ELT Radio Direction Finding is still needed!

[aveighter]

LM you make some valid points.  I think most of the pilots here would agree that without the AF, or another federal agency of similar size and funding, there would effectively cease to be Air in CAP.

As Dennis points out, the advertised cost of flying to the potential customer is highly subsidized by the taxpayors.  The only reason CG Aux is able to muster a handful of member-owned aircraft is because Uncle Sam is underwriting the risks of such flights.  Ask the average owner pilot what his insurance underwriter would do to him if the company knew he was going to fly his aircraft in the same manner and the same circumstances that we do.  The short answer is sky rocketing premiums.  Instant warstopper.  Even so, the most you might have as a fleet would be a sprinkling of aircraft spread throughout the entire nation.  Functionally useless for anything other than the occasional O-flight here and there.

One would also have to consider the regulatory impact on such an operation from the FAA.  Would it be Part 91, would they see it as a Part 135 operation with all that entails?  I sure don't know but it needs to be thrown into the mix for consideration.

Personally I think the future lies in the development of certain types of HLS activities that we are well suited for our capabilities along with our current responsibilities.  I think the AF relationship is the one to nurture but if not that then another federal agency otherwise the organization pretty much ceases to exist.

[DNall]

I won't say a fear of change....I just don't want it.  I joined CAP to work with Cadets and do ES work.  If CAP changes and ends up doing something else....I have no need/desire to stay with the organization.  Maybe I just find some ex-CAP ES types and form a Boy Scout Explorer Post and keep on working with young Americans and doing ES work.

That's the process of change. CAP has dramatically shifted focus in our history & people have not been accepting; they leave & new ones join just as fast. That's change for ya. CAP responds to the changing needs of our country, not the desires of our members, that's why we don't get to vote, cause we'd screw it up.

The Red Cross serves a purpose that's fills a critical need of society & they started with a fortune to spend getting donations. CAP fills no such need. Certainly not in the eyes of Congress if the AF isn't interested in us anymore.

Right on the first part but wrong on the second.  We will still need to fly SAR.  There will still be lost hikers without PLBs, there will still be a need for small town agencies for a cheap air service, there will still be downed aircraft who's ELT's fail.  There are at least other volunteer Aerial SAR organizations I can find on the web and several commercial air surveillance companies with SAR capabilities.  The BSA flies SAR for gosh sakes.  It would not be all that hard to find customers with money....just look at Iowa.  The got $100K a year without even trying all that hard (don't flame me....you guys are working very hard...and doing a good job....it was just a easier that a lot of people think it would be).

Why do WE need to fly SaR? There will be missions, but probably not enough to justify our massive org. The feds do this out of charity. They just have to pay for AFRCC, the mission belongs to states & they're the ones really responsible for paying for it. The only reason they do this is they know not all states can afford to maintain what we provide, so why not just shift those resources to states that can make better use of them anyway? That's not what I want, but you have to have a really good answer for why is HAS to be US. That's the only thing that keep us kicking & strong.

And why the AF you ask? Cause the AF cares for us on a personal level. They see us running a cadet program that helps them, running AE that generates public support, and a long history of service & savings that they owe us for. Move that to DHS for instance, and it's just dollars & cents. And it don't make sense to pay for something that can be done better faster cheaper another way.

Mission hours subsidized by feds

So we can the corporate fleet and fly member owned aircraft...kill the comm net and eliminate about 90% of the cool stuff cadet activities.  In stead we take a page from the boy scouts and get local funding for the same programs and extend the time between event.  NCC and IACE ever 4 years, kill all the FAM/orientation course that do not really help with our cadet program or our ES mission.  Consolidate our encampments to regional level to hold down costs and staffing.

You hear what you're saying? I'm so unwilling to change that I'll try to go it alone, make every efficiency cut I can, and struggle into the future even though I know deep down that's not sustainable.

You can talk about private funds like BSA & Red Cross got. Massive private endowments & foundations, generations of history & service in the public psyche... You tell people what CAP does & they'll respond that those tasks are mostly the responsibility of the government & I already paid my taxes. You just don't have the marketing potential that they do. They are a charity, we are not. 

