nevada Wing, California continues to search the border grids into Nevada. This afternoon, Nevada with search into California.
For Wingnut----Hope you at least got a haircut :)
Saw a great report a couple days ago on FOX News about the ARCHER system, and the interview was with a US CAP Officer. Most Fox Video clips shown when reporting on the search seem to be showing CAP Aircraft.
Quote from: CadetProgramGuy on September 09, 2007, 02:21:06 AM
I just viewed the cnn.com videos, they indicated that there have been 6 undocumented crash sites they have found, [my opinion] some which it seems to have been there for a decade or more [/my opinion]
I'm not sure about the number but the rest is correct. No joy today.
So no joy today. My crew came in from our last sortie of the day and saw the Airvan had arrived (no Gen Colgan it's not black). The NV Governor visited today. 6.9hours in the air for our crew alone today, 5.9 hours yesterday.
I just don't know how many NV wing aircraft were up but it was an impressive flight line. There are also blackhawks and other military rotor wings up. There is also a PD helicopter up. Nevada Highway patrol has its Cessnas up. It's a major combined effort under CAP ICS.
Keep up the vibes and prayers. Unfortunately I have to go back to the world Monday.
does anybody know how far away CAP resources have come, so far?
CO is sending an ARCHER tech.
Quote from: brasda91 on September 09, 2007, 01:24:12 PM
does anybody know how far away CAP resources have come, so far?
It's a Nevada Wing / California Wing show. The Airvan with the Archer System was specifically requested from Utah Wing.
As per the usual routine, they're begging for bodies during the week, so, if you can get clearance from your Wing, come on out.
Pick your favorite location, Minden, Nevada or Bishop, California.
Quote from: flyerthom on September 09, 2007, 04:07:30 AM
So no joy today. My crew came in from our last sortie of the day and saw the Airvan had arrived (no Gen Colgan it's not black)...
8)
So how long is the search going to go on? I've got to wonder if this search is going to set a record for the amount of resources that were used e.g. flying hours, type of aircraft, ground personnel etc? It's too bad that he didn't at least use some typical VFR "flight following" routine with ATC (but perhaps the low altitude flying wouldn't allow ATC to properly followup him anyways. BTW anyone know the largest/longest search mission that CAP ever conducted? (probably total flying hours would be the factor)
RADIOMAN015
Quote from: PHall on September 09, 2007, 04:29:25 PM
Quote from: brasda91 on September 09, 2007, 01:24:12 PM
does anybody know how far away CAP resources have come, so far?
It's a Nevada Wing / California Wing show. The Airvan with the Archer System was specifically requested from Utah Wing.
As per the usual routine, they're begging for bodies during the week, so, if you can get clearance from your Wing, come on out.
Pick your favorite location, Minden, Nevada or Bishop, California.
I would love to. But, considering I'm in Western KY, I don't think it's feasible.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on September 09, 2007, 08:13:44 PM
BTW anyone know the largest/longest search mission that CAP ever conducted? (probably total flying hours would be the factor)
RADIOMAN015
I don't recall total flight hours but AL Wing worked a mission similar to this in the early 90's and we went for 33 days straight before AFRCC stopped the search. The plane was a composite homebuilt and it was found by hunters the following fall.
A big search effort, but nothing that would make it extraordinary for CAP. To some extent other agencies are obviously more involved than they would be if this was Joe Schmo, but CAP is putting out the sort of effort we would for everybody.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on September 09, 2007, 08:13:44 PM
So how long is the search going to go on? I've got to wonder if this search is going to set a record for the amount of resources that were used e.g. flying hours, type of aircraft, ground personnel etc? It's too bad that he didn't at least use some typical VFR "flight following" routine with ATC (but perhaps the low altitude flying wouldn't allow ATC to properly followup him anyways. BTW anyone know the largest/longest search mission that CAP ever conducted? (probably total flying hours would be the factor)
RADIOMAN015
We work it until AFRCC decides to suspend the search. It's their call, not ours.
We make inputs, (leads, grid coverage, ground cover, etc.) but it's the AFRCC's decision.
On this particular search mission I can easily see it going for at least two if not three weeks before they pull the plug.
Just because of who the search target is...
A 3 week search wouldn't be out of the question no matter who it was given the apparently huge search area with few good leads (from what we know here). It could easily take that long just to do first passes over a lot of grids.
Caption from abcnews.com picture of CAP colonel at controls of a Cessna. Can you spot the error?
"Civil Air Patrol pilot Col. Ed Lewis scans the area near Yerington, Nev., where millionaire adventurer Steve Fossett took off Monday, while searching for the missing aviator. The search footprint for the adventurer was expanded today from 600 square feet to 10,000 square feet -- an area roughly the size of Massachusetts. (Robert Durell, Pool/AP Photo)"
If that was their original search area I think they were quite wise to expand it.
Quote from: Nomex Maximus on September 09, 2007, 11:05:57 PM
Caption from abcnews.com picture of CAP colonel at controls of a Cessna. Can you spot the error?
"Civil Air Patrol pilot Col. Ed Lewis scans the area near Yerington, Nev., where millionaire adventurer Steve Fossett took off Monday, while searching for the missing aviator. The search footprint for the adventurer was expanded today from 600 square feet to 10,000 square feet -- an area roughly the size of Massachusetts. (Robert Durell, Pool/AP Photo)"
Emphasis mine......
C'mon, I KNOW that some of you ES geeks are actually using that Google search tool http://www.mturk.com/mturk/preview?groupId=9TSZK4G35XEZJZG21T60&kw=story (http://www.mturk.com/mturk/preview?groupId=9TSZK4G35XEZJZG21T60&kw=story)in hopes that you'll find him before the aircrews.... Its stuff like this and the quick google reaction after the KS tornado that make me think that in the not so distant future quick satellite imagary will have a negative impact on CAP's participation in aerial photography after big disasters.
Put an update in the other thread.
Quote from: CadetProgramGuy on September 09, 2007, 11:52:04 PM
Quote from: Nomex Maximus on September 09, 2007, 11:05:57 PM
Caption from abcnews.com picture of CAP colonel at controls of a Cessna. Can you spot the error?
"Civil Air Patrol pilot Col. Ed Lewis scans the area near Yerington, Nev., where millionaire adventurer Steve Fossett took off Monday, while searching for the missing aviator. The search footprint for the adventurer was expanded today from 600 square feet to 10,000 square feet -- an area roughly the size of Massachusetts. (Robert Durell, Pool/AP Photo)"
Emphasis mine......
I know that I haven't spent too much time in Massachusetts, but is it really only 10,000 square feet? It didn't seem that small when I was there last...
Quote from: PHall on September 09, 2007, 09:42:23 PM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on September 09, 2007, 08:13:44 PM
So how long is the search going to go on? I've got to wonder if this search is going to set a record for the amount of resources that were used e.g. flying hours, type of aircraft, ground personnel etc? It's too bad that he didn't at least use some typical VFR "flight following" routine with ATC (but perhaps the low altitude flying wouldn't allow ATC to properly followup him anyways. BTW anyone know the largest/longest search mission that CAP ever conducted? (probably total flying hours would be the factor)
RADIOMAN015
We work it until AFRCC decides to suspend the search. It's their call, not ours.
We make inputs, (leads, grid coverage, ground cover, etc.) but it's the AFRCC's decision.
On this particular search mission I can easily see it going for at least two if not three weeks before they pull the plug.
Just because of who the search target is...
I was deployed with CAP on a search in Southern Maryland back in 1993 that lasted for over a month. That guy was no one special, at least no more special than anyone else.
So, yes its all AFRCC's call. And with this being a famous person they will probably look as long as they think there is any chance in hell of finding him.
To all:
I was the California IC on the Fossett search working out of our base in Bishop, CA. We are one of the best kept secrets on this search. I left the mission yesterday in good hands with the current command staff.
I would like to pass along some issues I have seen on this board that seem to take away from our efforts to locate Mr. Fossett as well as some good things.
1. The family is very grateful for all the hard work CAP has done.
2. We will need everyone from CA and NV to support this mission.
We have had units from far away fly food and sodas with their crews to support a base with limited facilities. That's teamwork!
3. The issue with CA kicking out the sheriff as seen on another post is not true. I was there and escorted the civilian pilot off the base to his helicopter.
I think a small issue that may or may not have been handled correctly is a waste of time.
Our members, press and family HAVE read the postings and they have done nothing but distract from our hard work at the bases.
Let's continue to work together as a team with the goal to locate Mr. Fossett.
The Sep 9 CAP press release on CAP News Online says that only 7 planes were looking for him that day. That can't be right????
The PAO has been doing a fairly good job, but may be putting out some false optimism...
QuoteMaj. Cynthia Ryan of the Nevada Civil Air Patrol said Tuesday she's still betting on his "sheer grit and determination."
"We still find people against all odds," said Ryan, who said she was not concerned by a lack of a signal.
"Maybe he's got a couple of broken arms and can't signal," she said.
Quote from: RiverAux on September 10, 2007, 12:49:27 AM
Its stuff like this and the quick google reaction after the KS tornado that make me think that in the not so distant future quick satellite imagary will have a negative impact on CAP's participation in aerial photography after big disasters.
And if it does, so what? The goal is to help people and if someone finds a better way to do that, it is a good thing as long as it doesn't degrade the overall effectiveness of the response. My bigger concern is that the scale will turn too far in favor of ease and convenience at the expense of quality of work and POD.
I always think it is worth evaluating what services you can provide and what is really needed.
Quote from: RiverAux on September 11, 2007, 09:19:53 PM
The Sep 9 CAP press release on CAP News Online says that only 7 planes were looking for him that day. That can't be right????
While it is a Press Release for anyone to read, they may be indicating that 7 CAP planes were looking for him. I don't have much experience with Press Releases for something like this, but they may save the full total for a briefing and just use the information about our part for our press releases as 9 times out of 10 we're the only ones who take the time to read what's posted on our websites.
Got a brief report from Minden via IM just now.
The current "Joke du Jour": CAP has 100% POD. The USAF has confirmed that they're 100% sure that Steve Fossett is not in R-4808N.
If you are interested in real facts and not impressions and speculation, read on.
Just talked to the IC at the CAWG base at Bishop, Ca and he has 12 aircraft in the air today and has two on the ground with no crews available. He also told me that the Air Force, in the form of the command element of the 129 Rescue Wing, ANG, has taken over umbrella command of the whole search operation. They have erected a tent at the Minden Airport and are coordinating both wings and trying to coordinate the civilian aircraft operating in this search.
I also was told that the Minden operation will either close or be moved on Friday: seems that Minden is overflow for all the corporate aircraft who come in for the Reno Air Races, which are going on this week. Airfield becomes jammed with civilian aircraft.
Apparently no end in sight for this search: it is rapidly becoming the largest search certainly in this part of the country and, perhaps, in the history of CAP.
If you are interested and qualified, I am sure that you will be welcome at Bishop. Also happens to be a spectacularly beautiful place.
Hi everyone,
I'm a brand-new mission pilot and was at the Bishop Mission Base Sunday thru Tuesday. We arrived Sunday afternoon when a lot of the crews were leaving. On Monday, we had a change over in IC's as Major Kielholtz needed to leave after running the mission for a week. We had 6 aircraft airborne flying multiple sorties on Monday and 11 aircraft airborne on Tuesday.
I saw a lot of very dedicated people putting their personal lives and work on hold for as long as they could to try and help find a fellow pilot and aviation icon. Sure, not everything was perfect. What is? But at the end of the day, the small but very dedicated and hard working base staff got sorties launched into grids looking for Mr. Fossett. I felt part of something signficant and worthy and am very proud of CAP. You should be too.
John Aylesworth, Lt Col
Commander, CA-151
Now I'm not familiar with the size of the area actively being searched, but as I just posted in another thread CAP has to be more willing to bring in CAP folks from othe Wings. Why aren't CAP planes from OR, ID and other states coming in to relieve these folks who have been flying for so long?
Quote from: RiverAux on September 12, 2007, 09:41:42 PM
Now I'm not familiar with the size of the area actively being searched, but as I just posted in another thread CAP has to be more willing to bring in CAP folks from othe Wings. Why aren't CAP planes from OR, ID and other states coming in to relieve these folks who have been flying for so long?
For one thing, cross-country flying increases the ORM numbers, CAP is nothing if not risk-averse.
CO has been put on standby for aircrews and a/c to join the search with a min. 1 week commitment.
Welcome to the fray, Colorado. Utah Wing has had their ARCHER GA-8 Airvan at Minden since the search began. Assets from other states can only be provided through the good(?)services of the NOC, after they are requested by the ICs of the states conducting the search. Maybe nobody asked for resources from other states until this thing dragged on into the second week and promises to go into another week.
somebody asked about the size of the search area: the media is saying that it is about 17000 sq miles. That isn't a terribly large area when you consider the size of CA and NV put together. The concentration, I understand, is the circle about 50 miles in diameter from the private airfield that he departed.
I understand from the IC today that the CAP crews are doing a fine job, looking for a proverbial needle in a haystack.
The local thrice-weekly newspaper in Bishop, California has been giving page one coverage for the CAWG ops on this search. The paper has a small staff, so they update their website slowly. Sept 8's story link below.
http://www.inyoregister.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17456&Itemid=27
Have to agree with John Aylesworth's comments above. I left the base this morning and while there are a few new wonderful base staff people, more are needed and this is the time for all to call in their kitchen passes and work time-off to be available to help if requested.
Many many thanks to CAWG Group 6's Maureen Pride and friends who brought food to the base on Monday! Spaghetti and garlic bread being lapped up fast. More help with logisitics would be nice....care and feeding of troops...send prayers for a DSL line and wi-fi router at base... and a user-friendly IMU... faster F108 processing... (one can dream of miracles...).
Other issues having been resolved, I'd like to pose the question that brought me to this site in the first place, and it has to do with this search.
I've visited Amazon's Mechanical Turk site, and read the information about their effort to assist in this search.
http://www.mturk.com/mturk/preview?groupId=9TSZK4G35XEZJZG21T60&kw=Flash (http://www.mturk.com/mturk/preview?groupId=9TSZK4G35XEZJZG21T60&kw=Flash)
In part, the instructions say:
QuoteSteve's plane will show up as a regular object with sharp edges, white or nearly white, about 21 pixels long and 30 pixels in wingspan.
I know from experience that that isn't necessarily true, and must have been written by somebody with a lack of real world SAR experience. Nevertheless, I'm sure multitudes of people are squinting at satellite images, trying to see something that resembles an airplane.
My question is this--how is this effort impacting the actual search effort? Are any of the tagged images proving to be worth following up on in the field, and if so, is that effort diverting assets that would be otherwise engaged in more conventional ways?
Just curious... ???
Bah, thats just an advertising ploy.
Quote from: D242 on September 13, 2007, 03:15:37 AM
My question is this--how is this effort impacting the actual search effort? Are any of the tagged images proving to be worth following up on in the field, and if so, is that effort diverting assets that would be otherwise engaged in more conventional ways?
Just curious... ???
First, I'm not involved with this particular search so I have no direct knowledge of how information is being used and I will not speculate on what they may or may not be doing at that mission base.
That said, I think SARKID's comments aren't that off base when he says it's more about advertising for Google. SAR is very complex as is the review of satellite imagery (as an example, the DoD has people that train many months to do just this). As much as I applaud the effort with such tools, they're still too primative to be of any real value in a SAR capacity IMO. This is for a number of reasons:
1. A special satellite pass done over the area to capture images after he was reported missing. However, there was only one pass. Shadows play a significant role and change visible areas throughout the day. This is why we have search patterns and may cover various grids multiple times.
2. When an airplane crashes, it seldom looks like an airplane. I suspect most people do not recognize this. Given all the garbage in the desert, it makes discerning objects very difficult particularly since...
3. The level of detail/resolution is not sufficent. In this case we're talking about a Decathlon which is a very small aircraft. Some maps have better resolution than others but this is still an issue.
4. You have many untrained civilians potentially reviewing these images. Once someone *thinks* they see something of interest, a method for investigating the object further must be in place. That does not exist to my knowledge (this Google Earth/MT effort was not coordinated with CAP AFAIK). I suspect that unless there was very compelling evidence presented, we are not going to pull aircrews to investigate each potential report sent to us. Doing so would take resources away from proven methods of SAR.
What many simply don't comprehend is how difficult it is to find someone with no known plan in area so large. Keep in mind, CAP also employs advanced technologies both on their own and through partnerships with other agencies - we've had USAF review radar images, we've had numerous military SAR aircraft and specialty equipment participate. We are professionals, we take the job very seriously, and we are very good at what we do. But we don't own any magic wands.
As this type of technology improves in the future, it may become more valuable. However, it's not there yet and at this point I don't put a lot of value in it.
I can't find any new news. Has Steve Fossett been found yet? Is CAP still in the search? I would imagine that by now, this is more of a recovery mission rather than a SAR. Just my educated guess ;)
Ryan: yes, CAP is still very much in the search. Both bases are still open and flying. There is info that the Minden base will have to either close or move on Friday, since Minden expects to get inundated with corporate aircraft unable to land and stay at Reno for the air races.
I talked to the CA IC yesterday and he had over 40 people and 13 aircraft flying on the CA side. That is pretty impressive, given that it was the middle of the week. Over last weekend, I seem to recall that the CAWG group topped out at 16 aircraft and they plan on keeping the search going through this weekend, at least.
Having flown a lot of the territory in this search area, let me tell you that it is not an easy deal for CAP crews.
Its my understanding that Minden is presently on hold for high winds...
To add to the discussion about using satellite imagery to try to find Fossett. In one of my past assignments, I spent days looking at aerial photos of a search area for a missing airplane. No joy!!
On Monday, I was asked by the Ops Officer at the Bishop, Ca base, to look at some Google Earth images of the search area to see what I could find. I then spent about two days straight looking at Google images and I found all sorts of interesting things, but no aircraft wreckage.
I was trained in 1962-63 by the Army as an image analyst and I have worked in the field almost continuously ever since, so I have looked at some images. To find an aircraft as small as that Decathalon after it was crashed, would be a whole lot like looking for a needle in a haystack. literally. I concur with one other person in this thread who said that the instructions from Google about what to look for were done by someone who had no idea what they were saying. The aircraft isn't white, it is blue: it won't be intact in any case and will look like a pile of junk. If it burned, you are looking for an engine and a bunch of twisted metal tubing.
