Well in a few days it will be 3 years since Mr. Kim's death. Not familiar see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Kim
http://seesdifferent.wordpress.com/2006/12/08/where-james-kim-walked/
CAP was not directly involved in Mr. Kim's search but has been involved in other searches involving cellphone technology and also aircraft searching. As we all know one of the searches resulted in the loss of 3 lives in Wyoming.
It would be great if everyone hiking/fishing/hunting or even driving in the wilderness far from typical comforts of home to carry an emergency personal locator beacon (The McMurdo Fast Find 210 model $249.00), BUT it's unlikely that will happen and the alternative will continue to be the typical cellphone/portable computer type device. Unfortunately, with a cellphone/computer device you either have a signal or you don't.
Over the past few years, Family Radio Service portable two way radios in the UHF range (see: http://www.rei.com/expertadvice/articles/twoway+radios.html ) had been heavily marketed, BUT now have now entered the maturity/decline level of the marketing cycle, but can be purchased anywhere in the price range of $10 to $200, depending upon what else you want them to do. No FCC license or test is required. In the past the use of FRS Channel #1 (462.5625 mhz) (no CTCSS or DCS enabled) has been advocated by some as being the national calling & emergency channel.
Ideally, anyone out in the woods will be prepared for the potential weather conditions BUT if not wanting to buy or rent a PLB, perhaps purchasing a $10-40 FRS radio could save a life IF various airborne assets were aware that the individual had the unit (and the lost/injuried individual was aware of the FRS channel 1 routine IF a cellphone DID NOT WORK) and airborne search assets monitored the appropriate channel for emergency calls :-\
Mr. Kim, rest in peace. What can we effectively advocate and practice to use in emergency situations such as this ???
RM
I remember this. This SAR operation was one of the most disgraceful ever.
In Oregon, the Sheriff is the official legally charged with SAR operations. The CAP wing commander (I was told by people close to the situation) told the Sheriff to call AFRCC and request CAP participation. CAP did not have an MOU with the Sheriff. The Sheriff refused, opting instead to use a commercial helicopter for the search rented by the Kim extended family.
The Sheriff... NOT a pilot... pontificated to the media, after Kim's body was found, that: "The area was not one that could be searched by fixed-wing aircraft."
I google-mapped it... the area is characterized by a spaghetti network of roads through rolling-hill wooded terrain. The elevation ranged from 1000 to 3000 feet. The car was, at all times, alongside a road. Kim did not strike out on his own for several days.
I have flown over tougher terrain to search to just fly to lunch. CAP could have located the family within 48 hours simply by putting enough aircraft into the sky.
1000-3000ft!!! Thats not even a knoll where I am! Yes, remember though, Sheriff's are first and foremost "politicians".
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 05, 2010, 01:18:30 AM
CAP could have located the family within 48 hours simply by putting enough aircraft into the sky.
Much as I advocate for more CAP participation in missions such as this, statements such as the above probably should be avoided. We quite often take more than 48 hours in locating the targets that we more than anyone else specialize in (missing airplanes, of course) even in situations where the search area is relatively small and well-defined.
FYI, here is the contemporary CAPTalk Thread on this search: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1130.40
I'm reminded how local CAP members probably sunk any chance of getting called by this and other local sheriffs by going after him in the press for not using all available resources (us).
^ :clap:
Thanks, River. And while some sheriffs are indeed primarily politicians, others are outstanding SAR clinicians; or, at least they have that talent on their staff and depend heavily on it. We should be careful about making blanket judgments, lest a few hatchets come back at us in return.
No really....all Sheriffs ARE politicians! However, some make pretty good cops to.
Senty7, just so you know, Flying Pig is a Deputy Sheriff. So he may have just a little first hand knowledge on this subject.
^^ ;D >:D ;D >:D
"I know" (on both FP's identity and on sheriffs and politics). ::) Let's just say that sheriffs and their deputies have their tentacles in me many hours each day.
River:
The Sheriff relied on a SINGLE rotary-wing helicopter operated by a commercial pilot not trained in SAR.
We could have placed a fleet of aircraft in the sky, and THEY WERE BURNING THEIR TIRES AS A SIGNAL!
Even some of our clueless cadets could have found them.
As far as bringing the Sheriff's poor decision to the media, that is NOT what I would have done, but I don't blame those who did. He made a bad decision that cost a human life. You have to be responsible for your actions.
Well, that is unless you are in Congress.