I don't understand your reluctance to move away from the USAF?  If the USAF could use us in any other way....they would.  Again I ask you....name one mission that the USAF does right now that we could do cheaper/better than they do that does not involve us crossing the line into combat operations?

See above... & I'll add that Air Staff is actively looking for creative ideas on how far they can go with CAP, AWC had a call for papers as well. They're looking for ideas. They have to sell Congress on those ideas too, so they have to be good. You've seen the ideas though...
1) CRBNE: they fly w/ 16 planes when they aren't deployed monitoring Russia, North Korea, Iran, etc. It's a 1AF mission, DHS can supply some of the upfront for sensors, AF pays the flight time. Question is can our people deal with high security missions critical to the safety of the country? Right now the AF doesn't believe it & that relegates us.

2) Cyber-terrorism: 8AF stood up on that. There's a War College paper championed by Air Staff that talks about forming a NEW auxiliary to encompass computer-whiz types & industry partners in support of the AF mission, and CAP is specifically mentioned as the model for that organization. Well that's stupid, why would you not just slide that effort up under the established CAP structure.

3) Augmentation: from professional degrees (medical, engineers, lawyers, etc) supporting directly or indirectly to families & such; to skilled labor on the model CGAux or SDFs use. In both cases they are partnered by location. They allow people to train up to meet the same req's for a job & stand in on wknds or whatever. It's a successful established system that just needs to be tweaked & adopted to the AF. Again, questions about our ability to do their jobs.

Then there's heading down the NIMS road for more traditional ES that gets us real SaR & disaster work, but those standards will massively reshape CAP, especially the GTs.

[lordmonar]

I guess that's the big difference between you and I.

You don't care what we do....so long as we are the USAF-AUX...while I don't care who we are associated with so long as we do ES missions.

I want to fly and do ground team work to help my community and contry.  I am willing to do the mission base stuff and admin work to make that happen. 

I also like working with cadets. 

If the USAF no longer needs/wants us to do this type of work...well I'll go elsewhere.

In the spirit of this thread...someone will always want/need and airborne search capability.  It may or may not be less or more than it is now. 

If the CAP folds or moves onto cyberattack or is just a part time work force for mundane USAF jobs...I'll not stay with CAP and find other activities.

AND this is the factor that you forget when you are discussing future changes to CAP.

CAP is made up primarily of civilians who have an instrest in aviation AND helping our nation/state/city.  If you take away either of those two components...you will lose your membership base and then where would you be?

[DNall]

Like I said, that'd be ashame to lose members like yourself, but CAP was not set
up to be a SaR agency, it was set up to serve the needs of the AF. For a while now one small part of that has been SaR, but that's not who we are. I understand why people are hesitant to move in another direction, but that's what society needs from us now.

A couple generations of Americans trained during the cold war to fight one enemy in one way, then the world changed & a lot of things were obselete all of a sudden. Those people had the choice to accept & adapt, or to make way for a new generation to carry us thru to a new era. That's happened in CAP before at historic juntcures in our history, and we're at another such junture today.

I think it's short-sighted to think our members are here for the mission alone & don't care beyond that. For a whole lot of us it's about the service to our country in a para-military culture & the mission itself is just some task we're assigned. It has been a ncie bonus that teh SaR mission makes you feel warm & fuzzy, and that will still be there, as will cadet programs, but we have to diversify well beyond just those things.

I appreciate your opinion. It's certainly a valid view to hold & I'm sure you're not alone, but for me simple economics decide the issue once & for all. We'll do just as we've always done when the country needs us elsewhere, we'll remember our roots & change direction to serve in ever new ways. That's who we are & what we're about, & always have been.

[RiverAux]

DNALL, SAR has been a major part of CAP since our founding.  The coastal patrol and other major WWII ops get all the press in CAP history books, but back in the regular states CAP members were flying SAR for missing airplanes and other ES work from the beginning.  My state probably had more SAR and ES missions during WWII than we have in the last 4 years (not counting ELT missions). 