The Google imagery is supposed to be one meter resolution. That means that most pieces of a crashed Decathalon will be smaller than one pixel on the image: a very tough thing to see. Put it under the trees on the side of a mountain or in a gulley with trees in it and the job really gets daunting.
I could go on for hours, but will save your eyes. Suffice it to say that using imagery is only one tool, not the saviour of the whole deal.
I have no idea as to the orbital geometry of the civilian imaging satellites, but it is quite possible that they haven't had access to the search area very often. That limits the number of times that they could collect imagery.
Quote from: bosshawk on September 13, 2007, 05:17:29 PM
Ryan: yes, CAP is still very much in the search. Both bases are still open and flying. There is info that the Minden base will have to either close or move on Friday, since Minden expects to get inundated with corporate aircraft unable to land and stay at Reno for the air races.
I talked to the CA IC yesterday and he had over 40 people and 13 aircraft flying on the CA side. That is pretty impressive, given that it was the middle of the week. Over last weekend, I seem to recall that the CAWG group topped out at 16 aircraft and they plan on keeping the search going through this weekend, at least.
Having flown a lot of the territory in this search area, let me tell you that it is not an easy deal for CAP crews.
Well it's good to hear that we're still involved, not just on a publicity level, but to know that there are members who care.
Did I read somewhere that we're no longer in charge and that some Air Force group took over.
Thank you, A Member, and bosshawk for taking the time to address my question.
QuoteI concur with one other person in this thread who said that the instructions from Google about what to look for were done by someone who had no idea what they were saying.
Yeah, that was me that said that, in the lead-in to asking the question.
My initial reaction to hearing of the plan was skepticsm. That's been confirmed by your reply.
Thanks.
NERMA02: Read my post of yesterday for the info on who is doing the umbrella coordination for this search.
Quote from: NERMA002 Safety on September 13, 2007, 08:34:47 PM
Did I read somewhere that we're no longer in charge and that some Air Force group took over.
Yes, the 129th Rescue Wing, California Air National Guard.
What was the reason for the ANG Rescue unit assuming Command of the Mission? Did our IC's need a break or did we (CAP) do something to displease the AFRCC?
I guess what Im asking is: is this a bad thing or a good thing?
Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on September 14, 2007, 05:03:07 PM
What was the reason for the ANG Rescue unit assuming Command of the Mission? Did our IC's need a break or did we (CAP) do something to displease the AFRCC?
I guess what Im asking is: is this a bad thing or a good thing?
IN the ICS system, any qualified person may assume the position of IC. We often, because of our GES training, tend to think it is a "CAP" thing, but really, an IC and ICS are greater than CAP.
Now, if it is a purely CAP operation, a CAP IC is the most logical. If it is multiagency, then that is a different matter.
I suspect and speculate that this is a routine IC change.
Coordinating air ops in 2 CAP wings where we usually need a highbird to maintain com between acft in grids and our bases, the ad hoc Flying M Ranch Air Force (sometimes called "mercenaries" by a few), the military aircraft, and county sheriffs, needed a bit more base staff and DSL lines than CAP could dream to have in the short term. The 129th based at Moffett Federal Airfield has plenty of experience in SAR coordinating the military and civilian air worlds. Not much phases them. When not on combat SAR duties overseas, they send a lot of time flying out to ships on the Pacific to pick up sick sailors and ship passengers. CAWG and NVWG could not have gotten better help than the 129th to deal with the "ad hoc" Flying M crowd.
So when will the search and RECOVERY operations end? What is the justifiable amount of time to waste resources and tax payer dollars on one man? If this were anyone else would the search still be going on as big as it is?
No disrespect to anyone out there searching, but come on, how long can one survive in the hot sandy dust hole out there?
No water, food.......has it moved from a search and rescue to just a recovery operation now?
Article I saw today quoted a relative of someone who disappeared on an airplane flight over the area in the sixties and they said that the search went on for 60 days before being called off. They were hopeful that one of the wrecks found in this search might be of their relative.
As to how long, thats very hard to say without having intimate details from the mission base. Otherwise we've got no clue as to what sort of probability of detection that they've been reporting, etc. to AFRCC.
As I mentioned in another thread here, AL Wing worked a mission for 33 straight days before AFRCC suspended the mission. This was for an average, Joe Blow, pilot. AFRCC generally looks at the POD and then makes the call.
And with the high profile of this mission, I would imagine that AFRCC is going to keep it open as long as they believe there is a chance. Imagine the backlash from the media if we called it off when there was "still a chance" and not everywhere had been thoroughly looked.
I know if it was my dad, I'd want him found, dead or alive. We should strive for the same thing, and have historically done so, whether it was a famous pilot, or just some guy that no one has heard of, but has a family waiting desperately for some news, any news.
Quote from: mikeylikey on September 14, 2007, 09:15:59 PM
So when will the search and RECOVERY operations end? What is the justifiable amount of time to waste resources and tax payer dollars on one man? If this were anyone else would the search still be going on as big as it is?
No disrespect to anyone out there searching, but come on, how long can one survive in the hot sandy dust hole out there?
No water, food.......has it moved from a search and rescue to just a recovery operation now?
I sure hope that the Fossett family nor any of Mr. Fossett's friends are reading any of this. The entire search area is not a "dust bowl". There is an amazing variety of terrain we are searching. My personal opinion is that it is still possible he not only survived but may still be alive. At least, if it were me out there, that's the assumption I would like people to make. It's been less than two weeks and people have survived much longer than that.
There was a story from the early 1970's, and I don't remember the details all that well anymore, where CAWG searched for weeks looking for a family that crashed in the high mountains. They survived for a month before they expired, all the while keeping a journal of their attempts to survive while watching CAP search plans fly overhead without seeing them... Alice or someone else may remember that story. It made a very deep impression on me as a young Observer and still does to this day. Keep the faith.
-- John Aylesworth
Commander, PCR-CA-151
FYI: "CAP Aircraft Searching for Steve Fossett" thread and 'New Fossett topic" merged.
I don't yet see a need for three topics now, guys.
And... Fossett is in great physical shape. His survival chances are better than most folks, even in hostile terrain.
To answer John Aylesworth's query above, the month long survival story with a diary was from the California Trinity Alps crash in March 1967. The search with three downed search planes in the Sierras was the infamous "Gamblers' Special" in 1969. And, I'm sure John remembers the search which killed a young California Wing mission pilot Jon Kramer as well as two private searchers in May 1970. The first two searches were mentioned in a CAP News article I wrote which has been put online a WSDOT website.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/aviation/SAR/ELT_History.htm
I've been thinking about Jon Kramer since I flew some grids earlier this week near where he was killed. CAWG started a search on April 18, 1970 for Mr. Cehrs and his party lost between Mammoth and Fresno. (Many in CAWG and PACR recall this search. PACR's Ed Lewis was IC often during that search.)
The Sierras were snowed over yet the search dragged on week after week. Mr. Cehrs was president of his local Sierra Club Chapter so his chances of survival were very high. On May 2, two private searchers in a Thorpe 180 went down looking for the Cehrs. May 7, the Cehrs were found but the search continued for the Thorpe. May 9, Jon was killed at Fourth Recess Lake and another aboard was severely injured thanks in part to using a plane underpowered for the altitude, flying lower than we do today, and in the case of the injury, wearing boots which allowed snow in for freeze-refreeze frostbite. May 12, the Thorpe was found. That search went on almost a month in heavy snow. US Marine infrared sensor jets participated as did many other air assets such as privately hired helicopters.
It would not surprise me at all if the Fossett search went on more than a month. But, heaven help the searchers if it does because as these long searches drag on, stats are, some searchers will die.
Alice Mansell
Deputy Commander
Jon E. Kramer Memorial Sq 10
Palo Alto, CA
Well, with Cessna's donations coming in for airframe repair and upkeep,
( I assume) will this be a problem, or is the primary danger complacency?
Im not a pilot so forgive me the question: During a mission like this, are CAP members who hold A&P status allowed to serve as crew chiefs?
National has some rules against it, and most wings increase those rules. I know when I was in PAWG, we got a memo from the NER commander saying we cannot even do any preventative maint except adding oil.
I would imagine that, as the aircraft are used and come up on their oil changes and/or 100hr inspections, they're rotating them out for fresh ones.
I vaguely remember national saying something about any A&P that wants to work on our aircraft has to have at least a $1,000,000 liability coverage insurance. ???
SAR-EMT1: Without putting words in Alice's mouth, I would say that complacency is not as much a problem as is repetitive visits to some of the nastiest search grids in the US. The more times that you put crews into harms way, the higher the possibility of having them get into trouble. Now, no pilot goes out looking for a place to have a crash, but they do happen. Some of those search grids near Bishop have 13.000 foot high granite clouds in them, with no safe places to land if you have a problem. Then, there are the Sierra winds, which can reach 90 kts or more at those altitudes. Three people in a 182 in some of those conditions gets real close to unsafe.
Simply put, the longer that we send folks into those mountains, the closer we come to a disaster of some sort. CAWG hasn't had a search in the mountains of this magnitude for some years and our supply of really qualified mountain search pilots is getting thin.
As Paul wrote, if we keep throwing search aircrews into the High Sierras - especially as aircrews get tired - the chances of a lethal crash increase.
FWIW: At the Bishop, CA search base, when a C182 gets tasked to a very high grid, routinely the PIC only goes up with an observer since an extra average adult in the backseat pushes close to 200 lbs from max gross weight. Without that second pair of search eyes, the scanner, POD is automatically cut down 50%.
And eve getting a C182 up to 12,500' for highbird duty is interesting....
I wonder what the CAP fleet and member-furnished fleet is now. How many are C182s? C206s, Airvans, etc. What do wings with high mountains have compared to those with nothing over 4,000'? I know ORWG has a member-furnished O-2. Would you rather be in that or a C182 at 13,000 on oxygen as all those high grids need.
We were flying at about 14,000 over the Sierras on O2. But that little 182 was suckin wind trying to climb out of the Owens Valley.
FAA issues TFR for the search area:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/15/fossett.search.ap/index.html
FDC 7/7172 ZOA NV.. FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS 30 W OF COALDALE, NV. EFFECTIVE FROM 0709152200 UTC UNTIL 0709160230 UTC. PURSUANT TO 14 CFR SECTION 91.137(A)(3) TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONSARE IN EFFECT WITHIN AN AREA BOUNDED BY 383000N/1190000W OR THE MINA /MVA/ VORTAC 248 DEGREE RADIAL AT 45.7 NM THEN TO383000N/1183000W OR THE MINA /MVA/ VORTAC 243 DEGREE RADIAL AT 22.3 NM THEN TO 374500N/1183000W OR THE MINA /MVA/ VORTAC 187 DEGREE RADIAL AT 53.6 NM THEN TO 374500N/1190000W OR THE MINA /MVA/ VORTAC 206 DEGREE RADIAL AT 67 NM THEN BACK TO ORIGINAL POINT AT AND BELOW 2000 FEET AGL TO PROVIDE A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR SEARCH AND RESCUE OPERATIONS. ONLY RELIEF AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE INCIDENT COMMANDER ARE AUTHORIZED IN THE AIRSPACE. AIRCRAFT MAY LAND AND DEPART AIRPORTS WITHIN THE AIRSPACE.CAP INCIDENT COMMANDER, PHONE 775-782-6260 IS IN CHARGE OF THE OPERATION. SYSTEM OPERATIONS SUPPORT CENTER/SOSC, PHONE 202-493-5107,IS THE FAA COORDINATION FACILITY.
VERY interesting.
1. Proves that TFRs can happen for those who doubted.
2. Someone earlier posted that the Air National Guard had been placed in charge, but this puts it on the CAP Incident Commander. We all know that even if the Air National Guard is the "actual" incident commander that CAP will still have one of its own IC's overseeing CAP's part of the mission. But, I can't see the FAA using the CAP IC as the controller for the TFR if the Air National Guard was officially in charge.
Part of the latest AP article ... has info on reason for the TRF:
Quote
At the urging of search coordinators, the Federal Aviation Administration issued a temporary flight restriction in the search area Friday after an amateur pilot flew through at a low altitude.
When contacted, the pilot said he wanted to find Fossett and claim a $10,000 reward advertised on YouChoose.net, Locke said.
``This freelance searching is not only dangerous, but will potentially result in the delay or cancellation of all air search missions for Mr. Fossett,'' search organizers said in a written statement.
The TFR below 2000 feet AGL protects the searchers but I guess the highbirds are on their own!
Well, there isn't going to be much conflict with the highbirds that they're not already experiencing.
Highbird for the California part of the search when in CAP acft has been interesting. Radar floor for FAA ground radars is right around 12,000' above Mono Lake. Our highbirds routinely try to get flight following for radar adviseries but we still must see and avoid. I flew on a highbird this past Monday. Go to Bishop and you, too, are likely to get a highbird sortie.... and some more hours doing base paperwork.
And, good news, the Salvation Army is now providing food and drink to the Bishop base. Viva the Sally Army!
The NY Times reported today that the CA and NV National Guards had expended $200,000 in the search compared to $12,000 for CAP. Most of the article focused on the mechanicalturk search.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/weekinreview/16basics.html?em&ex=1190088000&en=4744eec945770eb4&ei=5087%0A (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/weekinreview/16basics.html?em&ex=1190088000&en=4744eec945770eb4&ei=5087%0A)
I think I read in another article that the google image search cost about $100,000.
Came Back Thursday after 7 days, we are fried. Interesting ride none the less, I expect to get back on Wed. I think we still have a chance but those 14 hour days suck. We must survey the pilots, aircrews and base staff on this mission because there needs to be some inner searching from CAP on this mission. I asked my Group Commander to mention the issue of pilots having to pay thousands of dollars out of their pockets on such missions (Credit Card), will CAP reimburse for the finance charge after a 6 month wait to be paid (NOOO)? I was glad and proud to meet many of you and of course it is usually the same ones I meet on these missions. So, lets ask the other members why they can't join in the mission? It is also time for us to go to the Governor and ask for the same legislation as in some states. "If you fly for CAP on an AFAM you get military leave time for the mission". Also lets ask the Air Force if they can sustain using 2 c130s and 3 helos everytime someone goes down, maybe we deserve regular 'Per diem" just like their Air Crews Get, or are we just chop Liver. We volunteer our time for training and meetings that is often double the time I ever was required for either the Army reserve or the Air Force reserve. The CAP of 1971 when I was a cadet is not the CAP 0f 2007 we are more than ever an integral part of homeland Security and aptly described so in many DOD whiteletters and policy documents. I will not quit but you can bet your bippy I will be heading to Sacramento. . . Charge (PS any Lawyers out there in Blue flight suits wanna help in correcting the wrongs, stopping the abuse)
Interesting tidbit from this article:http://www.startribune.com/484/story/1411234.html (http://www.startribune.com/484/story/1411234.html)
QuoteIn one sign that the effort has not produced as expected, overnight flights using infrared technology have been halted. Ryan conceded the flights had not been as effective as rescue teams had hoped.
Quote from: RiverAux on September 16, 2007, 07:25:03 PM
The NY Times reported today that the CA and NV National Guards had expended $200,000 in the search compared to $12,000 for CAP.
Quote from: wingnut on September 16, 2007, 07:37:13 PM
I asked my Group Commander to mention the issue of pilots having to pay thousands of dollars out of their pockets on such missions (Credit Card), will CAP reimburse for the finance charge after a 6 month wait to be paid (NOOO)? I
I brought this topic up on another post. I know of a lot of members that would have loved to have joined this search, but were financially unable to. There has to be a better way.
They could always call in members from Wings that take a more reasonable approach to things.
Well, the latest is that the CAWG Base at Bishop is closing and the the entire operation will be run out of Minden.
Members having to pay for mission costs is absolutely not right! We need national to issue credit cards for missions, and let them sort out the repayment in the end.
Quote from: mikeylikey on September 17, 2007, 12:54:06 AM
Members having to pay for mission costs is absolutely not right! We need national to issue credit cards for missions, and let them sort out the repayment in the end.
I've seen it done on a Wing level (for aircraft maintenance) and it was a disaster. Pilots just could not understand when to use the credit card and when not.
Quote from: mawr on September 17, 2007, 01:28:12 AM
I've seen it done on a Wing level (for aircraft maintenance) and it was a disaster. Pilots just could not understand when to use the credit card and when not.
Lets see, us pilots are smart enough to aviate, navigate and communicate, but we cant figure out when to use a credit card? I think we can be taught.
My wing has just the opposite experience. A card in every airplane and it works just fine.
Two things...
TFR's can be requested by any CAP IC through AFRCC. I have made such a request last year on a mission. Now with AFRCC in Tyndall there is an FAA Liasion in the OPS Center.
Second, KY Wing has managed maintenance at the Wing level for well over a decade. In our USAF compliance inspection I am pretty sure that we received an Outstanding in Operations and Aircraft Maintenance.
Also, all of the planes have Multi-serve fuel cards and the pilots pay NO mission costs out of pocket. In fact all fuel is purchased through multi-serve and the pilot reimburses the wing post flighteven for proficiency flights.
Has anyone actually thought about this Mechanical Turk thing with Amazon / Google Earth as being "useful"? Could there be some benefit from this?? Corporations like Satellite companies could write software interfaces for CAP and "donate" the images viewed and write this off their corporate taxes as "donations". Then from a secure interface "trained" scanners could process this through an actual planning section to weed out the "leads"?
Something like, Incident Commanders could define the containment area in WMIRS and the interfaces would get the data from their servers through XML/SOAP web services and populate back into Google Earth... (anyone at Google listening? hint)
Surely there are trained image analysts in the "know" lurking in the dark on this subject...
Personally, I have looked at the images and the resolution that I am seeing seems to be so low that I would really not see how this could be helpful for a crash site. I suppose you could pick out a plane on a ramp in perfect shape, but anything else in any type of cover would be indistinguishable. IMHO.. IC, and MP
I happen to disagree with the opinion that the imagery on Google is not useful. I am a trained imagery analyst of over 40 years and I looked at a lot of the imagery of the Fossett search area. If you are trained to interpret imagery, the Google stuff is adequate for searching for a downed aircraft. True, it is about 1 meter resolution and larger scale would be useful, but it is useable. One of the nice things about digital imagery is the ability to rotate the image and tilt it so that you are viewing a more or less natural look. You can also zoom in and out and that is sometimes useful.
