This is my first post to the CAPTalk boards, so I ask your patience if this is not the best place to ask this.
On May 30, I was on an aircrew acting as MO while our squadron CC was mission pilot. We were doing lake patrol over Elephant Butte Lake near Truth or Consequences, NM for the better part of four hours. Upon returning to our base in Las Cruces, and after putting our plane away, my CC said I was free to leave since all that was left was for him to sign the gas receipt from the FBO.
Upon leaving the airport to head to the highway, I noticed a gentleman parked on the side of the road, looking distressed, hunched over. I wondered if perhaps he was either fatigued, or in need of medical help, so I pulled alongside him. He had his window rolled down and was on his cell phone. I asked if he needed help, to which he then indicated there was a "crash" 400-500 feet behind him, an area of nothing but sand berms and scrub brush.
My initial thought was that two ATVs had crashed or other ground vehicles since there are dirt/gravel roads that run through there. Upon heading in that direction though, I saw a tail section from a C182 sticking up through the scrub brush. Upon getting to the crash site, I found that the three passengers had already been taken by POV to the other FBO offices at the airport to await medical attention there.
Once the fire department arrived and cordoned off the scene, I returned to the hangar, grabbed the ELT locator, and sure enough found a strong signal on 121.5. My CC and I returned to the crash site, where we had a solid fix on the ELT. After getting permission from the state police officers on scene, we found the ELT on the aircraft and deactivated it.
Over the course of this, we kept our IC for the day informed, but AFRCC was never contacted, and a mission number was never generated. Since a new mission was never created for this event, and the errant tail section led us to the crash site instead of the ELT, does this not meet the criteria for an official find?
Quote from: solarpilot on June 10, 2010, 04:01:40 PMOver the course of this, we kept our IC for the day informed, but AFRCC was never contacted, and a mission number was never generated. Since a new mission was never created for this event, and the errant tail section led us to the crash site instead of the ELT, does this not meet the criteria for an official find?
No, and you had no business being involved. Unless you have a mission number it is not a CAP activity.
What I don't understand is why, if you had an IC, he didn't just call the NOC and get a number. As it was you were not authorized to be there, had no CAP protection and do not qualify for a find. Your IC should have told you to leave it alone.
As to the last part, how you find the plane does not matter - the Find is awarded upon deactivation, because that it the only way you know for sure you "found" the ELT. It is not uncommon for a team to be denied access to an area with a 99.9% probability with no ribbon to show for it.
here are some clarifying questions that should help.
1. When you left the airport from flying were you signed out of the mission?
2. When you became involved in the accident scene were you there as a civilian on his way home from a CAP mission, or were you activley participating in a CAP mission? The line may be vague, but it is important
3. How was the "IC" involved, and what does his/her documentation reflect
Next question - Are you UDF or GT qualified?
Assuming you had a number, aircrew are not authorized for ground operations outside the limited scope of ramp searches.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 10, 2010, 04:08:39 PM
No, and you had no business being involved. Unless you have a mission number it is not a CAP activity.
What I don't understand is why, if you had an IC, he didn't just call the NOC and get a number. As it was you were not authorized to be there, had no CAP protection and do not qualify for a find. Your IC should have told you to leave it alone.
I cannot speak as to why the IC did not call the NOC, all she told us to do was keep her apprised and assist the on-site personnel if requested. While on the scene, the airport manager requested face-to-face that we deactivate the ELT on the downed aircraft. This was my first instance dealing with an actual ELT, so I simply followed my CC's lead.
Quote from: isuhawkeye on June 10, 2010, 04:20:04 PM
1. When you left the airport from flying were you signed out of the mission?
Yes.
Quote from: isuhawkeye on June 10, 2010, 04:20:04 PM
2. When you became involved in the accident scene were you there as a civilian on his way home from a CAP mission, or were you actively participating in a CAP mission? The line may be vague, but it is important.
In the strictest sense, I was a civilian on my way home from a CAP mission when I came upon the incident.
Quote from: isuhawkeye on June 10, 2010, 04:20:04 PM
3. How was the "IC" involved, and what does his/her documentation reflect
The IC was 70 miles away in Alamogordo, and I cannot speak to what her documentation reflected as we informed her about the crash and kept her updated.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 10, 2010, 04:26:14 PM
Next question - Are you UDF or GT qualified?
Assuming you had a number, aircrew are not authorized for ground operations outside the limited scope of ramp searches.
No, I am not UDF or GT qualified. However, the location of the crash was on the airport grounds, just outside the security chain-linked fence, which I think one could argue as a ramp search.
Quote from: solarpilot on June 10, 2010, 04:36:17 PM
No, I am not UDF or GT qualified. However, the location of the crash was on the airport grounds, just outside the security chain-linked fence, which I think one could argue as a ramp search.
