The Future of UDF...?

[Major Carrales]

There are many who are calling the future of UDF into question.  With advances in ELT technology and continued advancement in GPS it seems that call outs are 0300 hrs to go to some GOD forsaken little airstrip my be numbers. 

DNALL has expressed the date of 2009.  This got me thinking...

1) There are those that seem to the that CAP's UDF is specifically for false alarms.

2) UDF and its purpose will have to evolve.

It is from here I would like to solicit speculations...

I see UDF as becoming more of a tool of a search than a search itself.

For example, and I know there may be issues with this at current.

Let say a aircraft goes down in an isolated wooded area or other area of difficult under developed status.  Could an aircrew drop an ELT-like beacon from an aircraft to assist in guiding a ground team to that position? Thus a gorund team woudl have to have a LEADER, a team memebers and a UDF member as well.

In a world were an ELT search of the type we do now would better be serviced by a phone call to the aircraft's owner or airport manager from some GROUP LEVEL OFFICER or even directly from AFRCC...would such a skill be possible in the manner I described?

If not, propose sepcultation of the future of UDF...

[RiverAux]

If the aircrew has spotted the crash it will be quicker for them to transmit the coordinates to the ground team who can input them in their GPS and go to those coordinates.

DFing will continue to be in the toolbox.

Personally, I think there is good potential for a loss of non-distress ELT work to be replaced by distress PLB calls if CAP plays their cards right with the locals. 

[Chris Jacobs]

Thus a gorund team woudl have to have a LEADER, a team memebers and a UDF member as well.

You wouldn't have a UDF person on a ground team.  Any ways a ground team member has to be able to track an ELT as part of their SQTR.  You would not dispatch a UDF member into the woods.

[lordmonar]

Thus a gorund team woudl have to have a LEADER, a team memebers and a UDF member as well.

You wouldn't have a UDF person on a ground team.  Any ways a ground team member has to be able to track an ELT as part of their SQTR.  You would not dispatch a UDF member into the woods.

The U in UDF stands for URBAN....once you leave the URBAN area you are what NIMS calls a WSAR...wilderness search and rescue with ELT capabilities.

Second...if a search aircraft got eyes on target...why drop an ELT?  Just give me the GPS coordinates...I'll plot it on my map...and I'm there!

[Major Carrales]

Thus a gorund team woudl have to have a LEADER, a team memebers and a UDF member as well.

You wouldn't have a UDF person on a ground team.  Any ways a ground team member has to be able to track an ELT as part of their SQTR.  You would not dispatch a UDF member into the woods.

The U in UDF stands for URBAN....once you leave the URBAN area you are what NIMS calls a WSAR...wilderness search and rescue with ELT capabilities.

Second...if a search aircraft got eyes on target...why drop an ELT?  Just give me the GPS coordinates...I'll plot it on my map...and I'm there!

I guess that, living in South Texas, the term URBAN make mores sense to me as a Pope than as an environment.  I can't think why they even call it UDF when most times, in my experience, these things happen at those small County Airports that are RURAL.  I would ore correctly just call it a DF team.

In any case, I'm only speculating on how UDF might be used in the future.

[isuhawkeye]

DF cant be going to far if FEMA has resource typed them

[SarDragon]

The definition of rural, WRT UDF team activities, for most folks living in Texas seems to be very different from rural here in California. IIRC, much of Texas is flat, or at least has more gradual elevation changes. Here, much of the state has frequent and significant elevation changes, coupled with dense vegetation.  We have a much more limited UDF working area because of this. For us, it's much more a case of where you can drive than how many people are living in the area.

[Major Carrales]

The definition of rural, WRT UDF team activities, for most folks living in Texas seems to be very different from rural here in California. IIRC, much of Texas is flat, or at least has more gradual elevation changes. Here, much of the state has frequent and significant elevation changes, coupled with dense vegetation.  We have a much more limited UDF working area because of this. For us, it's much more a case of where you can drive than how many people are living in the area.

Thanks Dave,

You are correct...much of our land is flat and elevation is gradual if present at all.  URBAN, to many in my area, would be something like Houston, the DFW Metroplex, San Antonio and the like.  Truely, limited areas in regard to the rest of the State.  I might consider Corpus Christi Proper to be somewhat URBAN but drive for 10 or 15 minutes (like towards Calallen or just past the Southside) and you are in COTTON COUNTRY.