All that said, crashes in the mountains usually involve going into the trees and no amount of high resolution is going to help much: the trees have a habit of shredding the aircraft and small pieces can hide under the trees and brush really well. I could spend the next two weeks explaining how to search on imagery, but it would get boring really rapidly. Of course, if the correct area is not imaged, it is all moot.
Good to know... Like I said, I was on a "fishing expedition" in my opinion as an "untrained" person not as a matter of fact.... I'm a software engineering by training.... If you see the imagery in there as useful, then what's your two cents on harnessing this type of tool for "real mission use" in an environement like I described?
Think about it, your skills and otheres like you could be used to plug into the mission long-range. Rather than hordes of untrained Googlers(?) real useful lead information could be headed into the mission base.
I must have looked at over 2000 of those images, with holding an MP rating I have some better idea of what to look for vs. John Q. Public, and the very first thing I know is we are usually *NOT* looking for an airplane. What I was looking for was stuff out of the ordinary because I'm not going to see an airplane as plain as that sample image they pose next to the actual image you are looking at. I also feel I could have looked at images twice as large in about the same amount of time, I think the samplings should been a larger area.
While the imagery might be useful, the Mechanical Turk process leaves a lot to be desired. The instructions read: Example of the size of object to look for. The white plane shown above (30 pixel wingspan by 21 pixels by length) is approximately the size of Steve's plane. The image shows an intact aircraft sitting on a ramp. It's highly unlikely the subject aircraft looks anything like that, structurally or size-wise, as trained searchers should know.
Many on-line "searchers" have figured that out. To get an idea what people are reporting, there is a thread in the Google Earth "Community Forums" in which people are posting questions and coordinates and pictures of possible targets. The thread is currently 103 pages long. The link is:
Google Earth Fossett Search Thread (http://tinyurl.com/3cqglg)
Another problem is the screening process. Filling the IC's email inbox with pictures of possible targets (which has happened) is not useful.
Assuming a reasonable initial screening process and delivery method can be worked out, the next problem is sorting out these "clues." Is there time and expertise to examine the pictures? While there are some experienced imagery analysts, are there enough? Are they available, etc? How does one decide which pictures to follow-up on? This method produces far more clues than come in on a typical search. What if one of the submitted pictures doesn't make the cut but turns out to be the right one?
Aerial imagery is obviously a useful tool, but for use on a regular basis there needs to be a better system than the Google/Amazon one being currently being used.
FWIW, I spent today analyzing aerial imagery of forested mountains for work. The photos range from 0.25 meter/pixel to 1 meter/pixel resolution, taken at different times of the year, at different times of day. I was looking for objects on the ground one to four feet across, that I knew were in the images because the ground verification has already been done. The viewing program can pan, zoom, and rotate in 3D. The POD was very low. As I looked at them, I thought about what it would be like to search them for airplane parts or evidence of a crash.
Mike
I certainly concur with some of the foregoing comments. We certainly are not looking for a whole airplane: mostly bits and pieces and fragments. If you ever seen a crashed airplane, it resembles more nearly a pile of junk than a piece of operating machinery.
My whole point was that imagery MIGHT be useful, in the right hands. From all of the posts, it looks like there are three of us who have any imagery analysis background. That is probably typical of CAP: I doubt that there are more than a dozen people nationwide who have any imagery analysis background.
That says that using the stuff for a routine search is not a viable process. It also takes a considerable amount of time to wade through the imagery of a search area. That time could likely be better spent putting aircrews in the air.
You also have the issue that commercial imagery is not up to date: sometimes, the Google stuff is a year old and that isn't much help in a crash that happened last week or yesterday. I understand that Google did manage to get some new coverage of the Fossett area, but how much I don't know. It would also matter where they imaged: you can't just willy nilly fly imagery strips and expect to get much in the way of results. The classified systems are a different story, but we can only wish!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The amateurs might come up with something, but the false positives will drive the mission managers crazy and they will tend to ignore that after awhile.
Unless the cost gets dropped significantly lower than the $100K reported in the media for the mechanical turk project it is not going to be feasible to do fthis for the regular folks we spend most of our time trying to find.
Even without this high tech stuff CAP (and other agencies) have a pretty high success rate at finding missing airplanes. In 2005 only 4/95 missing airplane targets searched for by AFRCC were not found.
A question for the Ground Pounders involved in this search. Are any of your teams saying out over night? Any teams camping out in the mountains? If so how are they doing?
Quote from: RiverAux on September 17, 2007, 10:06:41 PM
Unless the cost gets dropped significantly lower than the $100K reported in the media for the mechanical turk project it is not going to be feasible to do fthis for the regular folks we spend most of our time trying to find.
Are you kidding? We didn't blink an eye with ARCHER (an equally unfeasible product, IMO).
But I agree, the cost/benefit is not there right now. Maybe...someday.
Quote from: eaglefly on September 17, 2007, 10:40:07 PM
A question for the Ground Pounders involved in this search. Are any of your teams saying out over night? Any teams camping out in the mountains? If so how are they doing?
The Ground Team, yes that's
team, has not been out overnight. The mission they have been doing is interviewing people in the area of interest and going out to the old wrecks that have been found to mark and ID them.
The ground team game out here in California and Nevada is very, very different that what you guys have back east.
The closest that we come to teams being out overnight is that if a team will be in the same area the next day, and it's more then a 2 hour drive back to the search base, the may camp out overnight in the field. But it doesn't happen very often.
I would like us to create an Intel unit that is well versed in Imagery, Geographical information systems, display of information, NTAP use and display, the correct mapping of all known wrecks so it can be displayed (we wasted a lot of time and money on that in the Fossett search)
Wait what am I saying? wait for what, I think I will get with Bosshawk and just do it. We teach High School kids how to look at Imagery and Hyperspectral change detection. Why not CAWG, and lets get a plotter donated, and a DLP projector or two for mission briefings.
I flew about 40 hours on that mission and I really admired the ICs for what they coordinated out of chaos and us primadonna aircrews.
I was reading somewhere, that CAP liaison personnel staffing the AFRCC were required to have a SECRET security clearance for working at the AFRCC. I was reading a Memorandum of Agreement about some Ops Control Center at Tyndall.
Overhead imagery is taken by the "national technical means", the CAP liaison personnel at AFRCC would be cleared for the take; take the product from the squints (thats what we called the imagery interpreters when I was a USAR 96B), and relay the interpretation reports to the IC, so he could effectively employ his assets in the areas that looked promising. OR, as part of the IC qualification, vet for security clearance and allow him to see the take from the national technical means, and judge for himself his employment of SAR assets.
Granted, it would be nice for the overhead take to be given straight to the mission pilot, planners, and ICs, but I can imagine that would be cost prohibitive just in security clearances - but hey, if it gets the job done, I'm all for it...
"The ground team game out here in California and Nevada is very, very different that what you guys have back east."
We don't do it either, my favorite 'pup tent' has Holiday Inn written on the door. That is why I was asking, I figured that if CAP GT's were not staying out on this one they never would.
Thanks
Quote from: dougsnow on September 18, 2007, 06:37:18 AM
I was reading somewhere, that CAP liaison personnel staffing the AFRCC were required to have a SECRET security clearance for working at the AFRCC. I was reading a Memorandum of Agreement about some Ops Control Center at Tyndall.
Overhead imagery is taken by the "national technical means", the CAP liaison personnel at AFRCC would be cleared for the take; take the product from the squints (thats what we called the imagery interpreters when I was a USAR 96B), and relay the interpretation reports to the IC, so he could effectively employ his assets in the areas that looked promising. OR, as part of the IC qualification, vet for security clearance and allow him to see the take from the national technical means, and judge for himself his employment of SAR assets.
Granted, it would be nice for the overhead take to be given straight to the mission pilot, planners, and ICs, but I can imagine that would be cost prohibitive just in security clearances - but hey, if it gets the job done, I'm all for it...
FalconView
Actually, I found my reference again here...
http://level2.cap.gov/documents/CAP1AFMOUpdf.pdf
But yes, FalconView would be very cool :)
I just saw an interview with Maj Ryan on the Associated Press.
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/ver/242/popup/index.php?cl=4133989 (http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/ver/242/popup/index.php?cl=4133989)
Did she have her badges and name plate on backwards???
I don't know, but I think those horse might feel as though they've been replaced...
(link sent me to a video of "Segway Polo" in san fransisco...)
Quote from: jimmydeanno on September 18, 2007, 12:58:23 PM
I don't know, but I think those horse might feel as though they've been replaced...
(link sent me to a video of "Segway Polo" in san fransisco...)
Sorry, try again, I fixed the link.
Quote from: mashcraft on September 18, 2007, 12:50:34 PM
Did she have her badges and name plate on backwards???
Ugh. Yes. ::)
She might speak well but what a mess. Wrong patches, badges and nameplates backwards. Get it together already. Message to the Maj.: Read 39-1 for crying out loud!
Poor girl can't even dress herself!
Even when I have had to get dressed in a hurry in a closet when some husband came home from work early, I still got my wings on the correct side!
Looks like the search is over for the most part. Interesting that they're still going to have military choppers flying but CAP is out of it except for having a few planes on standby.
It's not too interesting. We've done just about all we can, and unfortunately had no positive results. So since a lot of the SAR help is standing down, does this mean that the search is basically over?
How embarrassing.......can't even use the excuse that the photog reversed the image. Hope she at least doesn't have her underwear on backwards. :-[
I think in one of the early press interviews she was in a flightsuit with the old round CAP patch instead of the command patch also.
To get off the beating of the good Major from Nevada and back to the search. CA CAP has been largely ignored by the media: maybe from lack of PR resources in CA or because the media has been concentrated at Minden, NV and haven't visited the CA base at Bishop. Don't know and it really doesn't matter. What matters is that CAP, in its entirety, has flown over 1200 hours of search during this past two weeks, without a serious incident of any sort that I know of.
Just to toot the CAWG horn, we have flown about 60% of the search hours and NVWG the other 40. I have a feeling that the Bishop ICs heaved a big sigh of relief that they didn't have to deal with the press.
The decision to reduce the search effort was a combined AFRCC, CAWG, NVWG, Air Guard and Law Enforcement decision, made at a meeting yesterday. Apparently, there hasn't been any new intel made available in a long time and just droning around the mountains and desert gets counter-productive after awhile.
Yes, it appears that the Major from NV had her uniform accessories on backwards. Shame, shame!!!!!!
Does anyone have a link, or know how large the search area is/was? Has the search area gradually grown in hopes of turning something up?
Ryan: I have heard areas from 17,000 to 20,000 sq nm given out as the size of the search area. Remember, however, that there is a lot of vertical distance that isn't figured in this search figure. I talked to one crew last night that had searched a heavily wooded grid in the Sierras and they figured their POD as about 5%, at altitudes from 8500 to 12,000 ft above sea level. Having flown in some of that area on other searches, that isn't a bad POD: you simply can lose a lot of things in that dense forest. I have seen aircraft go into that forest and are never found from the air: either a survivor walks out and pinpoints it or a hiker or hunter finds it.
I can agree with that. While not as large of a mountain, we had a Lear Jet smack into Smarts Mountain in Dorchester, NH about 11 years ago while attempting to get into Lebanon Airport in a Christmas Eve snowstorm.
After about a 2-3 week CAP and NH Fish & Game search, and multiple attempts by private individuals over the course of 2-3 years, the wreckage was discovered by a forester at the 2300 ft level of the mountain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_New_Hampshire_Learjet_crash
Following the discovery, both Fish & Game and the National Guard literally hovered helicopters over the crash site and the consensus was that the wreckage would not have been visible during the search. Never mind the fact that it was snowing to beat the band when the crash occurred, and the subsequent ice storm in Spring 1998 helped to cover the wreckage more.
So I assume that the AFRCC has totally lost the signal making this pretty much a blind search for the aircrews. Can't they just go back, and send a GT to it last known point? Forgive me, but I am not familiar with anything west of Toledo, so I have no clue what kind of area they are searching in. What are the odds that all of the organizations out there searching are going to quit the search soon? Lastly, thanks for your response Hawk. At least it makes more sense as to why there were 20 CAP aircraft out there as well as military and other resources.
Quote from: Recruiter on September 18, 2007, 06:58:10 PM
So I assume that the AFRCC has totally lost the signal making this pretty much a blind search for the aircrews. Can't they just go back, and send a GT to it last known point? Forgive me, but I am not familiar with anything west of Toledo, so I have no clue what kind of area they are searching in. What are the odds that all of the organizations out there searching are going to quit the search soon? Lastly, thanks for your response Hawk. At least it makes more sense as to why there were 20 CAP aircraft out there as well as military and other resources.
The aircraft's last known point was when and where it departed from, the Flying H ranch. From what I've heard, AFRCC has never had a signal, so this has been a "visual" search the entire time. If there was an active ELT, this would have been over in a matter of hours.
Quote from: SJFedor on September 18, 2007, 07:02:14 PM
Quote from: Recruiter on September 18, 2007, 06:58:10 PM
So I assume that the AFRCC has totally lost the signal making this pretty much a blind search for the aircrews. Can't they just go back, and send a GT to it last known point? Forgive me, but I am not familiar with anything west of Toledo, so I have no clue what kind of area they are searching in. What are the odds that all of the organizations out there searching are going to quit the search soon? Lastly, thanks for your response Hawk. At least it makes more sense as to why there were 20 CAP aircraft out there as well as military and other resources.
The aircraft's last known point was when and where it departed from, the Flying H ranch. From what I've heard, AFRCC has never had a signal, so this has been a "visual" search the entire time. If there was an active ELT, this would have been over in a matter of hours.
Isn't a plane required by FAA regulations to have an ELT on board? Forgive me, I'm not a pilot. Was there no flight plan? I feel bad for Mr. Fossett's family that there has been no news as to locating even a fragment of the plane to give some hope that his body would be found. I also read something about he might have been wearing an ELT watch. Granted this would not have lasted long due to battery, or maybe fire. But I am surprised that there was never an ELT signal. Not saying it can't happen, just surprised.
Sometimes people do dumb things. I IC'd a mission last year where we learned that the aircraft we were looking for had sat on airport ramp two weeks prior with the ELT going off for 5-6 hours before it was turned off.
We got occassional audible signals but no SAT hits. Apparently the battery was never replaced in the ELT after the incident two weeks before.
Anything could have happened with Mr. Fossett's flight.
Quote from: Recruiter on September 18, 2007, 07:21:13 PM
Isn't a plane required by FAA regulations to have an ELT on board? Forgive me, I'm not a pilot. Was there no flight plan? I feel bad for Mr. Fossett's family that there has been no news as to locating even a fragment of the plane to give some hope that his body would be found. I also read something about he might have been wearing an ELT watch. Granted this would not have lasted long due to battery, or maybe fire. But I am surprised that there was never an ELT signal. Not saying it can't happen, just surprised.
Yeah, they're required. However, they can be damaged in the crash and not work, land upside down with the antenna in the ground or severed, and produce a signal that can only be heard by recievers within 50 yards, or the battery could have just been dead or very weak to begin with and not have tripped the SARSAT system. We get a lot of false ELT calls because they're only quasi-reliable and can trip easily, on the other side, they can be broken, have a dead battery, or just not work in a crash.
Look at CAP-ES.net, and you'll see that Lt Col Lanis has come up with cruel ways to hide practice beacons so that they're tough to find. Most airplanes don't crash wit the antenna sticking straight up into the air, and training to that standard really does not give GTs and aircrews the tools to use when they're looking for the real deal, with the antenna broken off partially or facing a certain way that it can only be picked up from a certain direction.
As for the ELT watch, read Midway Six's review of the watch. It doesn't put out enough power to trip the SARSAT system, and is only good for short range line of sight tracking.
Speaking of cruel ways to find a practice beacon, I was on a team that had to find one that was stuck in a ammo can with the antenna down. That was an interest practice, but a lot was learned that day.
Ryan:
About 15 percent of all crashes fail to transmit any ELT signal.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on September 18, 2007, 07:46:17 PM
Ryan:
About 15 percent of all crashes fail to transmit any ELT signal.
John, I've read that. It seems to defeat the purpose of the ELT in my opinion. But that's just me.
Quote from: Recruiter on September 18, 2007, 08:02:08 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on September 18, 2007, 07:46:17 PM
Ryan:
About 15 percent of all crashes fail to transmit any ELT signal.
John, I've read that. It seems to defeat the purpose of the ELT in my opinion. But that's just me.
But that still means that 85 percent do transmit a signal, which is a lot better than zero percent.
Hey Bosshawk,
Its Brendan from Sqd 80... I worked the first weekend of the mission and the pods reported at best were 10%, so many rocks, shadows, ravines and not to mention some trees. We had a debriefing among sqd members at last nights meeting. Our squadron had at least 7 people who got to sign in and put some hard work in. From my perspective at base we covered a lot of area and put in a lot of hours, only downfall I see is the terrain didn't make it any easier but nothing is ever easy... for RECRUITER I believe we have scaled down and will only investigate new leads with a 2 hour crew on call.
Brendan
Ryan and all of the other non-pilots: there is no requirement for any pilot to file a flight plan for a VFR flight: that is, under visual flight rules, which is the most common sort of flying by light aircraft He didn't do a thing wrong in that respect.
ELTs can fail to activate for a number of reasons: upside down with the antenna buried, in a lake or river, destroyed in a fire, destroyed by the force of the crash, etc.
On the flip side, they can be activated by a hard landing, but not often. They simply are a crap shoot, in the best of cases. Better than nothing, but not as good as they might be. Of course, with small planes, money for an ELT often over rules the making of better ones. For lots of reasons, small plane owners are very reluctant to spend money on anything other than fuel: often at their own peril.
Hi, Brendan. Of course, I remember you from my days in 80. Glad you could contribute in the search.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on September 18, 2007, 07:46:17 PM
Ryan:
About 15 percent of all crashes fail to transmit any ELT signal.