[DNall]

So at that point SaR was there, but in the background... then after the war as GA picked up SaR did too & it was applied to civilians as well as the military.... then Cold war got busy & Civil Defense was the national priority, CAP switched lanes, SaR was still there but in the background... CD dropped back SaR was left behind, ELTs came along & dropped the mission load, signal SaR picked up... Disaster had our attention for some time on equal footing w/ SaR (that might have depended on where you lived)... We're at another historical point where national priorities & demand for our serivces are changing again.

We'll still be doing SaR, it's not going away, but it's just a job, not who we are. If the CG decided the CGAux would stop doing safety checks & focus all their energy on environmental monitoring, you'd salute (maybe not) and go do what they needed done right? Would some members that just lived boater safety be all up in arms & quit, sure but who cares, close ranks, recruit, & march on. You do what the country needs done, and what the country needs done today is different than a couple years ago. That means we have to adapt, show them how we can still be useful in other ways & move out briskly to aid the military in time of war & domestic threat.

[lordmonar]

DNALL, SAR has been a major part of CAP since our founding.  The coastal patrol and other major WWII ops get all the press in CAP history books, but back in the regular states CAP members were flying SAR for missing airplanes and other ES work from the beginning.  My state probably had more SAR and ES missions during WWII than we have in the last 4 years (not counting ELT missions). 

Don't bother him with facts...he's on a roll!

[RiverAux]

I wouldn't hesitate to say that SAR and DR work was the primary use of CAP during WWII.  A very close second (and very possibly co-equal) was the cadet program of the time which had a high focus on flight training and getting youths ready to join the military. 

Only about 4500 CAP members participated in coastal patrol, target towing, and the other high profile missions, but there were well over 100,000 members at any one time after it got going during the war. 

This probably isn't a bad analogy for what is going on now in CAP.  A very tiny number of CAP members are participating in the high-profile homeland security missions while most actual CAP missions still relate to old fashioned typical missions. 

[IronRangerMN]

well, kinda back on subject a little.....
our guys could have made 6 mike hike to the location the same time or less than rangers possible, used DF equipment and found them no problem w/o air support, and "created" a LZ for a helo to get in and medivac the guy, but we have no mountain climbing training(Minnesota) so we would not have been able to recover him off the cliff if it was extreme.

We would have also had a super slow reaction time if we were that 200 mikes away like said ealier in the post. But we could stay fielded overnight no problem.

But if any GT was that far away, id say that be a no-go for any team.

[DNall]

well, kinda back on subject a little.....
our guys could have made 6 mike hike to the location the same time or less than rangers possible, used DF equipment and found them no problem w/o air support, and "created" a LZ for a helo to get in and medivac the guy, but we have no mountain climbing training(Minnesota) so we would not have been able to recover him off the cliff if it was extreme.

We would have also had a super slow reaction time if we were that 200 mikes away like said ealier in the post. But we could stay fielded overnight no problem.

But if any GT was that far away, id say that be a no-go for any team.

I don't know about your team, but there's a lot of out of shape folks walking around claiming to be GTM/Ls. Fact is the right resource was used for the job & most CAP GTs couldn't have done that work, and likely would have been a liability if they tagged along with teh park rangers. I realize there are some other individuals or teams that are better than that, but you call for resources & never know what is going to show up at your mission base. You want more missions, go start units in those big geographic gaps, and get all your people WSAR qual'd & listed with the state & feds.

[IronRangerMN]

We could have done it but it was definatly done right the way that it was.

[SARPilotNY]

SAR forces have been spoiled by the SARSAT for years and when it falls from the skies soon, we will be back to where we were thirty years ago! Almost.

A plane crashes in the remote woods of wherever.  His 406 beacon goes off but the antenna is inverted or covered so a 406 GPS fix is not  given.  The SARSAT is able to give a generalized fix only for 24 hours when it shuts down to save power for the low powered 121.5 homing signal.  The closest road or highpoint is miles away.  Hope the weather is good to get rescuers in before the homing signal dies.  My experience is the 121.5 signal is good for less than 1/2 mile and more like 1/4 mile over flat terrain.  I doubt alot of our folks have enough confidence in the SARSAT to hike several miles to where the SARSAT thinks it is only to hope to hear the homing signal.