Kinsgville, Texas and Alice, Texas fit no definition of URBAN I can think of, unless you count a RAILROAD as an URBAN FIXTURE.

I should very much like to visit California some day.  My wife has some relatives there, near San Jose if I am not mistaken.

[DNall]

The new ELTs should kill most non-distress issues, and distress calls also as LE will respond to the GPS & search the area. It's when you have a confirmed missing target & no signal (virtually assured they're dead) that CAP will still be involved in Search ops.

I'm glad you got some knowledgable posters reponding on this one, cause I'm relaly not an expert, just able to listen to others & read the FEMA site is all.

Look at the bottom of this one for WSAR which is what our GTM3 is going to have to meet: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nims/sar_jobtitle_111806.pdf This is the one you'll see me harping on. There's a lot of people in CPA that can & would be happy to meet these standards. On the other hand a lot of people are going to freak out & our retention will look bad for a while.

This one will show you the capabilities guide for aircrew, UDF, & WSAR (aircrew & UDF almost seeming to be written for CAP). The credentialing isn't written yet for fixed-wing aircrew or UDF, but if you'll look at the WSAR capabilities page in this doc & compare it to the above PDF on what is required to be a team member on a team with those capabilites, you can see why it's expected to be a challenge.

By the way if you're not understanding that type I-III/IV maybe someone else can explain it better than me, but Type I is a Katrina lik efederal multi-state incident. TypeIII is basically your standard 3am ELT mission.

[sardak]

The definitions of incident types are in this thread
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1285.0

A "typical" 3 AM ELT mission is a Type V or IV incident.  Even a missing airplane search may not expand into a Type III incident.  Factors determining incident complexity include incident staffing requirements, duration and how many agencies besides CAP become involved.

Also, keep in mind that resource typing and incident type or complexity are not directly related.  Even Type I and II incidents use Type IV, V and "higher" resources.  The common wildland fire engines are Type 6 and 7, and one can't fight a Type I wildland fire without them.

As for UDF roles, all that happens in 2009 is that the Sarsat system stops monitoring and processing 121.5 signals.  There is no requirement for general aviation in the US to replace its "old generation" ELTs with 406 MHz "new generation" beacons.

Beacon registration for the 406 MHz beacons (ELT, PLB, EPIRB) is nowhere near 100%.  So the plan of just calling the phone number to resolve an incident hasn't come to pass.

Old or new, someone still has to go locate the beacons.  Not all of the 406 MHz beacons have GPS capability.  Even with GPS,  the coordinates only get you to the airport or vicinity of the beacon (maybe).  Close in DF work will still be required.  Who goes out to find them is still based on the MOU/MOA between a state and AFRCC.  In most states that is CAP for ELTs.

As for the 121.5 beacons, the system will revert to the pre-Sarsat days.  Reports from overflying aircraft and ground stations will reach AFRCC.  Someone is going to have figure out where they are, and find them if necessary.  That will be still be CAP's job for the most part.

Will the number of missions decrease with time? Possibly, but I don't see it as doom and gloom for UDF or ground teams.

Mike

[DNall]

General Aviation will follow after after they lose sat support. They just don't want to punish the little guys. EPIRBs already have mandatory changed, & they were a percentage of our missions. I don't know about elsewhere, but maybe as much as 40% or more here on the coast.

406 beacons have over 80% registration rate, some of the rest of that is not yet installed, a little more is still tracable thru the installers. 75% of non-distress missions won't happen anymore. Of the remaining 25%, the cops are going to run GPS on a bunch. The probability of a distress situation after all that is pretty low, as will be the financial latitude left to spend. When you get to that point, it's just not cost efficient to maintain a $100million fleet of 535 planes, 20mil in radios, 25mil a year budget, etc... it's just not worth it. Maybe a quarter of that, but there's a size point where CAP can't operate below & the resource pool is so small it's useless.

[RiverAux]

You know some states have laws requiring aircraft emergency beacons.  I wonder how they are handling this switchover? 

[lordmonar]

You know some states have laws requiring aircraft emergency beacons.  I wonder how they are handling this switchover? 