From an email exchange:
Next question for you, Dave - What's the reliability of the ELTs
starting when there *is* a crash?
My response:
Variable. If properly mounted (as far aft as possible), and if it doesn't get destroyed in the crash by getting smashed or burned up, and if the antenna remains attached, and if the wreckage doesn't end up on top of the antenna, and if the battery has been properly maintained, then pretty good.
To continue:
If there is a breakdown in any of these, you ain't gonna get squat out of the ELT. The last wreck I was at had an O2 fed fire that totally destroyed the cockpit area. The ELT was mounted about two feet too far forward, and was damaged in the fire to the extent that it failed to operate. Even under the best conditions, ELTs are a crap shoot.
[A little repeat info, but the last two posts happened while I was doing my hunt and peck routine.]
Hey when are you going to stop by again...
KOLO is reporting that there may be a hit from the google earth search. Appears someone who was working it was actually thinking and comparing new and old images, and found a promising anomaly on the California Nevada border. I'll withhold judgment until a ground team investigates...
As for elts I would say the least they could do is reeinforce them with a steel box so it'll take a little more of a beating then hard plastic would... but then you get into weight factors. Hmm maybe like the Siris has an emergency parachute system maybe elts should be deployed by a tail wire to keep it a little ways away from the plane if an emergency occurs...might even be easier to deactivate on those udf missions...
dougsnow
But yes, FalconView would be very cool.
Contact me at cwmorris2@charter.net I can help.
Quote from: SJESOFFICER on September 18, 2007, 08:38:38 PM
As for elts I would say the least they could do is reeinforce them with a steel box so it'll take a little more of a beating then hard plastic would... but then you get into weight factors. Hmm maybe like the Siris has an emergency parachute system maybe elts should be deployed by a tail wire to keep it a little ways away from the plane if an emergency occurs...might even be easier to deactivate on those udf missions...
That makes more sense. Have the ELT somewhere where it can deploy to try to reduce the damage done to it. Now what are the odds something like that would actually happen?
1. A flight plan would not have done much good in this case, since his plan was imprecise. He was not flying from point A to point B, he was just cruising around looking for a place to run his race car.
2. Back in the day, we used to have big missions, 25-50 planes at a time out of a base, all member-owned, everything from Stinson Flying Station Wagons to the "New" Cessna 172. We had no ELT's to track, and if we found the target it was through employment of the highest-tech device we had, which was the "Mark 1 'Eyeball' Light Image Processing Device." The ELT came about after some high-profile politician was lost in Alaska and never found (by humans... bears MIGHT have found him, but if they did they failed to file the required report). ELT's make it easier, but they cant do everything.
True... but it would be a lot easier if they worked with some consistancy which is why I had a creatative brain storm earlier, throw the elt out of harms way. Instead of ejecting from a seat pull the handle and drop an elt wired to to the tail or automatic dipense...
Quote from: SJESOFFICER on September 18, 2007, 10:01:03 PM
True... but it would be a lot easier if they worked with some consistancy which is why I had a creatative brain storm earlier, throw the elt out of harms way. Instead of ejecting from a seat pull the handle and drop an elt wired to to the tail or automatic dipense...
No. Woudn't happen.
#1. Too expensive to retrofit all the older aircraft.
#2. Pilots are taught, first and foremost, to FLY THE AIRPLANE. I wouldn't want to fiddle around with trying to pull some handle somewhere when my plane is going down. I would want to land the aircraft the best I can to increase my chances of surviving the crash.
#3. Someone pulls it while they're going in, but also pulls it while they're a few thousand feet up. That beacon can end up miles upon miles away from any wreckage. Depending on wind, altitude, and skill, you could be 50+ miles away.
#4. Close to ground accident happens where there's no time to even think about deploying the ELT. No activation, just as bad as a plane w/ a normal ELT that fails to function, except that, requiring deployment to activate, you've now taken the 15% of crashes that don't activate, and made it much higher.
#5. Such a system would probably weigh a considerable amount, and require a lot of work to install.
#6. Someone accidentally pulls it in flight and doesn't realize it. Now we're chasing an ELT in the middle of BFE.
Quote from: SJESOFFICER on September 18, 2007, 08:38:38 PM
As for elts I would say the least they could do is reeinforce them with a steel box so it'll take a little more of a beating then hard plastic would... but then you get into weight factors. Hmm maybe like the Siris has an emergency parachute system maybe elts should be deployed by a tail wire to keep it a little ways away from the plane if an emergency occurs...might even be easier to deactivate on those udf missions...
Oh, goody, my favorite CAP Q - Who's gonna pay? We're having enough problem getting the newer style ELTs into older planes. Let's make them even more expensive.
A steel box would provide little additional protection unless it is really thick, adding weight. The plastic boxes are pretty sturdy, and provide adequate shock protection, at a reasonable weight. Additional fire protection comes with its own penalties, and is really unnecessary if the ELT is mounted according to the manufacturer's recommendation - as far aft as possible. This creates access problems, so the A/C makers use compromises.
A tether and deployment system will be expensive, heavy, and a maintenance nightmare.
How long do you make the tether? Out of what material? How do you ensure that it doesn't end up under the wreckage anyway?
How do you accomlish deployment - manually or automatically? By what means - spring? Explosive charge? There's another can of worms all by itself.
[Y'all type too fast!]
An ELT that deploys in the event of an accident exists. It is a follow-on to combination ELT/cockpit voice recorder/flight data recorders that have been around for years. These are called Deployable Flight Information Recorder Systems (DFIRS). They are primarily used on military aircraft, but are available and used on civilian aircraft, both fixed wing and helicopters. The FAA has has approved them and the NTSB would like to see them used more. From DRS Technologies, the prominent manufacturer in the field.
The electronics are packaged within a crash survivable Beacon Airfoil Unit (BAU) that is qualified and certified to CAA, TCA and FAA standards. In the event of an accident, the deployment of the BAU is automatically triggered by on-board sensors, thereby allowing the BAU to escape the devastating effects of the crash. The ELT immediately transmits its distress signal, including aircraft identification number, to the COSPAS-SARSAT network. With its Global Positioning System (GPS) encoding option, the BAU transmits the aircraft's last known latitude and longitude to aid in search and rescue efforts. The BAU floats indefinitely, providing superior survivability and localization of crew and aircraft that crash in water.
For military models: In the event of an accident, the deployment of the DFIRS is triggered automatically by an impact sensor or through release of the ejection seat. Activation by either of these means initiates the deployment mechanism that releases the DFIRS into the aircraft slipstream where it "flies" away from the aircraft.
Obviously a DFIRS is not something that one is going to install on a general aviation aircraft, and I suspect the cost of a deployable 406 ELT is astronomical, but the idea of a deployable beacon is in real world use.
More info:
CPI-406 Deployable ELT (http://www.drs.com/Products/CPI_406.aspx?cat=Intel_Tech&subcat=Sub_Cat_18)
Mike
Sure, now the ELTs cost more than the A/C. :o
thanx mike for the support... I put my idea out there as an idea in general and not in practical literal way. However, the system you are talking about I think makes sense... if I were to try to adapt the standard elt to be deployable I don't think much weight would be added, 30 ft of tether, 3/4 steel line bolted to the tail. as to to install it on all the a/c I wouldn't go that far just because siris made a plane with a chute on, doesnt mean older planes have to adopt it. I guess overall I think someone can make a tethered deployable elt priced for private use. as for weight you just have to account for the tethered line and detachment mechanism into the slipstream. Possible have an aquator release it through a switch like the one they use already to manually activate the elt. I think I will transfer this to its own topic, and maybe we have some engineers who can comment. it may not be realistic but then ideas don't become realities until their actually made... Ask yourself this if one was made affordable and was more reliable than the current equipment wouldn't you want one...
also have to add it doesn't mean its practical just because they exist... and you all have very good points...
I am back at home after flying the Fosset Search for the last two weeks on and off out of Bishop.
A couple of items:
I heard nothing but support from the IC regard Col. Muniz during his daily briefings.
The command staff was a pre planned managment team SECOND TO NONE!
They kept 15+ planes in the air all day with a staff of 4.
CAWG did use member owned aircraft.
I was amazed how 4 or 5 experts on the IC staff could do so well vs. how CAWG performed during the SAREVAL. Quality, not quantity worked here.
Everyday, there were requests for resources that went unfilled by our members. But once there was free room and board, everyone wanted to jump on board.
CAWG and CAP should learn from these guys and move forward.
I think the 2 RON was a very limiting factor we are volunteers not everyone can do 3 days... I did it but I bit the bullet... if I was retired that would be a diff story. I would say our moral was lowered because of this... I understand crew rest for socal crews but norcal within 180 miles? I think a crew for 2 full days is better than none...
otherwise this was my first real mission and I learned a lot... ty staff
The issue of the RON was if the AF was paying for it vs. to and from costs, a 2 day stay made sense. To waste a half day on the a/c engines, staff and search time plus the saftey of keeping crews from flying at night over the mountains was a consideration of the staff. Remember, CAWG members opposed any night flying over the mountains as unsafe.
Quote from: SJESOFFICER on September 18, 2007, 11:29:59 PM
[redacted] if I were to try to adapt the standard elt to be deployable I don't think much weight would be added, 30 ft of tether, 3/4 steel line bolted to the tail. [further redacted]
Ten meters (33 ft) of 19 mm (3/4 in) steel wire rope weighs 27 lb, and has a working wieght limit of 7052 lb. I think that's way overkill.
OTOH, 10 m of 3 mm (1/8 in) steel wire rope weighs about 1 lb, and has a working weight limit of 175 lb.
But you still need all the rest of the hardware in the airframe to make it work.
And nobody answered the $64 question -
Who's going to pay for it?
If i design a private us model I'll give it to you for discount... I would think it would be a option on buying a new plane... I'm not a pilot but elts come with the plane ?
Getting back to the Mechanical Turk search for a moment. I realize that nobody may have this answer, but I think something to be analysed, for future reference...
Given that there were reportedly a number of undocumented older crash sites identified through conventional search methods, I'm given to wonder whether any of those sites were identified by the satellite search as well. If so, it would be a good yardstick by which to measure the effectiveness of that sort of search. On the other hand, if not, then it would prove its ineffectiveness too.
Although I dont agree to what someone did from their site, if the coordinates are public ( dont know personally) you might be able to ask youchoose.net who have a blog just for that...
I was more interested in insights from within the actual SAR community, not just those who jump on the bandwagon when the search objective has a high profile.
You asking if we saw any of those from the Sats?
As for California and I am sure Nevada, the only old crash sites were those that had been found before and just "forgotten" about over the last 20 to 30 years. No coyotes, no mountain lions. Some were found by ARCHER, some by low tech observers and scanners.
Hey, Bob, got a rough sortie and flight hour count for the mission?
Quote from: SJESOFFICER on September 20, 2007, 07:38:17 PM
You asking if we saw any of those from the Sats?
Yeah, basically. Did the online search result in anybody learning anything worth knowing?
The fact that previously undiscovered (or even long forgotten), crash sites were found through the air search seems to me to prove that it was effective and thorough, even if the search objective was not located. (If he ever is found, the reasons why this search failed will need to be analysed at that time, but that's a different question.)
My presumption is that they didn't know, or bother to remove from the images available online, any that contained old wreckage. Therefore, one could get some idea of how well the concept worked out in terms of identifying wreckage, period.
If the Mechanical Turk search results correlated with the results of the conventional visual search (as well as the more advanced seach equipment used on site), then that would validate it as an effective tool. If there was no such correlation, it would be proven invalid.
I have got to call BS on a statement I saw on the national media by a NV National Guard public affairs guy who said that the state had spent $500,000 on the search but that "they would do that for anybody". That is just absurdly untrue unless the Nevada National Guard is vastly different from those in other states.
We all know that every once in a while the Army or Air National Guard will contribute to assets to a missing airplane search, but it is extremely rare. For example, according to the AFRCC 2005 report there were 7 missing airplane missions in NV and the NV ANG wasn't involved in any of them.
Quote from: RiverAux on September 20, 2007, 11:05:50 PM
I have got to call BS on a statement I saw on the national media by a NV National Guard public affairs guy who said that the state had spent $500,000 on the search but that "they would do that for anybody". That is just absurdly untrue unless the Nevada National Guard is vastly different from those in other states.
We all know that every once in a while the Army or Air National Guard will contribute to assets to a missing airplane search, but it is extremely rare. For example, according to the AFRCC 2005 report there were 7 missing airplane missions in NV and the NV ANG wasn't involved in any of them.
You have to laugh at them because they want our support for the BS going on in Iraq, but don't seem to thrilled to return the favor when a civilian plane goes down. But look at it this way, because of their laziness, we have stuff to do!
Quote from: ♠☆Recruiter☆♠ on September 20, 2007, 11:26:41 PM
You have to laugh at them because they want our support for the BS going on in Iraq, but don't seem to thrilled to return the favor when a civilian plane goes down. But look at it this way, because of their laziness, we have stuff to do!
With all due respect, that is just a stupid statement. Besides, what does that have to do with the price of rice in China?
Pictures from Bishop Base taken 8-9 Sept 07
Last Addition
Sorry Dave, don't have the day to date totals. I had to leave the base for a tune up at the operating room. I get daily briefings but I can add some basic info for CAWG and NVWG.
1. Our scanners were looking and finding old wrecks out there so they were doing their jobs. This last week we added about 500 additional ground searches out there with the opening of hunting season. More to come when deer season opens.
I know this has been CAWG largest and longest search in years. My guess is we may see more of these with the phase out of the SARSAT. This part of CA and NV has little Radar coverage, and periods of week long no fly weather in the Sierras. This will force out back to the old days of putting teams into the field during bad weather to take long range DF bearings.
Airline reports of a weak ELT over Fresno? What's that....100,000 square miles?
2. These large operations, SAR, HLS, DR, will require the use of member owner aircraft. For us in the mountain state, VHF FM is a major factor in the use of the aircraft in remote and rural area. Hi Birds can be an answer but not always a solution.
3. This mission will be reviewed at the highest levels in and out of CAP. I think this operation showed for the most part our capabilities and some of our limitations. A few factors that helped out as well as distracted us during the mission: The name of our "target" help draw resources.
The remote location of our base: No repeaters, high speed internet, limited facilities hurt but the NOC stepped in and helped out in dozens of ways.
I would like to add both our Wing CC's, State Directors, OES, AFRCC, CAP from Wing to National were 100% behind our operations. The stories of the CAWG CC blowing up at the base ARE NOT true, he was never there. We had problems, sure, but I have seen and had worse elsewhere.
Now my question....did our membership numbers change over the last few weeks?
Quote from: A.Member on September 20, 2007, 11:52:16 PM
Quote from: ♠☆Recruiter☆♠ on September 20, 2007, 11:26:41 PM
You have to laugh at them because they want our support for the BS going on in Iraq, but don't seem to thrilled to return the favor when a civilian plane goes down. But look at it this way, because of their laziness, we have stuff to do!
With all due respect, that is just a stupid statement. Besides, what does that have to do with the price of rice in China?
Just to add a friendly defense for myself, I wanted to tell you what I meant. In the statement that I quoted, it stated that it is rare for the Army or ANG to be searching for a downed civilian a/c. In the search for Mr. Fossett, they are involved, as well as multiple other SAR agencies. My statement had nothing to do with the price of rice in China. I don't even know what the price of rice in China is. Do you? Is there an inflation issue with rice in China? No disrespect taken, and none given. I'm hoping this may have helped you see what I was talking about.
Quote from: ♠☆Recruiter☆♠ on September 21, 2007, 03:37:35 PM
Quote from: A.Member on September 20, 2007, 11:52:16 PM
Quote from: ♠☆Recruiter☆♠ on September 20, 2007, 11:26:41 PM
You have to laugh at them because they want our support for the BS going on in Iraq, but don't seem to thrilled to return the favor when a civilian plane goes down. But look at it this way, because of their laziness, we have stuff to do!
With all due respect, that is just a stupid statement. Besides, what does that have to do with the price of rice in China?
Just to add a friendly defense for myself, I wanted to tell you what I meant. In the statement that I quoted, it stated that it is rare for the Army or ANG to be searching for a downed civilian a/c. In the search for Mr. Fossett, they are involved, as well as multiple other SAR agencies. My statement had nothing to do with the price of rice in China. I don't even know what the price of rice in China is. Do you? Is there an inflation issue with rice in China? No disrespect taken, and none given. I'm hoping this may have helped you see what I was talking about.
Unfortunately, Recruiter we know what you meant, and many of us think it was disrespectful. Calling what our troops in Iraq are doing "BS" is uncalled for. Even if you do not agree with this war, you should still respect the efforts being made by those that are there.
Quote from: SoCalCAPOfficer on September 21, 2007, 05:03:59 PM
Quote from: ♠☆Recruiter☆♠ on September 21, 2007, 03:37:35 PM
Quote from: A.Member on September 20, 2007, 11:52:16 PM
Quote from: ♠☆Recruiter☆♠ on September 20, 2007, 11:26:41 PM
You have to laugh at them because they want our support for the BS going on in Iraq, but don't seem to thrilled to return the favor when a civilian plane goes down. But look at it this way, because of their laziness, we have stuff to do!
With all due respect, that is just a stupid statement. Besides, what does that have to do with the price of rice in China?
Just to add a friendly defense for myself, I wanted to tell you what I meant. In the statement that I quoted, it stated that it is rare for the Army or ANG to be searching for a downed civilian a/c. In the search for Mr. Fossett, they are involved, as well as multiple other SAR agencies. My statement had nothing to do with the price of rice in China. I don't even know what the price of rice in China is. Do you? Is there an inflation issue with rice in China? No disrespect taken, and none given. I'm hoping this may have helped you see what I was talking about.
Unfortunately, Recruiter we know what you meant, and many of us think it was disrespectful. Calling what our troops in Iraq are doing "BS" is uncalled for. Even if you do not agree with this war, you should still respect the efforts being made by those that are there.
SoCal, I have respect for out troops, and support them. What I meant by BS is what they have to go through with the IEDs and other explosives. I have nothing against U.S. military member serving this country. If I had been accepted into the military (medically denied), I would be over there too serving my country. I meant in no way that what they are doing is BS, just what they are going through while being over there.