What can CAP advocate? First of all, we can copy what plenty of other SAR organizations already do: teach people to file a hiking plan. Expand that to include driving plans and most situations are covered. Winter driving should include a basic survival kit as well.
The other thing we can all do is remind people that cell phones don't work everywhere. They can easily become your noose instead of your lifeline. Do not place unwarranted faith in them.
Recently my son came home from school and explained to me that 911 works from cell phones, anywhere in the world, because the signal works through satellites. He "knew" this because a local EMS person visited his first aid class and told them so. Of course I immediately corrected this nonsense, which was dangerous misinformation. It only took a 10 minute drive from the house to demonstrate where cell phones don't work at all. I also contacted his teacher in the hopes he would correct it with the class. No response. Nice.
Several weeks later I presented this as a safety topic at a squadron meeting. Correcting the perceptions that cell phones work everywhere was the first order of business. We also discussed a variety of technologies to aid in a potential rescue from perspective of the search subject. That discussion included various beacons, FRS/GMRS, ham radio, and air band portables (for those who happen to have them). Most important however, was the need to adequately prepare for conditions in order to take care of yourself, and to tell someone where the heck you are going.
When I leave town I tell someone where I am going, planned routes, even what frequencies my radio(s) will be on. APRS tracking helps too. My car and backpack include survival kits. So if something bad happens I will be found, and I prepare to stay alive for a long time!
Kim wasn't a hiker, and did not expect to get lost in difficult terrain. Sure, he could have been better prepared, but if you had talked to him about a survival kit in the car he likely would have discounted it as un-necessary since he stayed on public roads.
But... my squadron has a team of officers that go to flight schools with exactly that kind of information... knowledge to keep you alive until rescue when your airplane turns itself into a camper. We have a power point to support it with survival information. Your post gives me an idea to modify the power point for motorists and seek out whole new audiences for this information.
Thanks... Florida has a LOT of remote areas and trails where you could get lost, and the wildlife to make getting lost a life-threatening adventure.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 05, 2010, 12:36:12 PMEven some of our clueless cadets could have found them.
Could you clarify that please?
Kack...thats what FWC is for....they are the REAL SAR in FL.
The Fourth Core Value of the Civil Air Patrol is Respect.
Too many reasons for me to list why I posted this.
Quote from: nesagsar on December 05, 2010, 04:25:06 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 05, 2010, 12:36:12 PMEven some of our clueless cadets could have found them.
Could you clarify that please?
Cadets clueless about SAR. It seemed pretty obvious to me what he meant.
It means they were making themselves so obvious... more so than most of our SAR targets... that in a properly-resourced air search they would have been hard to miss!
Even a cadet could have found them, unless he tripped over a tree root first and had to fill out a 78!
QuoteIn Oregon, the Sheriff is the official legally charged with SAR operations. The CAP wing commander (I was told by people close to the situation) told the Sheriff to call AFRCC and request CAP participation. CAP did not have an MOU with the Sheriff. The Sheriff refused, opting instead to use a commercial helicopter for the search rented by the Kim extended family.
The Sheriff... NOT a pilot... pontificated to the media, after Kim's body was found, that: "The area was not one that could be searched by fixed-wing aircraft."
QuoteThe Sheriff relied on a SINGLE rotary-wing helicopter operated by a commercial pilot not trained in SAR.
CAP was not involved. There is no dispute about that.
As for other air assets, this is from the after action report timeline (in time sequence)
Day 1 of search-
The Kim family contacted the private helicopter company directly and hired three helicopters. The helo company contacted the sheriff of County A to say that they had been hired.
Sheriff of County B contacted Oregon OEM requesting helo support. OEM calls the National Guard for helicopters.
Through backchannels ONG finds out private helos have been hired, calls OEM to say they can't fly until this gets sorted out.
Kim's employer, CNET, calls Oregon's Governor's Office and requests helicopters be used.
Oregon State Police calls County C and ask that it launch its air asset. Which it does without coordination with anyone.
ONG coordinates air operations with the contractor hired by the Kims. ONG launches one helicopter.
At the end of the first day, ONG contacts Oregon OEM to close out. OEM tells ONG that they it will "try" to get CAP up tomorrow morning. This is the only mention of CAP in the 54 page timeline.
ONG calls AFRCC to close. AFRCC says it has no involvement in the search.
End of day 1.
