Dealing with "volunteer" pilots

[RiverAux]

A perennial issue in CAP has been the difficulty in dealing with pilots who want to volunteer their time and their plane to participate in the search for a missing airplane, usually piloted by a friend, family member, or co-worker.  Every once in a while the family of the missing pilot will want to hire people to participate in the search.

There seems to be two main schools of thought for dealing with this:
1.  Tell the pilots that if they get out and start flying around in the search area that it will make it unsafe for CAP to do our job.

2.  Take a harder line and if the pilot(s) refuse to leave the search area, ask the AFRCC to request a TFR over the area from the FAA.

Now, for the sake of this thread, lets assume that CAP is the lead agency for the search (yes, I know this is not often the case ). 

Both strategies have many perils associated with them -- both the media and the family will be asking why CAP is turning away help that might result in a find.  And with the first strategy if CAP actually does take our toys and go home it has the potential for a big black eye for us no matter how the search turns out. 

I have heard of the first strategy being used successfully (more or less) in my area and it seems to be the preferred method, but I don't think we've had to follow through on the go-home threat.  I have also heard of the second strategy being used, but that one really only would work if you've got a fairly small high-probability search area -- FAA isn't going to grant a TFR over half the state. 

Personally I would request a TFR long before considering sending CAP home if I was IC. 

Now, we all know that every now and again CAP is forced to work with "volunteer" pilots due to political preassures of one type or another.  Should we have some strategy for dealing with this event in place?  For example, requiring at least 3 people on board any aircraft participating in the search so that the pilot can focus on flying?  Obviously the pilots would have to agree to search where we tell them and we should also make them agree to minimum altitude restrictions.

Your thoughts?

[Flying Pig]

The problem is that you cant prevent anyone from searching.  In Law Enforcement SAR we have the same issue.  On a few SARs I have been on the family or friends often do their own search.  On one, friends (wealthy friends) actually began arriving in planes.  One even dontated dirt bikes.  Really, if you cant discourage them, at least give them something to do and some sort of direction. Fortunately, there are very few people with those types of private resources on hand or that many friends who really care that much to inconvenience themselves to look.
Otherwise.....its Class G.  Radar service terminated, frequency change approved, squawk VFR,  have a good day.

[floridacyclist]

Of course, you could always assign them to previously-searched grids.

[IceNine]

 I only agree with stopping them when there are either too many of them or they start to run interference.

We discussed the use of untrained volunteers at some length in the inland sar class and found that they are useful assets, but idle hands create problems so you are better off to task them with some reasonably insignificant search area than telling them thanks but no thanks.

There are a lot of organizations that use untrained volunteers successfully but they typically keep them out of the field.  So put them to work directing traffic, preparing meals, running sign in, etc.  They usually just want to help, which doesn't automatically translate to "I want to search"

[A.Member]

Of course, you could always assign them to previously-searched grids.

Yep.  That's exactly what I'd do.  It's an easy win-win.

[Pylon]

The problem is that you cant prevent anyone from searching.  In Law Enforcement SAR we have the same issue.  On a few SARs I have been on the family or friends often do their own search.  On one, friends (wealthy friends) actually began arriving in planes.  One even dontated dirt bikes.  Really, if you cant discourage them, at least give them something to do and some sort of direction. Fortunately, there are very few people with those types of private resources on hand or that many friends who really care that much to inconvenience themselves to look.
Otherwise.....its Class G.  Radar service terminated, frequency change approved, squawk VFR,  have a good day.

Except I think there is some inherent risk in people flying around and around in areas where CAP already has a handful of concentrated air assets searching a grid.

The temporary TFR may be a good option when CAP has a lot of aircraft in the skies and needs to reduce interference and safety issues.  But CAP should have a method and process for using outside, civilian resources, particularly when CAP is a lead agency on a mission.

You can't cover 'em on your insurance, but when CAP as a lead agency tasks resources outside of CAP, Civil Air Patrol doesn't assume liability for those assets either.  There must be a way to safely utilize what's available to us - especially when they have resources we don't, like rotors, FLIR, or other technologies.

[Flying Pig]

^Oh, I definitely agree with you.  Fortunately, like mfd said, most people just want to help, and something can usually be found at the base.  Probably more so, they just want to be in the information loop.  But I agree that their should be some sort of flow chart to go by that starts out with ways of trying to discourage people and ends with ways to put them to work somehow.  Bt I think the idea of searching previously searched girds would be a great idea.

[floridacyclist]

While working through FEMA's Professional Development Series of classes, I came across a statement in IS244 that rang true.