[jeders]

all you cranky old guys out there,

cranky younger middle-aged guy here!

Cranky college aged guy.

I think that, for a short time anyway, we'll have more missions than ever after the 406 mandate date. Why you ask.

1. Lots of ELTs being dropped/thrown on benches and accidentally going off.

2. Lots of small airport mechanics taking them and having fun with big brother (It's happened here in Texas)

3. Drug runners getting their hands on old ELTs and placing them on drug bales (Also has already happened in Texas)

4. When the 406 become more wide spred there will be more park rangers and local/state police driving to an area, not finding anything, and going home.

As far as the fight about the waste of time, the problem in Texas, at least out here in West Texas, has nothing to do with who has assets closest. The problem is that DPS wants more funding to get more cool stuff, but they can only get that funding if they're the ones making the rescues. So they don't call CAP until it's been about 24 hours and they've failed, regardless of distress or non distress. So there is definately some reason for some of us to not like the way the DPS handles some things out here.

That being said, if DPS is closer, then they should send up the first air assets.

[sardak]

I think that, for a short time anyway, we'll have more missions than ever after the 406 mandate date.

There is no date mandated for 406 MHz ELTs.  The Sarsat system stops listening to 121.5/243.0 on February 1, 2009.  There is no requirement to have 406 MHz ELTs by that date or any other date.
121.5 MHz EPIRBs became illegal on January 1, 2007.

1. Lots of ELTs being dropped/thrown on benches and accidentally going off.
2. Lots of small airport mechanics taking them and having fun with big brother (It's happened here in Texas)
3. Drug runners getting their hands on old ELTs and placing them on drug bales(Also has already happened in Texas)

While there may be a increase for those reasons, these types of events, including use by drug runners, have been happening for years.

4. When the 406 become more wide spred there will be more park rangers and local/state police driving to an area, not finding anything, and going home.

Probably true, unfortunately, due to the increasing number of PLBs.

That being said, if DPS is closer, then they should send up the first air assets.

Absolutely, and appropriate ground resources, too.  We need to be victim oriented, not concerned with turf battles, which means the quickest resource should be dispatched, but not to the exclusion of others.  Total mission duration needs to be considered. Keeping in mind the four phases of a SAR operation (LAST - Locate Access Stabilize Transport), the first arriving resource may not be the best one to execute the complete mission.  A later arriving resource may be able to get the subject to safety quicker.

As for the future, here are numbers presented by the NOAA Sarsat office at the state SAR coordinators meeting in May.
Projected number of beacons
Year 2010
121.5 ELTs  268,000
406 ELTs 80,000
----------------
121.5 EPIRBs 5,000 (though illegal, there will still be some in use)
406 EPIRBs 190,000
----------------
PLBs (all 406) 65,000

Year 2015
121.5 ELTs 218,000
406 ELTs 152,000
--------------
121.5 EPIRBs 1,500
406 EPIRBs 222,000
---------------
PLBs 100,000

Mike

[RiverAux]

Interesting that they don't expect much decline in the use of 121.5 ELTs by 2015 even though the satellite won't be listening for them anymore. 

[sardak]

The assumption is that most aircraft owners won't replace a 121.5 ELT with a 406 one because it's not required.  However, owners and pilots are buying PLBs to gain the advantages of the 406 beacons and because they're a lot cheaper.  PLB registrations have an entry for "Type" (of usage) with the choices being aircraft, boat, land vehicle, none and other.  The second highest response is "aircraft."  The highest response is "boat."

Another interesting stat is that only 40% of the registered ELTs, about 25% of EPIRBs and 95% of PLBs have GPS capability.

Mike

[SARPilotNY]

I priced placing a new 406 beacon to replace my 121.5 in my aircraft.  Almost 4K.  Why do it?  I can buy a 406 PLB that will do way more for way less.
121.5 will be fine so my wife can collect on my life insurance policy,
406 is great for getting me to the hospital if I am alive.
I just hope I can get to it and I am well enough to turn it on.
I still fly with a SAT Phone, best of all worlds.  All this is fine if I don't crash in the Rockies where a helicopter can't fly in the winter.