You mean above and beyond the FAA requirement?  I thought all aircraft (not gliders and ultra lights) that flew farther than 50 miles had to have an ELT.

Am I mistaken or are we talking about two different things?

[RiverAux]

Nope, we're talking about ELTs being required by state law.  Why the states have the requirements, I don't know, but they're there.  I have no idea how widespread it is though.

[badger bob]

The U in UDF stands for URBAN....once you leave the URBAN area you are what NIMS calls a WSAR...wilderness search and rescue with ELT capabilities.

I don't disagree with the dictionary definition,but do disagree with the practical definition. A urban team by practice must be able to mount their search vehicle mounted. Teams must have two or more and have the vehicle available for extended communications. A urban team can drive to a very rural airport and search for a ELT. A urban team could drive into the mountains or even into the National Forest for a "hasty" vehicle mounted search- but should never leave the immediate vicinity of the vehicle until reinforcements arrive. Food, clothing, and shelter are less of an issue with a "urban" ground team because we assume they can drive to the Holiday Inn at night or to McDonald's when they are hungry. A Urban team could have been directed by an aircraft to the lost party in the mountains of Oregon. Two Urban teams of two members each can do vehicle mounted hasty searches; but then join into one ground team to go off road.

A full ground team must be large enough to leave at least one person with the vehicles or base camp to provide support and communications, must be able to operate away from the vehicle overnight if needed and carry their own food and water.  That could be in the middle of Central Park in a "urban" area or in the very flat wheat fields of Kansas.

Its not where you are but how you are used.

[Chris Jacobs]

I think the key thing to the urban or non urban team is what kind of roads you are on.  Are you on an improved road, or are you on the old logging road in the middle of no where that no one had driven on in the last 5 years.

[Major Lord]

Remember too that GPS equipped ELT's only send good coordinates if they can acquire good GPS LOS to satellites. Also,If for some reason, your crashed aircraft is not in showroom new shape, but is instead upside down in the trees, and you  have  fuel running down your neck ( like pee does on a sloth) your 406 signal may be obstructed. Tree growth, foliage and snow absorb UHF energy like a senior member absorbs beer. That tiny litle 121 .5 beacon is how we are going to find your sorry butt! As far as sending UDF members into the woods, there are a few I could think of to send on solo missions.....

[Dragoon]

I've always wondered about the registration of 406 GPS's.  For example, when I sell the plane, are there safeguards to make sure the GPS registration gets moved to the new guy?  Or when I move or change my phone number, how do they know?

I'm concerned that as the 406's propogate, there will be a lot of cases of "we can't contact the registered owner, so we have to treat it as distress. Call CAP!"

[lordmonar]

I've always wondered about the registration of 406 GPS's.  For example, when I sell the plane, are there safeguards to make sure the GPS registration gets moved to the new guy?  Or when I move or change my phone number, how do they know?

I'm concerned that as the 406's propogate, there will be a lot of cases of "we can't contact the registered owner, so we have to treat it as distress. Call CAP!"

That may happen.....but compared to right now...all we got is...there is a beacon at so-and-so coordinates...call CAP!

Even if we run into the problem of AFRCC calling the registered owner and he is not home or he sold the plane...there will be a lot of times when we do get a hold of the owner who says...NO...my plane's is not flying right now...it must be a false alarm...I'll go and turn it off.

We will still have a reduction of the number of ramp checks we will have to do.

[Dragoon]

No doubt.  But that's still a far cry from "CAP will be out of the ELT business in a few years!"

[lordmonar]

No doubt.  But that's still a far cry from "CAP will be out of the ELT business in a few years!"

No..that will never happen.  We will still have to do ramp checks and planes will still fall out of the sky.  But we may be put out of a job once the level of work falls below the point where we need to have a dedicated fleet of aircraft and personnel on standby to do them.

It is simply a cost/benifit analysis.

To stave this off we have to do it better and cheaper than anyone else for as long as we can.  We need to improve our relationships with local and state level agencies.  Being in close with the USAF is all well and good....but if the local sherrif or state emergency services director does not know or trust our capabilities we will never get the call.

[Dragoon]

The faster/cheaper point is well taken.