Debatable, but regardless, an on-airport crash doesn't generally need CAP help at all. There was no danger to life or property and the FD was on the way.
Further, as a mission scanner you aren't even qualified to operate the DF gear. That doesn't mean you don't know how it works, but we don't do anything in CAP in an ES context unless the SQTR says we are qualified, or we are under the supervision of a qualified instructor. MP's and MO's have demonstrated the ability to operate the DF equipment, MS's haven't, which means that there is just as much a chance that your are operating it incorrectly and impeding the search as helping.
I realize you are new to CAP, and were just doing what you were told, but it sounds like everyone in this story needs a sit-down refresher with the program. No IC worth their badge is going to direct a member to assist an LEA without a mission number of some kind, and as an operator it is your responsibility to insure the adminitrivia is correct before you start working.
You may already be aware of this, but Unit CC's do not have command authority during ES situations beyond authorizing your participation. They can tell you to go home if you are in their unit, and have to OK you being there, but they do not direct operations or actions unless they have ES qualifications outside the command badge, and even then they need higher HQ approval to start doing anything.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 10, 2010, 05:08:10 PM
Further, as a mission scanner you aren't even qualified to operate the DF gear. That doesn't mean you don't know how it works, but we don't do anything in CAP in an ES context unless the SQTR says we are qualified, or we are under the supervision of a qualified instructor. MP's and MO's have demonstrated the ability to operate the DF equipment, MS's haven't, which means that there is just as much a chance that your are operating it incorrectly and impeding the search as helping.
Just to clarify, I am MO qualified, and failing that my CC was a qualified supervisor.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 10, 2010, 05:08:10 PM
You may already be aware of this, but Unit CC's do not have command authority during ES situations beyond authorizing your participation. They can tell you to go home if you are in their unit, and have to OK you being there, but they do not direct operations or actions unless they have ES qualifications outside the command badge, and even then they need higher HQ approval to start doing anything.
I was in fact not aware, likewise I cannot speak directly to my CC's ES qualifications.
To be fair, I do appreciate the insights I've heard so far on this matter. Perhaps if something like this happens again I'll be able to conduct myself a little more accordingly.
Okay.....
First off Good Job!
You did a good thing taking the initiative to insure that the injured people were take care of and you again showed initiative to check the ELT and take action to silence it.
Now....for the bad side of things.
As has been so rudely stated (come on guys let's try to be nice) we cannot self deploy. The NOC must be notified before we sortie any sort of teams.
This is a bad on your IC who should have known this.
Having said all that......in the spirit of the regulations with the concurrence of the IC/Wing commander then yes this would/should count as a find.
Please ignore Eclipse as he has his head all screwed up on the regulations that he forgets the reason why we are in CAP in the first place.
He is correct that the regs keep us safe, they insure that we are covered by insurance and legal issues....which your IC put YOU into jeopardy by not following the regulations.
The IC has a lot of powers about who he can release onto missions.....and a rating on a card is important.....but allowance can be made for specific situations.
So once again....good job...call your IC and/or wing commander about the find credit.
Know that your IC screwed up by the regs......but such things happen all the time.
BZ
good response, Pat. :clap:
Quote from: lordmonar on June 10, 2010, 05:34:50 PM
Please ignore Eclipse as he has his head all screwed up on the regulations that he forgets the reason why we are in CAP in the first place.
Everything's fine until someone loses an eye...
(http://www.wbshop.com/on/demandware.static/Sites-WB-Site/Sites-master-catalog/default/v1259064209738/Images/ProductImages/acsralphgls_t.jpg)
I hope my earlier response was not taken negativley. I should have echoed the praise for a job well done. I see nothing wrong with any of your actions, and you should be praised for doing so.
The question of mission credit for a distressed "Find" would be handled by the IC and the documentation they provide.
Again, good work, but beaware that if you are not signed in on a mission the praise and the liability are yours alone.
Actually, he was still on a CAP mission. He had been flying lake patrol, landed, and then was on his way home. That keeps him on the previous mission until he gets home. As for credit for a "Find", I just don't see it. The crash site had already been identified when he arrived, the occupants already removed, and someone was watching the crash site. The emergency responders were already contacted. After they arrived, he got the DF equipment, went back to the crash site, and confirmed the ELT was still on and then assisted in turning it off. At no time was it lost and needed to be found.
Looking at Short Field's response...I would have to concur with his assessment.
You did a good job....but probably no find.
But....it is not up to us. Ask the IC and Wing CC....they may feel differently.
The Wing Commander is the approving authority. The regs would suggest that the particular circumstances would not qualify, as "normally a definite search objective must have been assigned, located, and positively identified.", but the Wing/CC may decide it was abnormal and award it anyway; there appears to be no reason why it cannot be.