Even though spontaneous volunteers can potentially create problems if they "just show up," it is best to have a plan for how to deal with them—because they will show up.

If we have a plan in place for a major event that will include possibly large numbers of spontatneous volunteers, not only will we be able to use them more efficiently but they will be less likely to interfere with other aspects of the  operation, will feel better about themselves, and may possibly end up joining CAP.

I would still request the TFR so that we would have some measure of control over who flew and who didn't since that would potentially have a direct impact on our safety.

[RiverAux]

The problem is that you cant prevent anyone from searching.

Well, with the potential for a TFR request (which AFRCC is not at all adverse to make) we actually can prevent them from flying in an area. 

Some issues (not insurmountable) with assigning them previously searched grids:
1.  We regularly re-do grids, especially in very high probability areas so the "best" grids probably aren't always going to be available.
2.  Often we've got CAP planes flying in the grids adjacent to searched grids and in our area we try to avoid having people in adjacent grids. 

Now, we can of course assign to previously unsearched, but low-probability grids, but I think they're going to realize pretty fast if we're just sending them off on a wild goose chase to get them out of our hair -- so the assignments can't be too far out in left field. 

Now, if we've got a situation where the search area covers half the state and we have no flight plan and no known destination then this is where "volunteer" pilots could come in handy since it could take forever for CAP to search such an area on their own.  There would be plenty of locations where we could ask people to fly and check out and report back to us. 

Now, another issue is the fact that we have to be quicker to request CAP help from outside states.  In a major "mystery" search such as I suggest in the paragraph above, we need to request planes from other states immediately.  If people know that CAP has 10 local planes and 20 planes from other Wings coming in, they will realize that we've got it handled.  However, if we try to go it alone in our Wing they'll realize that it could take weeks to search the area thoroughly.  Thankfully CAP is becoming more and more open to this option. 

[DHollywood]

Why not recruit these people - convert their desire to help into a long term commitment....

[RiverAux]

You can ask, but it would not have any effect on the current mission given the realities of processing new member applications and getting properly trained in CAP ES procedures.  It would take 6-12 months before they could be a CAP mission pilot.  Also, often these searches take place in areas with no CAP unit in the immediate vicinity so there is no place for them to be based. 

[bosshawk]

I have seen this handled a number of ways.  One, ask the civilian pilots if they will cooperate with us and play by our rules: i.e., search in grids that we assign them and use our radio frequencie(the VHF ones, not the CAP ones).  Provide them with gridded charts so that they can understand what we are talking about and what the extent of their search area happens to be.  If they say yes(and I have seen this happen), fine.  Two, if the pilots opt not to play by our rules, let them know where we are going to be flying and ask them to stay away from our grids.  Also ask them where they intend to go and keep CAP aircraft away from those areas.  I have seen that happen.  If all else fails and they won't play in our sand box, simply keep our planes away from them at all costs.  That, of course, limits where we can search, but it does give us some comfort that we are not putting our search crews at unnecessary risk.  I have seen that technique used, also.

Ground jobs are much easier to get volunteers to handle.

[floridacyclist]

You can ask, but it would not have any effect on the current mission given the realities of processing new member applications and getting properly trained in CAP ES procedures.  It would take 6-12 months before they could be a CAP mission pilot.  Also, often these searches take place in areas with no CAP unit in the immediate vicinity so there is no place for them to be based. 

Perhaps part of the problem with recruiting is that nobody is willing to make a long-term investment. "Sure it will take months to get signed on and trained..but if you're serious about wanting to play with us, we're serious about wanting you to join". We're not talking about recruiting them for the current mission, just looking down the road.

[isuhawkeye]

I have faced this issue many times.  My initial response is to welcome the friends and family into the command post.  We explain what we are doing, and what resources are being deployed to find their loved one.  I then ask for their input.  i ask them to identify areas that they are concerned about searching.  I take that information, and I write assignments form it. 

If they continue to insist on searching I would explain our primary ops area, and ask that they keep a safe operating radius from our crews.  I take the the opportunity to show off our communications, our resource tracking, and our accountability systems. 

If after that I would identify areas that we are currently not searching and I would ask them to contain their activities to a designated region with specific ingress, and egress routes. 

If they persis I would only then impose the TFR,

If they still impose, I would finally get law enforcement involved, and Yes I have had a family member taken into custody.

[Civilian_Pilot]

I have faced this issue many times.  My initial response is to welcome the friends and family into the command post.  We explain what we are doing, and what resources are being deployed to find their loved one.  I then ask for their input.  i ask them to identify areas that they are concerned about searching.  I take that information, and I write assignments form it. 