Recruiter, you have my apologies if I misunderstood what you were saying. I guess I get a little sensitive to all the criticism to the war.
Quote from: SoCalCAPOfficer on September 21, 2007, 05:17:30 PM
Recruiter, you have my apologies if I misunderstood what you were saying. I guess I get a little sensitive to all the criticism to the war.
SoCal, no problem. I have a nasty habit of speaking without actually stating what I may be upset about. I understand completely and share your feelings of this war.
Quote2. These large operations, SAR, HLS, DR, will require the use of member owner aircraft.
Not necessarily. Better use of existing resources from other nearby states are available...we just need to get past the "Our wing can do it by ourselves, we don't need no stinkin' help" attitude that apparently still exists.
Are Nevada and California wings the only current wings involved in the search? I was asked last night after a HAM net if any of my local units are searching (which they aren't because I'm in Ohio).
I'll answer to the best of my ability... we are rotation for 2 hours call up in this order ... NORCAL, SOCAL, NV so unless we have further leads we're on standby...
Quote from: SJESOFFICER on September 21, 2007, 05:52:05 PM
I'll answer to the best of my ability... we are rotation for 2 hours call up in this order ... NORCAL, SOCAL, NV so unless we have further leads we're on standby...
So CAP is on a soft alert until new leads come up?
Yup so we basically have a few aircrews from North Cal , South Cal, and NV on 2 hour stanby in case leads come up.
Quote from: SJESOFFICER on September 21, 2007, 05:59:05 PM
Yup so we basically have a few aircrews from North Cal , South Cal, and NV on 2 hour stanby in case leads come up.
Well at least our people are getting a chance to rest. This has been a long search and I applaud CAP's effort.
You have no idea... 6,000 aprox alt and long days...I took 3 days to recover my energy.
Oh you were there? What kind of environment is it there? Busy? I've never been on an actual.
Yup first weekend... yes it was busy but from my experience it ran smoother than the sarexs I been to. Everything just seems to fit in place... I was doing status board and communications. A very valuable experience...
2. These large operations, SAR, HLS, DR, will require the use of member owner aircraft.
Not necessarily. Better use of existing resources from other nearby states are available...we just need to get past the "Our wing can do it by ourselves, we don't need no stinkin' help" attitude that apparently still exists.
I guess one of the biggest reasons for using member owned aircraft was to keep timing out the CAP aircraft. Using a member owned aircraft to ferry fresh crews from LA and SF kept the aircraft at the base and kept. 5 or 6 hours off the Hobbs. We also used them to ferry in equipment. We still need to keep a certain level of resource available for any additional missions that come up. We had 2 additional missing a/c missions in CAWG during the search plus our usually daily ELT missions. We had CAP aircraft lined up and used outside of CAWG and NVWG but weather issues and the like still remind us the local member owned resource may be the best option. I think of myself as a resource manager, I try to keep all my options open and look at my needs the next operational period or two (or three...) down the road.
One of the lessons learned and why we need to look at the way we use our aircraft was that we ran Bishop out of fuel. Their shipment had to come from SF, not a short drive at all. The tanker arrived as we had less than 40 gallons left in the main tanks and fuel trucks! After an earthquake, would we have had a shipment? There are so many lesson to be learned, relearned and rethought. This was one of those "career" missions, not uncommon 30 years ago but just memories today.
But, there are plenty of aircraft in OR, ID, UT, and AZ that probably would have been happy to come in for short stretches to reduce that need. They're probably more than happy to load up their aircraft with mission flying hours.
Now, like someone said earlier, I'm all for using member-owned aircraft when that aircraft fits the particular mission we're trying to do better than a CAP aircraft, but if all we're talking about is another random 4-seat high-wing aircraft, we've got plenty of them available.
Quote from: california IC on September 21, 2007, 09:08:20 PM
I guess one of the biggest reasons for using member owned aircraft was to keep timing out the CAP aircraft. Using a member owned aircraft to ferry fresh crews from LA and SF kept the aircraft at the base and kept. 5 or 6 hours off the Hobbs.
Does this statement strike anyone else as odd? I've never heard anyone worry about keeping hours
off an aircraft. It's usually quite the opposite. Why on earth do you care about saving 5 or 6 Hobbs hours? Just curious.
Quote from: A.Member on September 21, 2007, 09:54:20 PM
Quote from: california IC on September 21, 2007, 09:08:20 PM
I guess one of the biggest reasons for using member owned aircraft was to keep timing out the CAP aircraft. Using a member owned aircraft to ferry fresh crews from LA and SF kept the aircraft at the base and kept. 5 or 6 hours off the Hobbs.
Does this statement strike anyone else as odd? I've never heard anyone worry about keeping hours off an aircraft. It's usually quite the opposite. Why on earth do you care about saving 5 or 6 Hobbs hours? Just curious.
They were worrying about it because a number of the CAP aircraft were close to timing out. They had inspections due within a short number or hours. Using the member owned aircraft for ferrying equipment, let the CAP aircraft be able to fly those hours in the grid rather than taking them back to home base for the inspection and then returning.
We saw this same sort of issue arise when we were discussing a search in Oregon or Washington (I forget which). If I recall, in that one there were hardly any CAP planes flying because of maintenance being performed on the local planes. Instead of brining in planes from outside the Wing so that mission effort could be sustained, they ramped down for maintenance.
Quote from: A.Member on September 21, 2007, 09:54:20 PM
Quote from: california IC on September 21, 2007, 09:08:20 PM
I guess one of the biggest reasons for using member owned aircraft was to keep timing out the CAP aircraft. Using a member owned aircraft to ferry fresh crews from LA and SF kept the aircraft at the base and kept. 5 or 6 hours off the Hobbs.
Does this statement strike anyone else as odd? I've never heard anyone worry about keeping hours off an aircraft. It's usually quite the opposite. Why on earth do you care about saving 5 or 6 Hobbs hours? Just curious.
CAP Aircraft have to get 50 and 100 hour inspections which take the aircraft out of service for at least one day, maybe more if they find something wrong.
Quote from: A.Member on September 21, 2007, 09:54:20 PM
Quote from: california IC on September 21, 2007, 09:08:20 PM
I guess one of the biggest reasons for using member owned aircraft was to keep timing out the CAP aircraft. Using a member owned aircraft to ferry fresh crews from LA and SF kept the aircraft at the base and kept. 5 or 6 hours off the Hobbs.
Does this statement strike anyone else as odd? I've never heard anyone worry about keeping hours off an aircraft. It's usually quite the opposite. Why on earth do you care about saving 5 or 6 Hobbs hours? Just curious.
But those hours do add up. Another issue, CA has no turbo a/c and around those 14500 foot peaks creates issues. Two person aircraft lowers the POD, limiting fuel decreases time in grid, density altitude, downdrafts, you know. We did use a turbo 182 from Utah, personnel from all over, but boy the high performance aircraft in quantity over the Sierras in the first day or so can't be beat. I agree CAP owned are most times more desireable but we should keep an open mind to member owned at times.
One last point, the search area is one of the most remote in the Wing, in Winter we cannot always fly over the Sierras, it can be a bumpy 2.5 flight just to get to the base, one way.
I have to blow some smoke towards the ICs and base staff at Bishop, those of us who flew may have [censored]ed and moaned about things affecting us but I truely tip my hat, salute them at the base, I was drafted for one day and it was a busy thankless job. It is remarkable that we flew so many hours and had "ZERO" incidents (Well I hit my head on the flap 2x). Kudos to you guys. 15 to 20 aircraft, 50+ crewman, Grids searched 4 or 6 times, with sometimes three aircraft fom three different agencies or civilian in one grid. I want to grow up some day and be an IC.
Quote from: ♠Recruiter♠ on September 21, 2007, 03:37:35 PM
Quote from: A.Member on September 20, 2007, 11:52:16 PM
Quote from: ♠☆Recruiter☆♠ on September 20, 2007, 11:26:41 PM
You have to laugh at them because they want our support for the BS going on in Iraq, but don't seem to thrilled to return the favor when a civilian plane goes down. But look at it this way, because of their laziness, we have stuff to do!
With all due respect, that is just a stupid statement. Besides, what does that have to do with the price of rice in China?
Just to add a friendly defense for myself, I wanted to tell you what I meant. In the statement that I quoted, it stated that it is rare for the Army or ANG to be searching for a downed civilian a/c. In the search for Mr. Fossett, they are involved, as well as multiple other SAR agencies. My statement had nothing to do with the price of rice in China. I don't even know what the price of rice in China is. Do you? Is there an inflation issue with rice in China? No disrespect taken, and none given. I'm hoping this may have helped you see what I was talking about.
Latest surveys show the price of rice rose from 2.8 yuan (34 US cents) to 3.2 yuan (38 US cents) per kilogram, peaking at 3.6 yuan (44 US cents) on Wednesday.
http://www.asiarice.org/sections/whatsnew/China23.html (http://www.asiarice.org/sections/whatsnew/China23.html)
Quote from: RiverAux on September 20, 2007, 11:05:50 PM
I have got to call BS on a statement I saw on the national media by a NV National Guard public affairs guy who said that the state had spent $500,000 on the search but that "they would do that for anybody". That is just absurdly untrue unless the Nevada National Guard is vastly different from those in other states.
We all know that every once in a while the Army or Air National Guard will contribute to assets to a missing airplane search, but it is extremely rare. For example, according to the AFRCC 2005 report there were 7 missing airplane missions in NV and the NV ANG wasn't involved in any of them.
NV guard has been out with us before. They assisted in a find of a missing motor glider not that long before (I PM'd a couple of folks about that - they did find it but no save) this search.
Quote from: SoCalCAPOfficer on September 21, 2007, 10:06:40 PM
Quote from: A.Member on September 21, 2007, 09:54:20 PM
Quote from: california IC on September 21, 2007, 09:08:20 PM
I guess one of the biggest reasons for using member owned aircraft was to keep timing out the CAP aircraft. Using a member owned aircraft to ferry fresh crews from LA and SF kept the aircraft at the base and kept. 5 or 6 hours off the Hobbs.
Does this statement strike anyone else as odd? I've never heard anyone worry about keeping hours off an aircraft. It's usually quite the opposite. Why on earth do you care about saving 5 or 6 Hobbs hours? Just curious.
They were worrying about it because a number of the CAP aircraft were close to timing out. They had inspections due within a short number or hours. Using the member owned aircraft for ferrying equipment, let the CAP aircraft be able to fly those hours in the grid rather than taking them back to home base for the inspection and then returning.
Could we think about ferrying in an A&P to do the 100 hour inspections right there on the spot and keep the airplanes flyable?
For that matter, on a recent SAREX in Michigan we were running out of qualified mission pilots. Can we think about deploying Checkpilots to missions to do checkrides on the spot to qualify expired MPs to then go and support the missions?
Quote from: flyerthom on September 22, 2007, 06:10:39 PM
Latest surveys show the price of rice rose from 2.8 yuan (34 US cents) to 3.2 yuan (38 US cents) per kilogram, peaking at 3.6 yuan (44 US cents) on Wednesday.
http://www.asiarice.org/sections/whatsnew/China23.html (http://www.asiarice.org/sections/whatsnew/China23.html)
But what is the price of avgas at Bishop? In yuan per liter?
Quote from: Nomex Maximus on September 22, 2007, 07:09:04 PM
Quote from: SoCalCAPOfficer on September 21, 2007, 10:06:40 PM
Quote from: A.Member on September 21, 2007, 09:54:20 PM
Quote from: california IC on September 21, 2007, 09:08:20 PM
I guess one of the biggest reasons for using member owned aircraft was to keep timing out the CAP aircraft. Using a member owned aircraft to ferry fresh crews from LA and SF kept the aircraft at the base and kept. 5 or 6 hours off the Hobbs.
Does this statement strike anyone else as odd? I've never heard anyone worry about keeping hours off an aircraft. It's usually quite the opposite. Why on earth do you care about saving 5 or 6 Hobbs hours? Just curious.
They were worrying about it because a number of the CAP aircraft were close to timing out. They had inspections due within a short number or hours. Using the member owned aircraft for ferrying equipment, let the CAP aircraft be able to fly those hours in the grid rather than taking them back to home base for the inspection and then returning.
Could we think about ferrying in an A&P to do the 100 hour inspections right there on the spot and keep the airplanes flyable?
Tools, man, tools. If you're not a mechanic, you might not understand. If you are, you do.
Quote from: Nomex Maximus on September 22, 2007, 07:09:04 PMFor that matter, on a recent SAREX in Michigan we were running out of qualified mission pilots. Can we think about deploying Checkpilots to missions to do checkrides on the spot to qualify expired MPs to then go and support the missions?
Cumbersome at best. That's not something that needs to be going on at a mission base in the middle of an active mission. Pilots should be keeping up on their quals to make sure that doesn't happen.
Quote from: ♠Recruiter♠ on September 20, 2007, 11:26:41 PM
You have to laugh at them because they want our support for the BS going on in Iraq, but don't seem to thrilled to return the favor when a civilian plane goes down. But look at it this way, because of their laziness, we have stuff to do!
I'm at a loss to understand what you're driving at here. I'm an educated guy, but your logic does not compute.
I have been on MANY missions where we were searching right alongside the military folks. Happens in some states FAR more often than others.
Quote from: Nomex Maximus on September 22, 2007, 07:09:04 PM
Could we think about ferrying in an A&P to do the 100 hour inspections right there on the spot and keep the airplanes flyable?
Theoretically yes. In the airline industry, we had fly-a-way kits with stuff like engine oil, hydraulic fluids, spare tires (nose and mains), tools, and some other stuff; these kits would be loaded on any airplane going off property to somewhere the carrier normally doesnt fly to. Another thing that we did was have contract maintenance at most any field that we could end up at, so if we did have to drop a plane in; we could have someone who is at least familiar with the airplane logbook forms go sign something off, and it gave us a point of contact if MX Control needed to fax pages of the maintenance manual. These A&P's were listed in our ops manual (by A&P cert number), and if someone wasnt on the list, they couldnt touch our airplane, but they could escort a company mech (who probably doesnt have that particular airports ID card), to the footprint of the airplane to do the work
Granted, the cargo capacity of a 172 isnt much, but in a case like the Fossett search, stuff like that could be Fedex'ed to the forward operating base from the wing's home drome.
Plus, a 172 isnt like a 727, and I bet most any FBO or certified repair station can handle them, but there is that billable hour rate...
Quote from: Nomex Maximus on September 22, 2007, 07:09:04 PMFor that matter, on a recent SAREX in Michigan we were running out of qualified mission pilots. Can we think about deploying Checkpilots to missions to do checkrides on the spot to qualify expired MPs to then go and support the missions?
QuoteCumbersome at best. That's not something that needs to be going on at a mission base in the middle of an active mission. Pilots should be keeping up on their quals to make sure that doesn't happen.
The alternative is to not fly sorties because we haven't done our prerequisites like we were supposed to. Since we didn't, this would be a means of getting more planes in the air. Get the checkrides done get the paperwork signed off on the spot (since the Wing commander and all the imporatant people are probably already there) and then get back to work with more mission pilots. Send them outside of the immediate mission area to get this done, then bring them back in when ready.
Cessna offered to fly out two A & P's to do oil and light maintenance on our aircraft at Bishop. First problem was that there were really no facilities to do it. They would fly oil, filters and parts out, FEDEX all else as needed. I am sure the EPA would have had a field day! Second, the Cessna lawyers felt there may have been too much exposure. They ended up offering us expedited service and parts at any of their service centers. Better ( a little) than nothing.
Quote from: california IC on September 22, 2007, 10:29:12 PM
Cessna offered to fly out two A & P's to do oil and light maintenance on our aircraft at Bishop. First problem was that there were really no facilities to do it. They would fly oil, filters and parts out, FEDEX all else as needed. I am sure the EPA would have had a field day! Second, the Cessna lawyers felt there may have been too much exposure. They ended up offering us expedited service and parts at any of their service centers. Better ( a little) than nothing.
That certainly was nice of Cessna to do, but I find it hard to believe that setting up an EPA approved site to do the mainenance was out of the question. At least, that's how it looks to me. The one time that extra bit of support would have gone a long way.
You make things sound simple, but all you propose are ideas, with no plans to back them up.
Quote from: ♠Recruiter♠ on September 22, 2007, 11:50:53 PM
That certainly was nice of Cessna to do, but I find it hard to believe that setting up an EPA approved site to do the mainenance was out of the question. At least, that's how it looks to me. The one time that extra bit of support would have gone a long way.
Getting EPA approval is not an easy thing. I work a vehicle maint shop - with alot of grandfathered in stuff - and getting the required approvals takes time. EPA wants engineer statements, plans, reviews, public comment periods, ad nauseum. To get approval to replace two fuel pumps with upgraded, current models (the old ones were 10+ years old) took two weeks because the news ones were not direct model replacements. No plumbing or tank mods were needed. EPA approval takes a LONG time. If you can get an emergency declaration, then the process can be sped up.
The best option, if you really want filed service, is to hook up with a mobile oil change service and get them to support an a&p to come out with oil and filters.
IIRC, Bishop is in CA, so you their unique rules to deal with as well.
Quote from: arajca on September 23, 2007, 02:00:00 AM
Quote from: ♠Recruiter♠ on September 22, 2007, 11:50:53 PM
That certainly was nice of Cessna to do, but I find it hard to believe that setting up an EPA approved site to do the mainenance was out of the question. At least, that's how it looks to me. The one time that extra bit of support would have gone a long way.
Getting EPA approval is not an easy thing. I work a vehicle maint shop - with alot of grandfathered in stuff - and getting the required approvals takes time. EPA wants engineer statements, plans, reviews, public comment periods, ad nauseum. To get approval to replace two fuel pumps with upgraded, current models (the old ones were 10+ years old) took two weeks because the news ones were not direct model replacements. No plumbing or tank mods were needed. EPA approval takes a LONG time. If you can get an emergency declaration, then the process can be sped up.
The best option, if you really want filed service, is to hook up with a mobile oil change service and get them to support an a&p to come out with oil and filters.
IIRC, Bishop is in CA, so you their unique rules to deal with as well.
I thought there would have been an emergency plan for situations just like this. Everyone else seems to have a plan to try to cover all possibilities.