**********
The complete Air Ops log shows:
Oregon National Guard flew one helicopter on five of six days of the search. It also flew an additional FLIR equipped helo on three nights.
The private helo firm flew three helicopters on all six days.
County C's aircraft flew on four of the six days.
Mike
The after-action report from the Sheriff made no mention of the Guard helicopter nor the other county helicopter.
The Guard's reluctance to employ its air asset is understandable, National Guard regulations forbid the use of Guard assets as a "Community support" project when private contractors are involved, or funding exists to hire private contractors.
The Sheriff had two options:
1. Call AFRCC and request AF support. If that had happened, CAP would probably have been activated, AND the Guard may have been tasked to use its FLIR-equipped helicopter as a Federal mission.
2. Call the Governor, and request support from the NG. The Governor could have activated the Guard as a State mission. As it was, they seem to have been trying to use drill funds by covering this as a "Training missiion" which places it under the community support rules.
He exercised neither option.
One thing is unclear to me...
Does the Oregon Wing have an MOU with the State, either with the AG or another agency? If so, then CAP could have been activated as a State asset as a corporate mission. If, of course, the Sheriff had requested State support from the Governor.
CAP has MOUs with every state (its a requirement).
John - the Guard flew as a state asset at the request of one of the sheriffs involved. The final AAR gives names, dates, times, etc. of who talked to whom, and includes the tail numbers of the Guard helos. Again, it flew one or two helicopters on 5 of the 6 days of the search.
It was Oregon OEM who activated the Guard and would try to get CAP to fly. As stated, CAP never flew.
The MOU between Oregon and AFRCC on the Oregon OEM webpage at: http://www.oregon.gov/OMD/OEM/tech_resp/sar_docs/afrcc-mou.pdf
There aren't any MOUs between CAP and the State on that page.
Mike
Quote from: sardak on December 06, 2010, 12:15:12 AM
There aren't any MOUs between CAP and the State on that page.
There may not be one posted on the internet, but every CAP wing is required to have their own separate MOU with the state regarding CAP operations.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 06, 2010, 01:31:47 AM
Quote from: sardak on December 06, 2010, 12:15:12 AM
There aren't any MOUs between CAP and the State on that page.
There may not be one posted on the internet, but every CAP wing is required to have their own separate MOU with the state regarding CAP operations.
Even when the state is uninterested in executing an MOU with CAP?
It takes both parties to tango.
Quote from: NIN on December 06, 2010, 03:23:51 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 06, 2010, 01:31:47 AM
Quote from: sardak on December 06, 2010, 12:15:12 AM
There aren't any MOUs between CAP and the State on that page.
There may not be one posted on the internet, but every CAP wing is required to have their own separate MOU with the state regarding CAP operations.
Even when the state is uninterested in executing an MOU with CAP?
It takes both parties to tango.
Well, there is a way to avoid getting dinged on your next CI if you don't have such an MOU. Do you have an example?
My state has no interest in the conversation, we have not had an MOU for a number of years.
We've turned down the wrong fork in the road with this discussion, but I agree. If a state doesn't want an MOU with CAP the two shouldn't be required to have one. However, CAPR 111-2 paragraph 3(a)(2) states (using some flawed logic):
It is presumed that every state has a recurring need for CAP services and support. Therefore, every CAP wing is required to maintain a current MOU with the state in which it operates. Each wing that does not have a current MOU with the state must submit a statement of reasons through its region commander to the CAP/CC with a copy to National Headquarters General Counsel (NHQ CAP/GC).
Here is a link to the MOUs and MOAs between states and AFRCC. These may or may not count as the "state MOU." Our most recent MOU (not posted here) was signed last year before the reg was published, but it's signed by CAP, state sheriffs association, state SAR association, state emergency management and AFRCC. We don't plan on creating another MOU.
https://1afnorth.region1.ang.af.mil/JPRC/State%20MOUMOA/Forms/AllItems.aspx
Mike
Quote from: Eclipse on December 06, 2010, 03:48:26 AM
My state has no interest in the conversation, we have not had an MOU for a number of years.
Not even with the state EMA?
Interesting conversation, but almost totally out of touch with the original question. Perhaps someone from Oregon can shed some "factual" light on the whole subject.
I do know that in Washington, CAP used to be the last organization called in the event of a search. That may have changed, but it was true a couple of years ago. That said, WAWG is quite active in the CD world up there.
In CA, we get called on a fairly regular basis by CALEMA, with whom we have a pretty good relationship.