SAR Accident Case Study

[Flying Pig]

http://flash.aopa.org/asf/acs_rescue/acs-rescue.cfm

Although its a helicopter, there are several lessons to be learned from this crash.  Many of the lessons arent even touched on in this presentation.   I would encourage anyone involved in SAR at any level or area of expertise to read the full NTSB report.  Sadly it is also a classic example of having all of the tools to survive at your finger tips but not knowing how to use them. 

[Flying Pig]

added...

If you read the full report, you will see there were tremendous pressures from the command staff to accomplish missions.  The previous Chief Pilot was releived for refusing to assign missions because the risk v reward wasnt there.  And pressures to accomplish these missions were coming from commanders with no aviation experience.  Pretty interesting read on the cultures inside that particular unit. 

[manfredvonrichthofen]

You find a lot of armchair decisions cause problems in the field if the one in the chair isn't experienced in the field. That's why I think that no one should be allowed in the chair unless they have good experience in the field.

[bosshawk]

That certainly is an excellent theory.  Unfortunately, I once served in a Wing where the Commander, Vice Commander, Chief of Staff and Director of Operations were not pilots, nor had they ever flown on a single CAP search mission.  Talk about a mess   Search missions were being run by ICs who had no actual search experience and who surrounded themselves with people with equal experience.  Wonder why I quit CAP?

[Spaceman3750]

Why should being a pilot be a prerequisite for being on wing command staff?

[Flying Pig]

He didnt say they had to be pilots.
However, I know personally exactly what he speaks of.  Something about IC's assigning search grids at 12ft + in the Sierras in the late afternoon and not understanding why pilots were refusing missions.

[SarDragon]

Why should being a pilot be a prerequisite for being on wing command staff?

It's all about BTDT. It gives you a lot of insight into what's going on out in the field. On my last SAREX, I saw how pilot skills were helpful in performing as an MO. As an aside, that's why aircraft carrier and aviation squadron CO billets are filled by pilots and NFOs.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Sorry if that came across wrong.

Yes, I am talking about mission staff and IC, GBD, and ABD needing to have field experience. Even for a GTL it is necessary to have some cross training in the air. I am training on a bit of observer stuff so that I can better understand what the bird is talking about and so that I know how to ask questions and how to talk to the bird from the ground. I know how to ask questions and explain to them and I understand what they are telling me, because even when I am on the ground, boots in the field, there are barriers to communication when to people are seeing the earth from two very different points of view.

I have delt with a lot of problems arising because of command not having field experience and some times getting people killed.

[bosshawk]

Killion: what I didn't explain(I guess) is that I have over 3.000 hours of piloting light aircraft and had more than 300 hours of grid search at altitudes over 10,000 ft in the Sierras and I have had the experience of having  a 200 hour private pilot who happens to be an IC telling me how to fly a grid on a windy afternoon in the Sierras over snow-covered terrain in winds of over 50 kts. Oh, by the way, I have two distress finds at altitudes over 10,000 ft.  When I politely refused he got highly indignant and threatened to ban me from the mission.

I packed up my gear and went home, never to return to that mission.  I do know of several pilots who did launch that afternoon and who, fortunately, returned to base: never having reached the assigned grids due to weather. When I wrote up the whole deal and gave it to the DO, he simply trashed it and said something about uncooperative members.  I still have that memo on my computer.

[Flying Pig]

Killion: what I didn't explain(I guess) is that I have over 3.000 hours of piloting light aircraft and had more than 300 hours of grid search at altitudes over 10,000 ft in the Sierras and I have had the experience of having  a 200 hour private pilot who happens to be an IC telling me how to fly a grid on a windy afternoon in the Sierras over snow-covered terrain in winds of over 50 kts. Oh, by the way, I have two distress finds at altitudes over 10,000 ft.  When I politely refused he got highly indignant and threatened to ban me from the mission.

I packed up my gear and went home, never to return to that mission.  I do know of several pilots who did launch that afternoon and who, fortunately, returned to base: never having reached the assigned grids due to weather. When I wrote up the whole deal and gave it to the DO, he simply trashed it and said something about uncooperative members.  I still have that memo on my computer.

Hmmmmmm   reeeeeeeally

[Eclipse]

That certainly is an excellent theory.  Unfortunately, I once served in a Wing where the Commander, Vice Commander, Chief of Staff and Director of Operations were not pilots, nor had they ever flown on a single CAP search mission.  Talk about a mess   Search missions were being run by ICs who had no actual search experience and who surrounded themselves with people with equal experience.  Wonder why I quit CAP?

I understand the point I >think< you're trying to make, however being a pilot, even a CAP pilot, does not mean yo know anything about ES or searches.
The attitude that only pilots can understand "x" holds us back in any number of ways.

In your example, the IC should absolutely have had solid AOBD's advising him on the relevant issues, but I personally know plenty of pilots, AOBD's, and others who wouldn't have been any more help to you.  Frankly, an IC should not be involved in that level of tactical planning, anyway.  That's what the branch desks are for.

[Eclipse]

Why should being a pilot be a prerequisite for being on wing command staff?

It's all about BTDT. It gives you a lot of insight into what's going on out in the field. On my last SAREX, I saw how pilot skills were helpful in performing as an MO. As an aside, that's why aircraft carrier and aviation squadron CO billets are filled by pilots and NFOs.

That's an ES function, not a command staff function.  Being a staff officer is about management and delegation, not wrench turning.  Relevant experience
and good decision making is important, but I don't need to know the flying velocity of a european swallow myself, I just have to have a swallow wrangler that I trust who knows his stuff.

[lordmonar]

The problem with the concept of needing "real" experince to be able to do the job.....is that we just don't have enough opportunities to gain that experince.

So....the old lament about people who "don't know the score" making the decisions is just something we have to live with.