If they continue to insist on searching I would explain our primary ops area, and ask that they keep a safe operating radius from our crews.  I take the the opportunity to show off our communications, our resource tracking, and our accountability systems. 

If after that I would identify areas that we are currently not searching and I would ask them to contain their activities to a designated region with specific ingress, and egress routes. 

If they persis I would only then impose the TFR,

If they still impose, I would finally get law enforcement involved, and Yes I have had a family member taken into custody.

I don't know who you are but you have made by far the most intelligent outline/post on this forum.

I hope you are in a leardership position within CAP.

[isuhawkeye]

I don't know who you are but you have made by far the most intelligent outline/post on this forum.

I hope you are in a leardership position within CAP.

not to much of a leader,

Just a lowly staffer who also happens to be a functioning IC1

[JohnKachenmeister]

I'm not a lawyer...

But I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

I see one problem with "assigning" grids to spontaneous volunteer pilots.

IF CAP assigns a grid, and tells a pilot to search it, I think it has the same effect as a policeman commandeering a car in a chase to catch a criminal.  The car becomes a police car, and any damage to the car (or injury to the citizen) is the responsibility of the officer's agency.

So, if WE say to Mr. Volunteer, "Sure, Mr. Volunteer, thanks for your help.  Search grid XXX, even though I have no idea how many hours of flight time you have, I don't know your level of training, and I don't know the condition of your airplane."  We have just bought any damage or injury that he suffers when he sees a flash of metal, and decides to fly a tight circle around it to check it out at 200 feet agl and stalls.

I have no problem telling a pilot where NOT to fly... to stay away from areas that we are searching... but if they want to fly on their own we should keep it exactly that way, on their own.

[RiverAux]

Well, that sort of brings us back around to the original question.  We want to fly the areas where the person probably crashed.  If we tell the volunteers to stay out of those areas then they're going to know that they're just wasting their time, will call the Governor, newspapers, etc....

Now, perhaps "assigned" was the wrong word, how about "If you're going to fly, it would be helpful if you flew here..."?

With the implementation of NIMS throughout the entire emergency community, it is going to be likely that more and more CAP members will be placed in situations where they are "in charge" of folks from outside CAP during a CAP AFAM.  Perhaps CAP does need to think about that a little more. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

You are right, River.  "Encouraging" them is not "Assigning" them.

But, if they call the Governor, the President, the New York Times, or the King of Siam, I don't care.  I (as a well-qualified master-level PAO and Mission IO, thank you very much for your kind applause) will say something like this:

I appreciate the enthusiasm and willingness to help of the many pilots who have come to assist us with the search for (Name of missing pilot).  We have a responsibility, however, to see to it that the search is done safely and efficiently, and for that reason we have asked that the pilots who have come to help remain clear of areas being searched by CAP and military crews. 

Our CAP pilots and aircrews are given extensive training in safe search techniques, ground-to-air coordination, evaluating the Probability of Detection, and communication procedures to enable them to fly searches effectively and to work together with other professionals.  Our pilots are required to have many hours of flight experience over and above the requirements of the FAA for a pilot's license, and are specifically trained in the low-level flight techniques that must be used for searches.

Allowing pilots who have not had the extensive training of a CAP Mission Pilot to participate in an Air Force authorized mission, no matter how pure their intention, can be a distraction.  At worst, it could lead to a crash and more victims to search for.

[RiverAux]

I wouldn't disagree with your press release wording, but given that you're counting on CAP's "moral authority" rather than actual authority to keep such people away and thats just not going to be sufficient, especially in very high profile searches. 

[Flying Pig]

Jack is truely one of the great orators of our time.  

[Flying Pig]

Then what needs to be concentrated on then is what authority does CAP really have to keep people away?  Otherwise, we really are just counting on our ability to schmooze people into doing what we want.

Seriously, what is the likelyhood of ATC actually setting up a TFR during a search?  Has that ever happened?  Ive never heard of it.

[JohnKachenmeister]

We'd have to ask the AFRCC to request it from the FAA.  If it became a safety issue, I don't see the FAA denying that request.  It is always better to "Sell" rather than "Tell" but we would keep our options open.

[RiverAux]

Setting up a TFR has happened in the past and from what I can tell the AFRCC would not be at all shy about requesting it if it was needed. 

[SARPilotNY]

So how did NVWG & CAWG handle the "Hilton Air Force"?  I heard they were a real pain, got in the way and told CAP to go pound sand!