Quote from: Short Field on June 10, 2010, 07:16:56 PM
Actually, he was still on a CAP mission. He had been flying lake patrol, landed, and then was on his way home. That keeps him on the previous mission until he gets home.
For the purpose of transport only. Continued mission operations or participation in a clearly separate mission is not the same thing.
Wait....I have to find and deactivate an ELT to have it count as a "find"? What if I just find a crashed airplane? I don theen so queese draw! Yes, lets encourage members to ignore actual crashes and mayday calls they might hear or see going to or from a mission...OMG, we might not get credit for the save if we are off mission! Better to let those pilots go all crispy-critter while we phone home for a mother-may-I. Rolling up to the scene of a crash and helping out is not the same as self-launching.
Major Lord
Then you're in the wrong wing, some people get finds for airplanes that have been crashed over a week earlier even, or 12-24 hours earlier, where the people are home in bed and reports are filed with the Feds already, EMS/LE have responded and gone home, etc ... But still a distress find. .. because CAP hadn't found it yet. ;)
Quote from: Major Lord on June 10, 2010, 08:47:48 PM
OMG, we might not get credit for the save if we are off mission! Better to let those pilots go all crispy-critter while we phone home for a mother-may-I.
That is just stupid - and you know it.
Its incredibly stupid...and I know it. Actually, that was my point.
Major Lord
My decision to respond to an emergency situation has NOTHING to do with my CAP status and my ability to get some type of CAP bling out of it. If I am on a CAP mission, then I follow CAP rules (you agree to that every time you renew your membership). If I am not on a mission and driving down the road or just hanging at the airport and see an emergency situation, then I will respond accordingly.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 10, 2010, 05:08:10 PM
You may already be aware of this, but Unit CC's do not have command authority during ES situations beyond authorizing your participation. They can tell you to go home if you are in their unit, and have to OK you being there, but they do not direct operations or actions unless they have ES qualifications outside the command badge, and even then they need higher HQ approval to start doing anything.
Squadron CC approval for qualified ES people to participate in SAREXs or missions may vary from wing to wing. However once they sign into a mission release is the IC's call.
Quote from: phirons on June 11, 2010, 07:17:28 PM
Squadron CC approval for qualified ES people to participate in SAREXs or missions may vary from wing to wing. However once they sign into a mission release is the IC's call.
How do the Squadron CCs authorize participation? Verbal, CAP Fm 17, or by exception? Which Wings do this? Why would a qualified ES member need his squadron CC to approve participation in a mission? I just don't see any justification for it outside of extreme micromanagement and tin god syndrome.
If a Squadron CC wants to suspend a member's ES achievements, that is perfectly fine.
Quote from: Short Field on June 11, 2010, 08:12:10 PM
Quote from: phirons on June 11, 2010, 07:17:28 PM
Squadron CC approval for qualified ES people to participate in SAREXs or missions may vary from wing to wing. However once they sign into a mission release is the IC's call.
How do the Squadron CCs authorize participation? Verbal, CAP Fm 17, or by exception? Which Wings do this? Why would a qualified ES member need his squadron CC to approve participation in a mission? I just don't see any justification for it outside of extreme micromanagement and tin god syndrome.
If a Squadron CC wants to suspend a member's ES achievements, that is perfectly fine.
I was giving the benefit of the doubt that it happens in some wings. I've always considered any ES resources in the wing available to me as an IC.
Solarpilot:
First, congrats on your efforts to help the folks you stumbled upon. Many of us are here to help people and you got to do exactly that.
Second, I recently learned a find is only awarded if there is an actual mission number, and T missions don't count. I found that out the fun way, when my ground team was dispatched on an actual ELT while we were out on a SAREX. We drove about 40 miles and found the ELT in an airplane junkyard we didn't know existed, near an airport. But...the ELT report wasn't routed through AFRCC and the incident staff didn't call them. No M mission number. No find credit. A pile of disappointed cadets. I did hear they may have worked something out for the cadets, so as not to demotivate them. No such luck for me...plus I got stiffed for about $60 gas in the CAP van that day (still chasing that down). I didn't join CAP to earn find ribbons (found tons of ELT's when I worked for an airport), but add that to the financial bite and it's a bit discouraging.
Anyway, kudos for helping. :clap:
That van gas should still be on the training mission funding though.
..and that scenario is much better than any faked up scenario the SAREX people can cook up. ;-)
Quote from: a2capt on June 12, 2010, 05:46:12 AM
That van gas should still be on the training mission funding though.
..and that scenario is much better than any faked up scenario the SAREX people can cook up. ;-)
True on both counts!