While I'm a big fan of getting closer to local ES authorities, I'm not sure that effects the ELT mission.  That goes straight from the satellites to AFRCC to us.  Of course, there's always the chance that a state (like Washington did) will decide that they want someone other than CAP to be the primary ELT chaser in their area.  But that normally only comes if we really really piss them off (like Washington did)

But getting more connected locally will give us more missions which may help justify the current fleet size when things get a bit more sparse on the ELT side.

[RiverAux]

Where the satellite info goes depends on what agreement the AFRCC has with each individual state.  They do not automatically call CAP in all cases. 

[sardak]

I've always wondered about the registration of 406 GPS's.  For example, when I sell the plane, are there safeguards to make sure the GPS registration gets moved to the new guy?  Or when I move or change my phone number, how do they know?

The government is trying to make it as easy as possible.  406 beacon (ELT, EPIRB, PLB) registration is done on the Internet at http://www.beaconregistration.noaa.gov/
However, some owners don't register because this is one more way that Big Brother can track you.  Which, well, is the whole idea.  Federal law also requires registration.  But if you never set off the beacon, no one knows if it's registered or not.

An owner can go in and update the information as often as desired.  PLB owners have been known to update their information with trip itineraries.  The system also reminds a registered owner every two years to check the information. 

Mike

[brasda91]

There are many who are calling the future of UDF into question.  With advances in ELT technology and continued advancement in GPS it seems that call outs are 0300 hrs to go to some GOD forsaken little airstrip my be numbers. 

DNALL has expressed the date of 2009.  This got me thinking...

1) There are those that seem to the that CAP's UDF is specifically for false alarms.

2) UDF and its purpose will have to evolve.

It is from here I would like to solicit speculations...

I see UDF as becoming more of a tool of a search than a search itself.

For example, and I know there may be issues with this at current.

Let say a aircraft goes down in an isolated wooded area or other area of difficult under developed status.  Could an aircrew drop an ELT-like beacon from an aircraft to assist in guiding a ground team to that position? Thus a gorund team woudl have to have a LEADER, a team memebers and a UDF member as well.

In a world were an ELT search of the type we do now would better be serviced by a phone call to the aircraft's owner or airport manager from some GROUP LEVEL OFFICER or even directly from AFRCC...would such a skill be possible in the manner I described?

If not, propose sepcultation of the future of UDF...

Hello everybody.  I have been more of a Patron member than an Active member the last couple of years.  I'm starting to get back into the swing of things.  Has there been some changes/or suggestions to the use of UDF teams?  I noticed on my 101 that my UDF qualification was gone (everything else is still current).  What is the current news with ES?

[DNall]

No doubt.  But that's still a far cry from "CAP will be out of the ELT business in a few years!"

No..that will never happen.  We will still have to do ramp checks and planes will still fall out of the sky.  But we may be put out of a job once the level of work falls below the point where we need to have a dedicated fleet of aircraft and personnel on standby to do them.

It is simply a cost/benifit analysis.

To stave this off we have to do it better and cheaper than anyone else for as long as we can.  We need to improve our relationships with local and state level agencies.  Being in close with the USAF is all well and good....but if the local sherrif or state emergency services director does not know or trust our capabilities we will never get the call.

With respect... I mean you're not wrong, but I think we need to do that stuff TOO, not first. Doing a better job w/ ELTs may keep us alive a little longer as the work trickles away, but it doesn't secure the future. At some point it's eacier to give DF's & planes to the state & let them deal with it. Actually, we're already past that point, but at some point you can't justify keeping CAP in business just cause it does theis AND cadet programs.

I don't know what the local sherriff is going to do for you. We did something like 360 ELT searches last year, about average. How many missing persons searches you think you can come up with? Or disaster work? The volumen between the two is low, and both REQUIRE NIMS certification, which very soon is going to have to be verifies & documented by FEMA on a card they issue you. Soon as you go that direction, PT test & all, CAP takea  bit of a turn don't cha think? When you get up under those standards then you can do quite a bit of other stuff too. It's still going to be more training & fewer missions, but the missions will be more important front line type stuff.