CAP is not an expeditionary force - its entire model is based on local people performing missions within reasonable distance of their homes, for short periods of time.
Because of this, forward logistics is one of CAP's weakest operational links. We saw this at Katrina as well - only the barest of essential mission personnel were allowed to deploy with no though given to logistical personnel or need.
One would like to think these situations are giving someone pause, but real change can't come without a model adjustment and more people.
QuoteCAP is not an expeditionary force - its entire model is based on local people performing missions within reasonable distance of their homes, for short periods of time.
Thats certainly not the way we've been heading for the last few years. The new C4 centers that CAP has developed are there for the purpose of facilitating movement of CAP resources from one Wing to another for major missions requiring committment of aircrews and ground teams for multi-day periods far from their home.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 23, 2007, 02:17:38 AM
CAP is not an expeditionary force - its entire model is based on local people performing missions within reasonable distance of their homes, for short periods of time.
Because of this, forward logistics is one of CAP's weakest operational links. We saw this at Katrina as well - only the barest of essential mission personnel were allowed to deploy with no though given to logistical personnel or need.
One would like to think these situations are giving someone pause, but real change can't come without a model adjustment and more people.
[/RANT]
Yeah, well, Katrina was a major federal screwup. Incompetence of unbelievable levels of magnitude still being felt today. That CAP was not well prepared to respond comes as no suprise to me. I don't doubt that many many CAP members would have been willing to go and help, but our federal government just does not have any sensible plan of response for any major disaster. And so CAP's responses are going to be mismanaged by people completely outside of CAP.
For pennies on the dollar CAP could provide significant and sustained responses to major disasters, but the incompetent political appointees sort of reduce our best efforts and intentions to near nonsense.
[/RANT]
Now that the primary search has been suspended, does anyone have any info on what hapened or is going to happen in regards to the old crashes found during this search? Have ground teams gone out to them? Families notified? Etc?
There were no "new" old crashes in CA, I think the same for NV. The reports were of old known crash sites just revisited. We did send both ground teams and helicopters to confirm the sites. Marking them? Forget it. The winds and weather acts like sandpaper in the Sierras. The best we can do is update the crash locater with better lat/long as well as site status, ie. scattered, intact, now silver in color.
Now, I'm not disputing you, but CAP sources were quoted in the media on quite a few occassions talking about these "old" crashes as if they were newly found. If they were old sites we previously knew about, why would we be crowing about how we "found" them?
I think the point that I would have made is that our scanners were doing their jobs...finding crashes, old, new or refreshed. It says a lot about their skills and alertness. In addition, ARCHER had similar results which validated its useage. ARCHER located an elevator at the 9'000 foot level in the Sierras. It was the only large piece of an old crash left after the bulk had been removed. A lot of the information passed along by the press is not always 100% accurate, imagine that!
This area is a grave yard for old wrecks that in the old days were left where they crashed and poorly charted...pre GPS & LORAN. I know one crash that moved downslope 2000 feet after a storm and this Spring the remains of an airmen was located after the Spring thaw after a WWII crash. The Sierras hold many secrets!
I heard the California IC was rushed to the hospital and had emergency surgery.
Anyone know the story? What is his/her condition?
No that's an ugly rumor, the last I saw Bob the IC, he was running Naked down the 395, it was terrible(he looks bad out of Uniform), we went through ICs every few days, got them buried next to the Gas pump. J.C. made it for over a week
There is an AP who lives at Bishop he did do some work, a 100hr, oil changes, etc. but only as a favor (he lived in Bishop to get away from the madness of Los Angeles).
I did see at least one wreck and it had an X on the wing, but thats after we got down to 50 feet (kidding)
Going back Friday to get the Archer (think the GA8 is broken (figures)
Many of us still want to continue the search/
I know one crash that moved downslope 2000 feet after a storm and this Spring the remains of an airmen was located after the Spring thaw after a WWII crash. The Sierras hold many secrets!
One WW2 crew member was located last spring, and the second was located this spring. Most likely from the same crash. Makes you wonder what else is laying out there. The Sierras are usualt packed with snow. But this year, its bare rock up there.
What is the status of the mission? I guess we will have to wait until who knows when to find out what happened to Steve.
The mission is officially on hold, awaiting any new items of intelligence about what he was doing and where. It is quite typical to cover the search area to the satisfaction of AFRCC and then suspend it. Both CAWG and NVWG have had crews on standby since the mission was suspended, but I know of only one actually launched and that was to check out some new reporting. Flying with six to 18 aircraft per day for over two weeks was a huge effort: two bases and nobody knows how many people. I seem to recall that CAP flew in excess of 1200 hours. That is quite an effort.
When will we find out what happened: when the crash is located and that may be years.
Is the Mission being reactivated with the tracking information?
I saw on CBS news that the mission will "reopen" this weekend with searchers focusing on Death Valley in California. New Radar and satellite intel is leading searchers there. I wonder if CAWG will be needing help?
As of 1600L, California time, nothing has come out in official CAWG traffic about the mission resuming. I, too, heard about the new radar information on Fox.
FWIW:
Air Force spots Fossett's possible path (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20070925-1935-stevefossett.html)
THIS IS WHAT THE NEWS IS TALKING ABOUT FOR THIS WEEKEND.
CARSON CITY, Nev. — Relying on new leads from Air Force experts, crews looking for famed aviator Steve Fossett plan to comb a rugged area near Death Valley by air and foot, authorities said.
Gary Derks, the state Department of Public Safety official in charge of the search, said Tuesday that the Air Force analyzed images picked up by radar and satellite and "picked up what could be Mr. Fossett, his track."
"It gives us an idea, if it's him, what direction he was going," Derks said of the wealthy adventurer, missing for more than three weeks. Derks said the area stretches about 100 miles to the southeast from where Fossett took off Sept. 3, an airstrip on a million-acre ranch owned by hotel mogul Barron Hilton. Maps show the area would include Nevada's remote Silver Peak Range, close to Death Valley National Park in California.
"There's nothing definite, nothing concrete," Derks said. "These are just some hits that we want to track." Search planes will fly over the area Saturday and Sunday, Derks said.
The area is "very rough terrain," Derks said. "If he's there, he's going to be hard to see. That's why we're sending in the ground search-and-rescue crews, too."
The area is indeed rugged; I searched the grid adjacent to the two that contain the Silver Peak mountains on my final day of searching out of Minden. That grid had valley floors at 4,700' and mountain peaks over 14,000'! I really earned my paycheck that day!
This weekend's search started today with about 50 ground searchers and 3 CAP aircraft according to CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/29/fossett.ap/index.html
Mike
The news says they didn't find anything over the weekend and that the mission will continue based on leads. I guess they left California out of searching Death Valley and let Nevada Wing do it as well as a few other grids north of Bishop. This is what Col. Muniz fought to prevent. The previous wing CC signed an MOU giving Nevada exclusive rights to search in California anywhere east of the Sierras, Death Valley, south near Barstow at which time AZWG picks up the rest. The reason? CAWG was unable to get aircrews to fly missions in the Barstow/Baker area. There is another MOU with ORWG too. We only have ourselves to blame and an old wing CC and VCC that was non operational and saw SAR as a liability. Now our local folks are upset because we didn't use member owned aircraft on the mission. First, we didn't use all of CAWG aircraft since there were no pilots to fly them and where were these guys years ago when before we sold the store to Nevada? Fair weathered pilots? The State OES put CAWG on double secret probation a few years ago because it was taking 2 to 3 hours to find and IC and get a mission going. Our MOU called for 30 minutes. The CC & VCC wanted to change it to 3 hours, the State told them to meet the 30 minute limit or they would put CAWG CAP out of the missing airplane business. Well that didn't work well. I still see multiple pages for an IC and aircrews. I think one of the big rubs with Col. Muniz was that he was going to move the aircraft from non performing units. There are several that have not flown one A-1 mission prior to the Fossett search in over a year! I guess the squeaky wheel got its grease, lazy aircrews 1, wing CC 0.
NHQ has sent out a news release saying that the AFRCC has suspended the Fossett search again. It isn't up on the web site yet, but I assume it will be tomorrow.
In it is this phrase:
QuoteOver the last decade, the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center and CAP have been involved in thousands of searches for missing aircraft and only 18 of those missions are unsolved.
This is just a blatant misrepresentation of facts. I've got AFRCC reports for most of the last decade and "thousands" is a major stretch.
Missing Airplane missions:
1999: 86
2001: 129
2002: 113
2003: 118
2004: 107
2005: 107
So unless 1997, 1998, 2000, and 2006 had WAY more than the average number of aircraft missions, this is just plain wrong.
Now, to be charitable, they could be counting ELT mission as missing aircraft searches. Obviously they aren't really, but if we give them that, then the 18 "unsolved" case number is also WAY wrong. As we all know, a large number of ELT searches get suspended without having found the target.
I can think of at least two in California in the last ten years, one (Katz) in San Bernardino County (Lytle Creek PA28) and one that possibly flew out to sea in Mendocino. I think they never found the attorney from Deer Valley in AZ. this year too. 18???
Have to agree. The only way AFRCC and CAP have participated in thousands of searches in the last decade is to count ELT searches. Unless they round anything over 1,000 up to the next whole thousand, in which case 2,000 is "thousands."
At least they got this stat correct for a change:
CAP members perform 90 percent of continental U.S. inland search and rescue missions as tasked by the AFRCC.
Usually the phrase "as tasked by the AFRCC" gets deleted, making CAP look like it does most of the SAR in the US.
Mike
Also add the mission from CA to the East Coast earlier this year. The a/c made it as far as New Mexico and was never found. That's 4.
For those of you who check CAPTALK more than CAP.gov:
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS -- The search for record-setting aviator Steve Fossett ended Oct. 2 after a 20,000-square-mile search that included members of the Nevada, California, Utah, Idaho, Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico and Texas wings in what amounted to one of the largest, most intensive searches for a missing aircraft ever.
Over the last decade, the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center and CAP have been involved in thousands of searches for missing aircraft, and only 18 of those missions are unsolved. CAP members perform 90 percent of continental U.S. inland search and rescue missions as assigned by the AFRCC, which credited them with saving 58 lives in 2006.
"The Civil Air Patrol joins the rest of the aviation world and admirers worldwide in its disappointment in not locating Steve Fossett," said CAP's acting national commander, Brig. Gen. Amy S. Courter. "This remarkable man showed us what grit and determination are all about. In his life, he chased and shattered world records, floating and flying farther and faster than anyone before. His adventures are many and his accomplishments profound. We regret that those adventures may have come to an end."
The search for Fossett began Sept. 4, a day after he failed to return to the Flying M Ranch's private airstrip near Yerington, Nev. Initially, more than 60 Nevada Wing members and six aircraft were involved in the search effort.
This expanded to include hundreds of members and more than 25 aircraft during the following days. Sophisticated "grid" searches of thousands of square miles of rugged, high-desert terrain were conducted by CAP members, who devoted more than 17,000 man-hours both on the ground and in the air. CAP flew 629 flights totaling 1,774 flying hours.
Nearly a dozen radar analysis experts reviewed the Fossett radar data, including experts from the Federal Aviation Administration, the Air Force, Navy, National Transportation Safety Board and CAP, using multiple approaches and software tools, all looking for one thing – Fossett's radar track, said U.S. Air Force radar analysis expert Lt. Guy Loughridge of the Colorado Wing.
"Tracks often come in broken pieces because the radar sites see an aircraft for a short period, and then the track vanishes below radar coverage or behind a mountain," Loughridge said. "If Fossett's plane flew below mountains at low altitudes, no amount of analytical effort or technology will detect his radar track. We cannot analyze what is not visible."
The search included use of CAP's cutting-edge ARCHER (Airborne Real-Time Cueing Hyperspectral Enhanced Reconnaissance) technology. ARCHER aircraft gave aircrews the ability to find unique objects on the ground using specially equipped on-board computers and hyperspectral sensor technology.
CAP's efforts integrated fully with the Nevada Army and Air Guard, the Nevada Office of Emergency Management and Department of Public Safety. In addition, CAP worked closely with local law enforcement agencies and massive private resources from both the Flying M Ranch and the Fossett family.
The weekend of Sept. 29-30, CAP aircraft again flew over terrain judged by radar analysis to most likely have been Fossett's flight path. From the start of the operation these areas were searched repeatedly at different times of day and light angles so crews could better see into deep mountain ravines. Ground search teams on foot, horseback and all-terrain vehicles simultaneously combed the same target areas.
Despite the well-coordinated effort, Fossett and his aircraft remain undetected. "This is a testament to the unforgiving terrain comprising the search area," said search leader Lt. Col. E.J. Smith of Nevada Wing Headquarters. "The combination of high altitude, thick forest and mountainous terrain proved to be unconquerable during this particular search operation."
"Although the search effort by the Civil Air Patrol has been officially suspended by the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center, should new information become available, CAP could be asked to assist once again with its considerable air assets," Courter said.
It's a shame that no one was able to locate the wreckage, and give his family closure. Steve Fossett was an admirable guy both in and out of the air. May his soul rest in peace, and his legend live on!
"Air Force suspends U.S. CAP's search for famed aviator" topic merged
This NY Times article http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/us/04fossett.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/us/04fossett.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin) says that AFRCC has thrown out all files on unfound missing airplanes prior to 1989. Unfortunately, they sort of imply in part of the article that it has something to do with CAP and wasn't just an AF decision.
By the way, they say that there were only 3 "new" old wrecks found during the search.
Luckily they didn't mention that CAP's regulations require that all such files held at local or Wing level be destroyed after 4 years (CAPR 10-2).
Destruction is neither required, nor recommended, if the records have historical significance. I think the records in question have sufficient significance for retention.
I see today where CAWG found a missing PA28 in the California high desert. The internet is saying the Air Force Col. flying the plane was shot down because he knew Steven Fossett was shot down when he entered Area 51 and was about to go public.
WAIT! It's not April yet!
If he was shot down it was with a sling shot. The plane was remarkably intact for a plane that was "shot down". It was also down within several hundred feet of Interstate 15 in the Cajon Pass. You would have thought they would have a least waited till he got over the pass and into the desert.
Its unbelievable the stories and theories that show up on the internet after any tragedy. My condolences to his family who has to put up with this nonsense.
The gentleman was yet another victim of the stupid practice of "Scud Running".
You would figure that a Air Force Lieutenant Colonel would be smart enough to not do stupid things like that.
CBS national news reported that none of the found crashes during the Fossett search were previously unlocated crashes. The story was based on a son who's father went missing 40 years ago on a flight from Oakland to Reno. He has never been located.
Quote from: PHall on October 07, 2007, 04:30:08 PM
The gentleman was yet another victim of the stupid practice of "Scud Running".
You would figure that a Air Force Lieutenant Colonel would be smart enough to not do stupid things like that.
I saw the video on CNN & FOX. Amazing that an aircraft could crash between a major interstate freeway and not be seen. Did CAP air or ground find it or was it a passing motorist? Looked like it was right next to the freeway lanes.
Quote from: SARPilotNY on October 08, 2007, 02:56:08 AM
Quote from: PHall on October 07, 2007, 04:30:08 PM
The gentleman was yet another victim of the stupid practice of "Scud Running".
You would figure that a Air Force Lieutenant Colonel would be smart enough to not do stupid things like that.
I saw the video on CNN & FOX. Amazing that an aircraft could crash between a major interstate freeway and not be seen. Did CAP air or ground find it or was it a passing motorist? Looked like it was right next to the freeway lanes.
According to the mission closing traffic, a CAP UDF team found the site by following the ELT signal.
The visability there at the summit of Cajon Pass that night was about 100 feet or so.
Which is not unusual when there is a storm in the LA Basin like there was that night.
Many aircraft try to scud run the pass during bad weather and the unlucky ones either hit the ground like this guy or hit the high tension power lines that criss-cross the pass.
They lost a Life Flight MedEvac helicopter last winter when they hit the power lines returning to their base in pretty much the same kind of weather conditions.
This is a link to an article on other crashes seen during the Fosset search. [http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071021/NEWS/710210341 (http://[http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071021/NEWS/710210341). Apparently we are down to only 1 "new old crash and it seems like everyone is passing the buck on trying to find out about it. Also talks about federal records policies at AF and NTSB.
Here is an article about the Fossett search in the latest National Geographic Adventure. Quotes from a couple of CAP members but the article is about the search in general, not just CAP. The writer was not overly impressed by what he saw and heard.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/news/steve-fossett.html
Mike
hmmm...
Anybody see the 4-color glossy marketing thingy that CAP put out about the Fossett search?
Wish they'd spend that much time on the other 6 missions....
Looks like someone's resumed the search:
CARSON CITY, Nev. - The hunt for multimillionaire adventurer Steve Fossett, who vanished in September after taking off by plane from a remote Nevada ranch, is resuming now that snow has melted in rugged mountains where he may have crashed.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080611/ap_on_re_us/fossett_search
I wouldn't hesitate to think that with Fossett's fame, there will always be someone looking for him. Even if its a couple out hiking in the Nevada mountains who jokingly say "Hey, maybe we'll find Steve Fossett!"
Anybody know if the reward is still being offered?
Nothing like some free cash to keep people interested!
Phil,
Yes the reward is still there. He will be found, someday, by some random hiker/backpacker. We both know those mountains hold a lot of secrets.
KS
Apparently they some are going to kick the search back off:
http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gilG8yCSuNbAGgwpZvbMC078HF6Q
Search to resume for Fossett
"...The hunt for multi-millionaire adventurer Steve Fossett is to resume now that snow has melted in the rugged mountains where he may have crashed.
Fossett vanished in September after taking off by plane from a remote Nevada ranch.
The search will not match last year's, which covered about 20,000 square miles and involved a small air force of private and military planes, along with ground searchers and hi-tech equipment.
This time, two teams of volunteers will hike through a smaller area where the 63-year-old was last seen.
One team will be headed by Simon Donato, a Canadian geologist, and Robert Hyman, an investor and alpinist from Washington DC, will lead another..."
and his estate is not interested in contributing to the search costs:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/06/10/state/n173803D59.DTL
Fossett estate: No money for search costs
(06-10) 17:38 PDT CARSON CITY, CA (AP) --
The estate of Steve Fossett won't contribute funds to help pay Nevada's $687,000 tab in the unsuccessful search for the famed adventurer last fall, a state panel was told Tuesday.