I have not read the report....so I don't know what it was about.

But bottom line is that a GTL or MP......it is your sortie.....you know your responsibilities and your capabilities.....and this is just CAP.

If it is not safe....don't do the sortie.

If you planning staff is giving you stupid assignments......kick them back when you get your prebreifing.

[Spaceman3750]

Why should being a pilot be a prerequisite for being on wing command staff?

It's all about BTDT. It gives you a lot of insight into what's going on out in the field. On my last SAREX, I saw how pilot skills were helpful in performing as an MO. As an aside, that's why aircraft carrier and aviation squadron CO billets are filled by pilots and NFOs.

I don't buy that for a second. Knowing how to plan an air sortie is totally separate from knowing how fast the aircraft has to be going to achieve lift. You don't need to be a pilot to understand an aircraft's capabilities or to say "fly here" - you just need the right training.

I guess the ground pounders like me who don't have the coin to join the sun god club can throw out any hope of doing more than being ground pounders then? That's too bad, I thought I had lots of potential.

And, as Eclipse said, there's lots of pilots who couldn't manage their way out of a paper bag.

Now, going back to your original comment about non-pilot cc, cv, and cs - that's still total bunk. Again, all they need is training on how the aircraft is managed; knowing how to turn it on is optional. Leave that to your DOO.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

I can understand not needing to know how to fly to an extent. No, you don't need to KNOW HOW TO FLY, but you do need to understand how things work in the air. I don't, so I'm not going to pretend to know anything about it. However, I know I don't want to be on the ground looking down a 100 ft cliff face and have someone telling me I HAVE to walk 20 meteres foreword.

[ol'fido]

http://flash.aopa.org/asf/acs_rescue/acs-rescue.cfm

Although its a helicopter, there are several lessons to be learned from this crash.  Many of the lessons arent even touched on in this presentation.   I would encourage anyone involved in SAR at any level or area of expertise to read the full NTSB report.  Sadly it is also a classic example of having all of the tools to survive at your finger tips but not knowing how to use them.

Dude, did you happen to read the NTSB report on the crash of the Missouri Highway Patrol copter that killed Trooper Schellenberger?

[bflynn]

Killion: what I didn't explain(I guess) is that I have over 3.000 hours of piloting light aircraft and had more than 300 hours of grid search at altitudes over 10,000 ft in the Sierras and I have had the experience of having  a 200 hour private pilot who happens to be an IC telling me how to fly a grid on a windy afternoon in the Sierras over snow-covered terrain in winds of over 50 kts. Oh, by the way, I have two distress finds at altitudes over 10,000 ft.  When I politely refused he got highly indignant and threatened to ban me from the mission.

I packed up my gear and went home, never to return to that mission.  I do know of several pilots who did launch that afternoon and who, fortunately, returned to base: never having reached the assigned grids due to weather. When I wrote up the whole deal and gave it to the DO, he simply trashed it and said something about uncooperative members.  I still have that memo on my computer.

I can't say this surprises me, but I'm sorry you had to have that happen.  If you're not burned out on volunteering, you qualify to fly for the Coast Guard Auxillary.  It might please you to know the IC does not.

Based on what I've read here and how member relate to each other, I'd say that CAP has a serious cultural and leadership problem.

[Short Field]

I don't buy that for a second. Knowing how to plan an air sortie is totally separate from knowing how fast the aircraft has to be going to achieve lift. You don't need to be a pilot to understand an aircraft's capabilities or to say "fly here" - you just need the right training.

I guess the ground pounders like me who don't have the coin to join the sun god club can throw out any hope of doing more than being ground pounders then? That's too bad, I thought I had lots of potential.

I have flown with former USAF pilots who had thousands of hours but didn't know how to plan or fly a CAP search pattern.  So just having the right flavor of wings is not the answer. 

You do need to have time planning and flying searches in CAP - and you can do that as a Mission Observer.   An IC with two missions as a Mission Scanner is just too light in the knowledge and experience area.   We had a IC (MO with less than 10 flights) who mandated a crew swap with the engine running to save time.  When the crew members balked, they were told they could just go home instead of fly.   The plane still sat on the ramp with the engine running for over 10 minutes.  It doesn't take coin and you don't need to become a member of the sun god club but it does take experience.

[bosshawk]

+1.  At the time of the incident which I talked about, I probably had 17-18 years as a CAP Mission Pilot, a Mission Check Pilot, a mountain flying instructor, an AOBD and a PSC, so I wasn't exactly a neophyte.  In fact, I had been regarded as one of the better high altitude search pilots in CAWG. 

I had also been a Sq CC, taught CLC and SLS, been on Wing Staff for six years and had spent weeks being a liaison officer to LE agencies.  I simply had never wanted to be an IC: I have an aversion to phone calls in the middle of the night.  Bad attitude, guess so.  BTDT in lots of situations that many CTers will never experience.

Short Field has a good point: have flown with many higher time pilots from the various military branches who couldn't plan or fly a grid.

That is the end of my participation in this thread.

[NCRblues]

I'd say that CAP has a serious cultural and leadership problem.

CAP has a massive ingrained cultural problem. Simply look at the latest pictures of the winter NB to see it. Its plain and simple still a "good ol boy club" , and it just depends on which side of the isle you are on.

We have plenty of energetic and eager members that are waiting in the wings for a chance to take the flag and carry it on. Unfortunately more than not those people get ignored or are simply shown the door because they happen to hold ideas that could make CAP at all levels better, and it goes against the "good ol boy" club.

CC's, CV's, and other wing staff do not need wings or GT badges or even IC badges. What they do need is an understanding of modern technology, a willingness to learn from those that have the flight/ground ops knowledge and the hunger and drive to make CAP great again. I see that lacking from the vast majority of our leadership at the moment.