All that's fine & dandy, we should do everything just mentioned. However, not one bit of it has anything to do with the AF & so plugs in as ZERO in that cost benefit analysis. That's a problem, a big honkin massive problem. That's going to mean CAP adapting to another kind of business. Lots of HLS/HLD flying is what we'd like to do, but we're going to have to tighten up w/ AF to get that work & find other things we can do for them too. I mean there ain't no HLD GT work to be had.

[Ricochet13]

Here's a thought on UDF teams as they have a couple of advantages for initial deployment. 

One, UDF teams require a minimum of two members while GND Teams require a minimum of four members.  That makes their use a little more agile in remote areas for any initial search while reinforcements or an separate GND Team can be mobilized and placed in position if needed. 

Two, they provide a good one-on-one learning environment for officers and cadets new to ES and its procedures and get them out into the field enviironment.

Similar to MS in the aircrews.  They are not expected to do everything, but rather learn through an introductory experience. 

Being UDF qualified myself I have no great desire to move to GTM.  Communications or Planning are where I normally participate on missions.  It is nice however, to get into the field.  Reminds me of what the folks with their "boots on the ground" go through.  So far only beacons . . . but always mindful it may turn out to be the "real thing" one day.

Oh . . . and I do go "into the woods" when necessary.  It's pretty remote where I live.  My vehicles has my snowshoes mounted on a rack in the back right now as a matter of fact.

[Dragoon]

How many missing persons searches you think you can come up with? Or disaster work? The volumen between the two is low, and both REQUIRE NIMS certification, which very soon is going to have to be verifies & documented by FEMA on a card they issue you.

I think you're moving way too fast here.  Most missing person searches are executed and funded locally.  I can't see any requirement to NIMS.

Also, the NIMS standards are in draft and are evolving,aren't they?  The govt moves slow.  Things will change (and the standards will change) long before "the sky starts falling" and we get cut off.  Plus, if there is ANY cost involved in the certs, rest assured state assets will raise holy hell unless funds come from on high to pay for it.

That said, when something does come out that is official, CAP should (and I think will) attempt to get in on it early, if only to show that we are team players.

[sardak]

Local SAR incidents do not require NIMS compliance, certification, credentialing or anything else.

NIMS compliance is required for federal grants and participation on "incidents of national significance."  A local agency (e.g. sheriff's office) needs to be NIMS compliant to receive federal grants.  The SO may require its local SAR group to be NIMS compliant but that is the SO's call, not the feds.

Now, if an incident of national significance occurs in a county where the local SAR group is not NIMS compliant, the feds can keep the local agency from participating because the feds are in charge of the incident.  But the ability for the feds to keep a local agency from participating exists today and pre-dates NIMS.

EMAC (Emergency Management Assistance Compact) which is the non-federal system for states to request mutual aid from other states, may require deployed resources to be NIMs compliant.  That remains to be seen, but is likely.

Look at the need for SAR resources to be deployed nationally.  Excluding hurricanes and possibly some multi-state tornado outbreaks, there has been only one SAR incident of national significance, the shuttle Columbia recovery.

The FEMA resource typing documents are not drafts.  They have been in effect for a couple of years.

The NIMS credentialing document for SAR ("job titles") has not been adopted yet.  The public review period on that closed January 15 so the working group has hardly gotten started on reviewing the comments.

As for FEMA issuing credentials, this is from the NIC Credentialing FAQs.

Q8.
Will DHS/FEMA issue credentials?
No. Current governmental and non-governmental credentialing bodies at the federal, state, territorial and local levels will continue to issue credentials. Many of these credentialing systems are rooted in state licensure statutes and other well-established requirements and processes. Where no processes or requirements presently exist, those elements listed in Q6 will be important for participation in a national system.

Q6.
What are the requirements for a national credentialing system?
A national credentialing system must:
• Function within existing federal, state, tribal and local identification and qualification protocols, where feasible;
• Not place undue burden on federal, state, tribal or local governments;
• Support (primarily) interstate augmentation of state and local resources;
• Conform to ICS protocols; and
• Use current credentialing emergency responder systems, where possible.

Now the skeptics in the crowd may believe that someday the feds will cram compliance and credentialing down everyone's throat anyway, regardless of federal funding, incident type or what is posted on a website.  Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion.

Mike

[RiverAux]

Part of NIMS is a requirement that state governments become compliant with it, so yes, it will be involved in just about any incident you can think of.