The Board of Examiners was advised by Josh Hicks, Gov. Jim Gibbons' legal counsel, that the estate wrote the governor last month to say the state doesn't have a valid claim. The contribution had been suggested by Jerry Hafen, Nevada's public safety director.
The disclosure followed numerous questions from Secretary of State Ross Miller, a board member, about the search costs. The panel ended up delaying action on a plan to seek nearly $486,000 from a contingency fund overseen by state lawmakers.
The letter from the estate says that Peggy Fossett, Fossett's widow, while "very grateful" for the search, spent more than $1 million of her own money to help fund private efforts to find Fossett.
The letter says the state can still file a claim if it wants, but Ben Kieckhefer, Gibbons' press secretary, said that wasn't likely.
Fossett, declared legally dead in mid-February by a judge, had taken off Sept. 3 from Barron Hilton's Flying M Ranch in western Nevada. The hotel magnate later voluntarily sent the state a check $200,000 to cover some of the search costs.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 12, 2008, 02:24:22 PM
The letter from the estate says that Peggy Fossett, Fossett's widow, while "very grateful" for the search, spent more than $1 million of her own money to help fund private efforts to find Fossett.
Fine....this sets precedence that anyone who has over 1 million dollars can search for their own family members with private contractors. Perhaps CAP should start charging the wealthy for searches as well.
If I were the State and knew she was providing 1 million dollars toward private search enterprises, I would have called off all state resources day 1. Sounds harsh, but they also need to worry about being fiscally sound with tax payers money. All that Cash they spent for 1 (one) person is outrageous. Anyone of us, would likely get a one day search with 1/100th of the resources used on Fossett.
Quote from: mikeylikey on June 12, 2008, 04:11:26 PM
Anyone of us, would likely get a one day search with 1/100th of the resources used on Fossett.
I have participated in 3 searches lasting a week or more in MD over my years in CAP. None of them were celebs. Except in 1 case, I do not ever recall having a search called off without finding the target, and that was after a 5 day search, and due to weather.
While the resources were smaller than the Fosett search, we regularly search for much longer than 1 day.
In fact a CAP member crashed (not in a CAP A/C) about 2 years ago in MD and the search lasted 5 days before he was found.
I'd be interested to know where they planning on looking, and what areas of snow pack they are talking about. I may be wrong, but I don't think Fossett was flying his Decathalon at 12,000.
In this area, there is little to no snow pack in September. June July and August pretty much take care of that. The snow doesn't start falling up there until about mid to late Dec or January. We'll see.
CAP's contribution to the search effort was not terribly unusual. What was unusual was all the other state resources that went into it -- the state dug their own grave there.
You mean like the C-130 and the Blackhawks droning back and forth?
Quote from: cnitas on June 12, 2008, 05:26:00 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on June 12, 2008, 04:11:26 PM
Anyone of us, would likely get a one day search with 1/100th of the resources used on Fossett.
I have participated in 3 searches lasting a week or more in MD over my years in CAP. None of them were celebs. Except in 1 case, I do not ever recall having a search called off without finding the target, and that was after a 5 day search, and due to weather.
While the resources were smaller than the Fosett search, we regularly search for much longer than 1 day.
In fact a CAP member crashed (not in a CAP A/C) about 2 years ago in MD and the search lasted 5 days before he was found.
I traveled there for one day!
Cynical observation from an earlier life when I was a technician on NIH funded research.
Search ended at the end of the fiscal year. It probably spent every last training dollar for the fiscal year then closing -- no unspent funds to return to the Treasury.
A Reno newspaper had this as their lead in an article on Fossett search costs (according to the CAP National media coverage page http://www.cap.gov/visitors/news/national_media_coverage.cfm?fuseaction=display&nodeID=6652&newsID=4388&year=2008&month=6 (bold mine)
QuoteCosts for the unprecedented search to find missing aviator Steve Fossett in the Nevada desert last year spiraled out of control in an operation marked by the lack of an effective command structure and little way of tracking costs and resources, according to an audit released Wednesday. As the state faces a $1.16 billion shortfall, the search for Fossett cost more than $1.6 million and severely depleted the budget the Nevada National Guard uses to train its members for combat and other missions.
Gov. Jim Gibbons, commander-in-chief of the military in Nevada, took no responsibility for the bungled operation, saying he never made any personal decisions on resources or costs.I left that decision to the head of the department of safety, who was recommending his view of what he saw on the ground in coordination with his department of emergency management, Gibbons said.The level of resources never came to my level for a decision, not that or the dollar amount. I think what was being talked about was the utilization of what resources and what was the effect of hopefully finding Steve Fossett alive. Our concern was for the recovery of that individual.But internal e-mails obtained by Secretary of State Ross Miller cite Gibbons as the one personally responsible for the state's role in the extensive search.
also:
QuoteAn e-mail written by National Guard Maj. Jeff Zupon summarizing a meeting of emergency management and military officials said Gibbons was personally responsible for the NGNV (Nevada National Guard) continuing the search beyond what would have been a 'normal' search duration.The search extended 17 days and was described by the audit as the largest search and rescue effort ever conducted for a person within the U.S. The Department of Emergency Management and the Nevada National Guard used some of its most expensive equipment during the search.
An official estimated a search for a normal person would last three days.
Gee, I guess when they decided to bring in the "professionals" to run things, it really helped out a lot.
I think its a little unfair to say that a search for a normal person last 3 days. A week long unsucessful search is not at all uncommon. The length of the search was not what made this different -- it was the almost unprecedented involvement of the National Guard and other state agencies in a manner way beyond what is normal.
Given the unusual involvement of all these other agencies, as well as the "volunteers", I'm not at all surprised that there were apparently command and control problems.
The audit, which isn't much, is available here:
http://dintaud.state.nv.us/Steve%20Fossett%20final%20report%20pdf.pdf
A few interesting items.
"DEM represents its priority of agencies used for searches are Civil Air Patrol, Guard, and then U.S. Military. At the beginning of the Steve Fossett search, DEM contacted Naval Air Station Fallon for immediate assistance since the Civil Air Patrol does not fly at night, and the Guard would have taken over two hours to respond."
"We surveyed nine states that represent aircraft searches are primarily performed by the Civil Air Patrol. Civil Air Patrol is responsible for providing resources for search and rescue of missing aircraft at no cost to the states."
In a table showing photos of search aircraft, for CAP aircraft it reads "Photograph not available."
"During the search, the Department of Public Safety requested an independent emergency manager to evaluate search efforts."
"However, the independent emergency manager was unable to determine who was responsible for the search."
"The independent emergency manager also indicated the search lacked an effective command structure."
"The independent emergency manager, 13 days into the search, attempted to determine the status of the clue log. He found most clues were written on various pieces of paper, kept in an unorganized cardboard box, and had no indication of whether they had been pursued. The independent emergency manager could not determine the thoroughness of the search because of gaps in documentation. DEM represents it maintained the necessary information on paper, but was unable to organize and summarize it."
Mike
Thanks sardak -- I was just going to go searching for the report.
Another interesting point in that part of the Guard's response to the audit was that while they provided some infrastructure for the search, they did not actually operate a command center. They said that the state DEM and county operated the command center as a unified command post. This goes against some of what had been previously reported as the Guard assuming control of operations.
DEM's response said that the unified command initiatally involved them and CAP and expanded to include several counties a few days later.
Still leaves some unanswered questions about ultimate responsibilty in these situations.
By the way, the actual audit said that searches where the subject was found usually go 3-5 days and that when they are not found, go 10-15 days. This is much more in-line with what I've seen. Clearly the newspaper got that wrong.
Interesting that the Guard sort of got slammed for ther cost tracking (or lack thereof). Interesting that CAP has a better program for that than they do. Well, at least for tracking costs like fuel. Might not be so good for mission support items.
The CAP folks should have done a better job with the clue log - they should have known better. Unfortunately, I've seen situations just as messed up in terms of clues at mission bases I've been at, so I'm not surprised. C'mon folks, this is supposed to be our bread and butter.
Quote from: RiverAux on June 27, 2008, 11:43:39 PM
C'mon folks, this is supposed to be our bread and butter.
SUPPOSED to be. not IS. In general, CAP doesn't train mission base staff to really perform to a decent level. Which is a serious pet peeve of mine. The glory jobs receive all the training and monies, while those who make the glory jobs possible get squat.
Quote from: RiverAux on June 27, 2008, 11:43:39 PM
The CAP folks should have done a better job with the clue log - they should have known better.
You are assuming CAP received and processed the clues. Clues went to the consolidated CP or the Ranch CP. CAP got a verbal or a note to the effect "a pilot flying over XXN XXXW saw a plane on the ground - check it out."
Just going by the report which said that CAP was part of the Unified Command. That being the case, they should have been right on top of the matter.
Quote from: RiverAux on June 28, 2008, 01:03:27 AM
Just going by the report which said that CAP was part of the Unified Command. That being the case, they should have been right on top of the matter.
Being part of a unified command does not mean you are on top of anything. DEM ran the show. Clues were passed to them and taskings came from them. As the new article said...the Fosset search was plagued by command and control issues.....and not necessarily on the part of CAP.
Thats exactly what unified command means.
Each agency provides an IC to work on command decisions together
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/ics/what_is_uc.html (http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/ics/what_is_uc.html)
QuoteThe UC is responsible for overall management of the incident. The UC directs incident activities, including development and implementation of overall objectives and strategies, and approves ordering and releasing of resources. Members of the UC work together to develop a common set of incident objectives and strategies, share information, maximize the use of available resources, and enhance the efficiency of the individual response organizations.
Exactly, under Unified Command the different jurisdictions or agencies manage an incident together. In this situation, if they were truly using Unified Command, then DEM, CAP, and the several counties mentioned would each have an IC that would jointly be setting objectives, strategies, and plans. Underneath this Unified Command level is the ICS structure we all know. So, if they were using Unified Command, then the CAP IC involved in the search would have been one of those above the people collecting and managing the clues.
If that wasn't how it was being managed, then they were not using Unified Command as stated by DEM in the report.
IAW the IC 400 class I completed two months ago, a Unified Command has the ICs of all the different jurisdictions and agencies meeting as "equals" to make sure the jurisdictional issues do not become issues. However, even with a Unified Command, there is STILL only one IC and one Command and General Staff running the show. ONE VOICE speaking for all.
By law, in Nevada the DEM is in charge. The NVWG/CC could speak for CAP but had no control over the multiple agencies, National Guard, and county sheriffs departments.
"CAP does not fly at night?"
Who said THAT??? ???
In this case, it would not have been productive to fly at night, because the aircraft was not equipped with an ELT. If it had been, an electronic search should have been made, even if the alert came at night.
I have worked LOTS of missions at night.
Unless NV Wing is afraid of the dark! >:D
^^^ I was thinking the same thing
Just wondering at what altitude you would fly night ELT searches in the Sierra Nevadas?
The entire state is not mountainous.
Is the no night flight restriction blanketed through the entire state, or is it s game time call by an IC???
The report makes it look like this wing does no night missions at all
I am still amazed at the amount of money spent on this search (for one person).
Quote from: Short Field on June 28, 2008, 06:54:46 AM
IAW the IC 400 class I completed two months ago, a Unified Command has the ICs of all the different jurisdictions and agencies meeting as "equals" to make sure the jurisdictional issues do not become issues. However, even with a Unified Command, there is STILL only one IC and one Command and General Staff running the show. ONE VOICE speaking for all.
By law, in Nevada the DEM is in charge. The NVWG/CC could speak for CAP but had no control over the multiple agencies, National Guard, and county sheriffs departments.
Unified Command is covered in unit 3 of ICS 300. It features what is basically a committee of the ICs from the different agencies that jointly set the direction. This group is over a single ICS system into which all the resources from their agencies fit. For example, all the DEM and CAP resources would be operating under a single Operations Section Chief.
Under Unified Command, one of the ICs may be designated as a "spokesperson". That is the person that communicates to the Command and General Staff. But, that person does not make independent command decisions and is just a point of contact.
(PS -- most of what I wrote above is taken directly from the ICS-300 student manual).
I'm not claiming that they were operating a Unified Command though DEM said that is what they used. However, the fact that they were critisized in the audit for having a confused command and control system indicates that they were probably using some sort of confused hybrid structure and not doing it strictly by the book.
Some other interesting items from the audit report --
CAP flew 1,538 hours vs 355 hours for the National Guard and 13 hours from the NV Highway Patrol. The private pilots hours weren't reported.
This search highlights the cost effectiveness of CAP -- The costs for 2 UH-60s alone was $516,000. Presumably this is just flying cost and not salaries. The 2 OH-58s cost $111,000. We all know that there are quite a few situations where it is better to use helicopters than fixed wing, but that sure doesn't apply to a scenario with a huge search area where there aren't any great clues. Putting them out on the equivalent of grid searches sure wouldn't be a good fiscal move. The best thing to do would probably be to keep the helicopters in reserve and use them to follow up on site-specific clues or potential finds.
NV probably spent twice as much on pay for the National Guard labor than the entire cost of the CAP search. Their total pay cost was $70,000.
Quote from: RiverAux on June 28, 2008, 01:45:50 PM
[Under Unified Command, one of the ICs may be designated as a "spokesperson". That is the person that communicates to the Command and General Staff. But, that person does not make independent command decisions and is just a point of contact.
I specifically asked that question in IC 400 as it seemed to violate one of the major principles of war - unity of command. IAW the instructor, the inside the tent" ICs are making decisions and coming to agreement on how their assets work together. The cooperation takes care of the jurisdictional issues and ensures their assets are properly used. However to the outside world and to the Command and General Staff, there is only ONE Incident Commander. It only requires professionals working together to accomplish a mission to make this happen.
The point on the Fossett search is that while they may call it a Unified Command, Col Dion, the Nevada Wing Commander, was not in charge of the Command and General Staff and CAP was not receiving all the thousands of leads that were being called in. CAP basically functioned as one of several Operations Branches in the search.
Quote from: isuhawkeye on June 28, 2008, 12:42:51 PM
The entire state is not mountainous.
Is the no night flight restriction blanketed through the entire state, or is it s game time call by an IC???
The report makes it look like this wing does no night missions at all
Nevada CAP flys at night - they even had a night ELT FIND this year. While the entire state is not mountainous, you are not going to fly anywhere without between, over, or around the mountains. At night they really do have a tendency to disappear - all you can see are the stars above them - which doesn't do a lot to outline them. You can't see the ground and you can't see the granite clouds. A moonless night basically puts you in IFR conditions.
If I had a missing airplane whose flight path was known, I wouldn't hesitate in sending out a plane at night to do a route search that first night -- on the off chance that a fire could be seen or something like that. But, in a situation like this with no known route, a night search the first night would be pointless absent an ELT signal.
QuoteThe point on the Fossett search is that while they may call it a Unified Command, Col Dion, the Nevada Wing Commander, was not in charge of the Command and General Staff and CAP was not receiving all the thousands of leads that were being called in. CAP basically functioned as one of several Operations Branches in the search.
Then the DEM doesn't know what the heck a Unified Command is or how it is supposed to work. Given the comments elsewhere in the audit that no one really knew what areas were being searched, I'm not very surprised.
Quote from: RiverAux on June 28, 2008, 10:53:52 PM
Then the DEM doesn't know what the heck a Unified Command is or how it is supposed to work.
Yep................................
Quote from: Short Field on June 28, 2008, 10:02:38 PM
Quote from: isuhawkeye on June 28, 2008, 12:42:51 PM
The entire state is not mountainous.
Is the no night flight restriction blanketed through the entire state, or is it s game time call by an IC???
The report makes it look like this wing does no night missions at all
Nevada CAP flys at night - they even had a night ELT FIND this year. While the entire state is not mountainous, you are not going to fly anywhere without between, over, or around the mountains. At night they really do have a tendency to disappear - all you can see are the stars above them - which doesn't do a lot to outline them. You can't see the ground and you can't see the granite clouds. A moonless night basically puts you in IFR conditions.
A moonless night flying though or over the Ownes Valley where the Fossett search took place is just asking for trouble with 14,000 ft peaks on one side and Death Valley on the other side. Aside from the military, Fresno Sheriff is the only agency trained and equipped in Central CA to fly into the Sierras at night, and Inyo and Mono Counties do not have air units. And we do it VERY sparingly. So it doesn't surprise me that CAP opted not to do it. And I mention that because the search bordered and partly extended into Fresno County.
Quote from: Short Field on June 29, 2008, 04:02:56 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on June 28, 2008, 10:53:52 PM
Then the DEM doesn't know what the heck a Unified Command is or how it is supposed to work.
Yep................................
:) :)
How many times do we have to say that?
^ You can say THAT again! ::)
I am a FNG recently to captalk and returning 25 yrs later..............
I was NOT at the FOSSETT search and was not privy to all....
CAP ought to be very careful how they address DEM's and Emergency Managers in general.
Some of these folks are volunteers, paid. shared responsibilities such as Veterans Service folks working 4 hours on one thing and 4 hours as EM due to FUNDING.. Some of these folks do or don't have degrees in EM. ALOT of Emergency Managers are Sheriff's Departments, where the Sheriff IS the EM . In larger cities, there are dedicated EM's.
For CAP'ers to be critical of EM's, CAP OUGHT to take a deep look at itself before casting stones. CAP had better serve itself better than it has in getting a real sitdown with these folks. SOMETIMES they have the direct dial to AFRCC when requesting resources for us as CAP'ers to play. We all also better get more involved with these players and have better SQTR system, better training than just the online stuff, better instructors who attend all "the good stuff" and never return it it to the CAP Wing or Sqdn.
The EM has a hard enough job with the paid forces at hand and then for CAP to to do the "DEM doesn't know what the heck Unified Command is or how it is supposed to work." is pure CAP conjecture and we do not even know the true background of the EM. Didi he/she just start?? 30 yr complacent on the trough guv employee?? A current CAP member holding an EM gig and thinking CAP experience is the trump card in allllllll things disaster?????
You guys need a day in the trenches and not at some mission base and in C182's thinking you have ALL the mission answers. CAP is corporation NOT a guv agency. Maybe that's why we as CAP is not on the leading edge of getting ALL those prime missions. We are a corporation, NOT an agency and just maybe, to some guv lawyers at DHS and the reasons why GAO is doing all that research on our capabilities on how we would be more "cost effective" and available may just have to do how we are designated....
If CAP wants to be recognized, maybe we have to get our rooms in order. Corporation rather than govt agency, has different meanings. I have heard the negative aspects from EM's about CAP and I am current member. Doesn' offend me.... makes me more aware on how we HAVE to improve our standing in the community and criticicizing EM's doesn't get it on this forum
OUT HERE
Doc:
What was the point of your post? That EM guys know more than us poor, dumb CAP folk? Or that some EM types are incompetent but we shouldn't say so because we're also incompetent?
Your post seems to go both ways.
I get a little frustrated with civilians generally in disasters. Many are more concerned with protecting their little political empires than in accomplishing the mission. Many I have seen over the years ARE, in fact, incompetent boobs who were appointed by an elected relative, and they make decisions that cost ordinary citizens their lives.
I'm not making this reference just as a longtime CAP officer, but also as a longtime Army officer that served in the Guard long enough to see a lot of bumbling among civilians. Are you saying that we should call a spade a heart?
IF there were disconnects inside the tent at the Fossett search, we should discuss them. If the DEM was someone who felt that the organization with the most institutional experience with searches for missing aircraft was not to be given the clues that were available, then the earlier posters are right... He couldn't tell a Unified Command if one bit him on the leg.
And... when the CAP is called into the service of the United States Government, we are not acting as a corporation, but in fact as an element of the Air Force. The corporation is simply a mechanism to allow us to serve states and local communities by allowing us to enter into contracts to provide services.
Sorry to offend Major K
I too spent twenty one yrs in the Guard as an E6 and certainly did not know everything.
Saw a lot of not so smart officers in that organization and as I addressed I was not there nor was privy to the mission
Incompetent boobs?? Sure. But not all of em. When you have uphill battles within government you work for, the community you live in, and agencies / organizations who THINK they have a handle on everything--- I begin to wonder.
Did not see any public AAR's somewhat like llis.gov or Lessons Learned like the wildfire sites SO I personally do know or have any answers
But sure luv the buttchewing that I got for looking at it from my little world --- surely not wordly like you guys-------------------
^ You didn't "Offend" me. That is hard to do, unless you make fun of my dog. I just did not understand what your point was.
I was not on the Fossett search. I don't know what happened in the tent, and I don't know why CAP was not the lead federal agency in the search. If there were command and control problems, I'd like to know about them. That knowledge gives me a "Heads up" when dealing with local officials in my own Wing.
Examples:
On that search in Oregon for that Asian family that got lost on some back roads... the county sheriff refused to request CAP assistance because "The terrain is not conducive to a search by fixed wing aircraft." How did he, a non-pilot, decide that terrain characterized by rolling hills to a maximum elevation of 2000 feet msl is too rough for fixed wing? I Google-earthed it, and I have flown over tougher terrain to go to lunch. CAP could have found that car inside a day. Instead, he listened to a commercial helicopter pilot that was charging the family top dollar to do the search. Result: 1 dead breadwinner. Good work, Sheriff!
Back in the 90's there was some flooding, and my Guard battalion was called out. As MP's we had a peripheral role in controlling the evacuation, and keeping people who had no business there away from the disaster area. I started getting taskings that should have gone to the Engineer brigade. I kept calling the command post and kept getting the same response..."You have your tasking, Major, get it done." I would have, but an MP battalion does not have any dozers and graders. I called the Engineer Bde, and they were sitting on their posteriors waiting for orders to move from their armory. They were not getting the taskings intended for them. I went to the CP personally to unscrew the situation. That's when I discovered that the county had appointed some woman with zero EM experience as the emergency manager. She was alternately crying, and yelling at people to do things that they clearly had no capability to do. Rather than confront the hysterical little girl, I took the Engr. taskings and passed them along myself to the Engr. Bde, and things got done in spite of the "Leadership."
And... do I have to even mention the cluster that was Katrina?
We HAVE to discuss failures. Our own and those of others.
To be clear, it was the independent audit that highlighted command and control problems at the mission base and other issues involving DEM.
Now, I don't discount the possibility that DEM was misquoted in the report and that they did not say that a Unified Command was set up. However, if they did say that there was a Unified Command, then the experience of the CAP members who were on the ground seems to demonstrate that they weren't running it as a Unified Command is suposed to be run. That doesn't necessarily mean they are incompetent, just that they have an imperfect grasp of higher level ICS training. They certainly wouldn't be alone in that -- I think the majority of CAP ICs probably couldn't describe how Unified Command is supposed to work either -- we're just now starting to require our folks to get trained in that.
I was on the Fossett search - both aircrew and mission base.
I don't believe there are many searches that grow as fast and as large as the Fossett search grew and even fewer with a greater number of strong personalities involved. The DEM had a heck of a job dealing with the multiple agencies and private groups involved in the search. IIRC, I heard he was relatively new and had little experience with ICS. Cmd & Control was not screwed up, but it did have growing pains. I do know that Nevada is taking major steps to improve the coordination between the agencies in a major incident.
The main issue in the audit report had to do with who authorized the use and continued use of expensive assets and who failed to keep track of the costs. The clue log was just part of the growing pains - plus the extremely large number of clues called in by people using Google Earth - and images taken prior to the search starting.
A Unified Command does not mean that each separate IC has people working in all the ICS Branches and Sections. CAP basically functioned as a Air Branch with a few notable exceptions like Lt Col Cindy Ryan. CAP's biggest problem was finding enough people to man the mission bases after the first week.
If we could start the whole search over again, I know there would be a lot of things handled differently. But that is just being able to start Day One with experience from Day Twenty-One. Of course that is what training is all about....
Quote from: heliodoc on June 30, 2008, 02:47:32 PM
CAP ought to be very careful how they address DEM's and Emergency Managers in general.
We can address them
in general any way we desire. It is when we start to get
specific and personal that we had better watch our words. If I bad mouth specific folks and agencies I work with, then I run a good chance of screwing up any relationship I might have with them. If you want to slam them in general - as in "most CAP ICs don't really understand the ICS system", then swing away.
I flew every day for 6 hours on the Fossett Mission, how many days? not sure. I know that after 5 days of flying I was physically and Emotionally exhausted. But I can tell you this, The CAWG IC used the correct forms for all leads, including a few Psycho-Dreamers, I was deeply disturbed by the lack of cooperation between CAWG and Nevada CAP, we needed an after action report (Badly), however two of the key player were killed in a CAP flying accident shortly after the Fossett mission was shut down, So we never had completed an after action report.
I think one small item has been overlooked in the report. The auditor wrote that CAP does the Search with no expense to the state, i think he was pointing the mistake of calling out the Guard.
One last bit of information, it was well known that the Governor of Nevada, made multiple trips to spend time with the Hiltons at the Ranch. I believe that the Buck stops with him, when the question was asked: " how was the guard activated". On;y the Governor has that authority, unless AFRCC activated the Air Guard, and I don't think they did. So clearly there is some (lots) of politics surrounding the entire operation, the Hiltons, Fossett, and the Governor of Nevada were close friends.
QuoteA Unified Command does not mean that each separate IC has people working in all the ICS Branches and Sections.
You're correct. It means that all assets are working within the same system. So, for example, the same Operations officer would be overseeing all CAP, National Guard, and Highway patrol aircraft. However, it does mean that if it were being used there would be a CAP IC there helping to oversee all those assets and who would presumably know how critical keeping tracks of clues would be. However, since I brought that up, we've had CAP members basically confirm that we weren't using Unified Command. So, that being the case, the CAP IC is certainly off the hook for that particular issue.
Quote from: RiverAux on June 30, 2008, 10:57:52 PM
However, it does mean that if it were being used there would be a CAP IC there helping to oversee all those assets and who would presumably know how critical keeping tracks of clues would be.
I will agree that the CAP IC could have raised the issue of tracking clues (and may have for all we know), but that would have been "inside the tent". He would not have had a role overseeing all the assets - just the CAP assets.
No, under Unified Command all the ICs form a team and all are resposible for supervising the single ICS structure below them. Personally, I think it would be quite a struggle to implement such a structure, but that is how the "book" says it is supposed to be done.
However, since Unified Command was apparently not used here, it is sort of beside the point now.
In all of the above replies/observations, it seems the inexperience level in the ICS system for BOTH DEM and CAP were all somewhat the issue in this case.
The learning curve for all to use the ICS system is going to require EVERYONE to play on the same sheet of music. The whole idea is to get everyone on the same sheet of music. It may require the integration of all agencies paperwork and the ability to track that paperwork on ICS forms rather than just "agency forms."
ALL of this IS the ICS system, common terminolgy, clear text, the ability to document on ONE set o' forms rather than the myriad of forms. Look at ALL those Federal resources online for ICS forms, it really shouldn't be that hard to document the issues of the day, as apparently was the case, with "many loose scraps of paper"
How do I know this stuff somewhat works?? Spent 10 yrs in wildland fire, 10 in Emergency Mgmt, 7 yrs CAP the first time around, and now with my fire gig here.
NWCG/ FIRESCOPE 1970 and the wildland fire organizations created the ICS system originating in CA and went on to the Forest Service and NOW in the last 7 yrs, DHS has "thieved", plagarized" whatever.
WHY?? 'CUZ the stuff works!!!!!!! I have had Sheriff's Dept's and PD's thinks that it has some merits to it during my travels as Civil Defense Planning Specialist in the last 3 years.
So all in all, want to Federal dough and grants???? NIMS compliance Want to play in the all hazard all risk world?? ICS
I am not in total defense of DHS........ OCD turning to FEMA in the last 35 yrs has been weak at best. BUT FEMA with its maybe 6000 total permanent employees and probably 6000 to 8000 more as DAE's has growing pains, also. FEMA has its own issues, but CAP casting stones again?? Civilian Helo and military operators were the first on scene, PD , Sheriff Dept, etc and then wildland fire personnel were on scene pushing the ICS sytem about "36 -72 hrs later." Sure you can blame FEMA and the Feds. But all emergencies are local and the mayor and governors are act first, gets EM in the fold, start spending dough, DO PA and IA, apply for the Declaration, get the civilian poulation comforted and under control, etc etc etc
Can' t blame the Fed for every little issue. Prepostioning of stock(s) is under Army control, FEMA just has to have a mission statement.. So the blame is equal on ALL not just FEMA. Katrina was what was and NO one was organized very well. So the FEMA screwup mantra is OLD and how come CAP has some of those "free" FEMA trailers anyway?? IT was "free" and CAP sure did not miss a beat getting in on that while chirping about FEMA response............................
But again until CAP learns, executes, and moves with the changes and conducts AAR's after their own exercises and opens up their minds to the Emergency Management world, then we are probably are going to be in our little own world and island.
Until DHS is dismantled (don't think it'll happen any time soon) then WE as CAP had better learn to play if we are to more then ELT hunters and search and rescue personnel, which we are great at. But we have to learn to adopt to the ICS system, because we will be working for anIC somewhere in the world, he/she may not have a handle on it all, BUT I know CAP does NOT have a total handle on ICS at the present time, either!!!!
I see the problem as CAP members still seeing themselves as civilians. Holding themselves to no standard except the desire to help and the skill to fly aircraft.
The NIMS is nothing more than a recycled/modified system based on the military staffing system that has been around since the days of Napoleon. There are new terms, slightly modified methods of expanding the staff, and a little shuffling of responsibilities, but if you understand the role of a staff in military operations, you can work pretty well with NIMS.
The trouble is, since the 70's, CAP officers have not felt the need to learn the military way of doing things. They raise their wimpy voices in resistance to ANY militarization of CAP with: "We're just a civilian corporation... Wahhhhh!"
That sharply increases the learning curve for transitioning into NIMS.
The CAP of the 1960's could have made this transition much quicker than the CAP of today.
ICS doesn't differentiate between ciivilian or military operators
It is a system no matter who invented it whether or not it was developed by or in the days of Napoleon
Just a system BOTH military and civilians are using EVEN today's Guard CFRPE or whatever designator.
Doesn't matter who's bellerin' whether they are of the 1970's vintage or not
Again CAP is great at LPER missions, ELT detection and flying.
But do not ask why "we don't get to play"
#1 WE are NOT first responders going into a hot zone we are disaster support personnel (or are desiring to be) BUT we had better understand a "system" and how it works No matter with we are "militarized" or not
But as I understand it,CAP is a volunteer org with military ties, military customs and courtesies, SOME military structure, etc.
BUT I personally undertand the term volunteer. Let me tell you I hear alot of whining from 30 yrs Stan Eval types about how much CAP instructor time is worth and this and that.... those are the types I suggest get out and see the real world is and see how many baloney sandwiches the non CAP instructors have had to do it.
Some CAP members and alot of CAP pilots sure whine alot I try to keep mine to a minimum.
John....
I don't think that is the problem at all. (at least here in Nevada)
The major problem is that we do not exercise with our counter parts enough.
Even if each and every agency at the part is 100% literate in the ICS system...once you bring them together there will be growing pains.
No one in Nevada is casting stones to anyone exclusively. CAP was part of the command and control problem....but it was not just us.
NVWG has changed a lot of how we do buisness based on the lessons learned during the Fosset Search.
I personally know several of the people who ran the mission base and flew missions and beleive me we have listened to the suggestions they have made following the search.
John.....But remember in the 60's CAP has more USAF support. That is more or less impossible due to Base closings, downsizing lack of airlift capability, and drpping the Wing level AD USAF-CAP LO's. The majority on this board are ES interested, where the only contat with CAP-USAF is getting funded missions. The loss of USAF support is seen more in Cadet Programs where military bases in many cases are no longer available to support encampments, or USAF to furnish airlift. Look at Florida, with Avon Park AFS, MacDill, Patrick, Eglin, Tyndall AFB's, not one can support a Wing summer encampment.
Also in the 60's the Commander of CAP-USAF was a flag officer, now the CC is normally an O-6. An O-6 requesting something from USAF doesn't have the pull that a General grade officer would have. I agree that CAP in the 60's was more military, but since then the drop in USAF support and the emergence of the CAP Corportaion's increased "power" has changed the structure of CAP. In my mind for the worst.
So now CAP has to learn the ICS system which while based on the military is operated as a totally civilian program.
^ I can't argue with anything you say.
Our National Commander used to be an Air Force officer, too.
I think it IS easier, however, to learn ICS once you have experience on a military staff. The Planning Section Chief does pretty much the same as the S-2. Ops Section Chief... S-3. ICS is a lot more flexible in terms in increasing and decreasing the size and complexity of the staff as the needs of the mission change. The military would simply use a larger unit. Overall, however, ICS is pretty much the same once you learn the new terms.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 01, 2008, 02:11:26 AM
No, under Unified Command all the ICs form a team and all are resposible for supervising the single ICS structure below them. Personally, I think it would be quite a struggle to implement such a structure, but that is how the "book" says it is supposed to be done.
One OSC and 20 ICs supervising him??? When you take ICS 400, ask them about this. The ICS Staff works for the "spokesman" IC. Otherwise they would be stepping on each other giving "advice and direction" and no one on the staff could get any work done. Unity of Command and a clear Chain of Command are critial for any sucessful operation. The "spokesman" IC is the only one with a voice - the rest of them stay in the tent.
ShortField I have taken both ICS 300 and 400 and I assure you everything I said about how a Unified Command is supposed to work was written with the student manual open in front of me on the desk. The spokesman IC is not the "head IC" or anything like that, he is just the conduit between the mission staff and the other ICs and has not one iota of more authority than the rest of them.
Personally, I don't see how Unified Command could ever work well and I'm not promoting its use -- just telling you how DHS says it is supposed to work.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 01, 2008, 08:24:53 PM
The spokesman IC is not the "head IC" or anything like that, he is just the conduit between the mission staff and the other ICs and has not one iota of more authority than the rest of them.
The
bold portion of your quote is the point I was trying to make all along - the "spokesman" IC is between the mission staff and the other ICs. The rest of the ICs are not wandering around the ops center trying to direct the activity.
Unified Commands ONLY work well when all the ICs understand they are there to accomplish a mission and avoid jurisdictional roadblocks. The moment you get a couple of ICs trying to exert their
Command Authority, it starts falling apart.
QuoteThe rest of the ICs are not wandering around the ops center trying to direct the activity.
Never said they would be doing that.
However, they would all be in on all the planning meetings with the staff and in order to be able to set the overall direction they all need to be very familiar with how the ICS system set up underneath them is working and what each part of it is up to.
as someone who has worked several IC situations I am a firm believer of unified command, I have come to prefer the buy in an support that is generated when you have agency reps from the major players working together to establish the Command.
It works, and it works well.
Here is an interesting fact from a recent NHQ press release http://www.cap.gov/visitors/news/media_center/press_releases/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&nodeID=6194&newsID=4394&year=2008&month=6
The CAP portion of the Fosset search cost the AF $180,000. Thats actually a lot more than I had thought.
This language is kind of interesting:
QuoteSorties flown by CAP, at no cost to the state of Nevada, cost approximately $180,000, which amounts to less than $101 per flying hour, making CAP much more cost effective than other aircraft that would have been necessary without CAP.
Its the language about the state of Nevada that got my attention. I'm assuming then that this was sent out to Nevada papers as part of the response to the audit of state costs of the mission.
While I suppose its not bad to get the word out about CAP's cost effectiveness, it could be seen as a sort of stick in the eye of the Governor and the state of Nevada. It doesn't say it, but the powerplayers could read it as a slap in the face for wasting state money on the search when the AF was happy to pay a lot of money for a lot more flight hours than came out of the state assets.
There is so much trouble with the Govenor right now...that this "stick in the eye" will not even cross anyone's radar.
I think it's more of a defensive action. With the impression of wasteful spending, it is easy to assume that everyone involved was being wasteful. Pointing out the cost for CAP's portion, and that it was not paid by Nevada, helps to reinforce our cost effectiveness.
I understand the motivation and I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with it, I just would have left out the reference to the state of Nevada. Instead, I would have pointed out that the costs were borne by the federal government. That would put a slightly less offensive spin on it.