In recent years the AFRCC, CAP and associated agencies have gotten very good at finding missing airplanes and rarely have to suspend a mission without a find. These missions are still technically open and every once in a while AFRCC gets informed when the plane is found later and they then can close the file. But, from what I understand, once they "permanently" suspend they almost never reopen and begin searching again unless some good new information comes in to them.
What do you think of having some sort of "cold case" program where the AFRCC or CAP go through older mission files and see if any might warrant reopening a search. For example, an aircraft that went missing in a thickly forested area in summer might be worth taking another look for in the winter when the leaves are off the trees.
The biggest hurdle of course is that these would really be recovery missions since there is a 0% chance of survival. Of course, that is really the case when almost any of the missing aircraft searches aren't solved in 3-4 days, but yet we regularly go on for a few weeks.
If the AFRCC would actually allow such missions to be reopened, would it be worth CAP's time to do it? Effect on families? Media?
Quote from: RiverAux on September 09, 2007, 02:46:18 AM
In recent years the AFRCC, CAP and associated agencies have gotten very good at finding missing airplanes and rarely have to suspend a mission without a find. These missions are still technically open and every once in a while AFRCC gets informed when the plane is found later and they then can close the file. But, from what I understand, once they "permanently" suspend they almost never reopen and begin searching again unless some good new information comes in to them.
What do you think of having some sort of "cold case" program where the AFRCC or CAP go through older mission files and see if any might warrant reopening a search. For example, an aircraft that went missing in a thickly forested area in summer might be worth taking another look for in the winter when the leaves are off the trees.
The biggest hurdle of course is that these would really be recovery missions since there is a 0% chance of survival. Of course, that is really the case when almost any of the missing aircraft searches aren't solved in 3-4 days, but yet we regularly go on for a few weeks.
If the AFRCC would actually allow such missions to be reopened, would it be worth CAP's time to do it? Effect on families? Media?
I think it would be a great training opportunity for GT trainees. If there is no threat posed like a fresh crash site, then why not have a team of trainees go look for the aircraft? It would really be more of a "Cold Case Training" files.
The likelihood of AFRCC opening the missions under federal funding is low, since there is no longer an issue of life involved.
Quote
If the AFRCC would actually allow such missions to be reopened, would it be worth CAP's time to do it? Effect on families? Media?
Quote from: JC004 on September 09, 2007, 04:38:45 AM
The likelihood of AFRCC opening the missions under federal funding is low, since there is no longer an issue of life involved.
Why would the case have to actually be reopened? As far as AFRCC is concerned, they just send down the case file, and we do what we want. The records are just sitting around anyway, right? Maybe we could set it up so that CAP squadrons request a file or two, decide if they're worth a look, and do a training mission to search for it. My ES officer does that all the time with old finds. When he sets up training missions, he recreates old CAP missions from his umpteen million years of expierience (I'm talking about Col Krueger for those of you from WI wing) We could do something similar with the AFRCC files except that we have a real objective to find something.
Quote from: ♠SARKID♠ on September 09, 2007, 04:49:14 AM
Quote
If the AFRCC would actually allow such missions to be reopened, would it be worth CAP's time to do it? Effect on families? Media?
Quote from: JC004 on September 09, 2007, 04:38:45 AM
The likelihood of AFRCC opening the missions under federal funding is low, since there is no longer an issue of life involved.
Why would the case have to actually be reopened? As far as AFRCC is concerned, they just send down the case file, and we do what we want. The records are just sitting around anyway, right? Maybe we could set it up so that CAP squadrons request a file or two, decide if they're worth a look, and do a training mission to search for it. My ES officer does that all the time with old finds. When he sets up training missions, he recreates old CAP missions from his umpteen million years of expierience (I'm talking about Col Krueger for those of you from WI wing) We could do something similar with the AFRCC files except that we have a real objective to find something.
That's exactly what I was saying. It would be a great opportunity to train new GT members. Having an actual item to find would be great because it eliminates the confusion when you are sent to find something that simulates something else (Dayton SAREX 2006 + AF Eval + Almost in WVA + Six over turned train tankers + leaking HazMat = nothing close to the simulation).
Well, I think AFRCC would want to be involved if for no other reason to document further search efforts on a particular mission.
Quote from: JC004 on September 09, 2007, 04:38:45 AM
The likelihood of AFRCC opening the missions under federal funding is low, since there is no longer an issue of life involved.
Maybe I should back up and ask another question. Why does it cost money to have the case open? If we are doing all the search efforts and paying out of CAP's pocket, why does it cost them money?
Quote from: ♠SARKID♠ on September 09, 2007, 07:53:03 PM
Quote from: JC004 on September 09, 2007, 04:38:45 AM
The likelihood of AFRCC opening the missions under federal funding is low, since there is no longer an issue of life involved.
Maybe I should back up and ask another question. Why does it cost money to have the case open? If we are doing all the search efforts and paying out of CAP's pocket, why does it cost them money?
If you are asking
AFRCC to reopen a mission, you are asking for Air Force money. If CAP pays, it's a corporate mission, and they aren't likely to pay either.
Gotcha, now i understand. So where does that put us in the possibility of opening the old missions for training?
But if we write it as a training scenario right from the start, there may be some chance of AF funding.....training with the possible benefits of bringing closure to a family, and identifying a crash site against future operations.
Possible, but sometimes the search areas aren't really all that convenient to where you might want to do your training. During a real mission you pay the extra costs associated with searching in the more remote areas far from your bases, but we don't often have enough training money to do such things. If you can, its not a bad idea.
I say ask the question, try to send the paperwork, emphasise that NO AF money will be asked for.
You just might get your wish.....
It can make for good training. The Northern Michigan Group Commander told me recently that he pulls out the file for missing aircraft searches in Northern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula every now and then and lets people have a go at them using the information they had available during the original search. Sometimes they do find the crash sites.
Really now? I guess that proves that RiverAux's idea is already a go. Cool beans, especially since they've found the sites.
In Michigan, we have had a number of old cases that have happened over the years.
Typically, we base training scenarios for our practice missions in the same areas, using the same intel for the next couple years.
This is completely *legal*. You can explain the purpose for selecting the mission profile or location when requesting funding (Form 10). The CAP-USAF has no objections. You are giving realistic training, and the chance of a find tends increase the level of attention to deal.
Unfortunately, we've never had sucess with these follow on searches.
A couple years ago, a crash in the UP that happened about 15 years ago was discovered by hunters. Our problem is all that water that holds aircraft and boats.
PsiCorp, do you mean that they are looking for aircraft that are still missing (as I had suggested) or are they looking for known crash sites based on the information available at the time? If its the former and they do occassionally find crash sites from suspended searches, it makes me feel good to realize that I do have an occassional good idea.
I'm not aware of any unfound targets where I'm at, but should we ever get in that position, I'll definetely be keeping this in mind.
RiverAux,
Ask the old timers about missions where they never found the targets.
Most wings larger than 50 grids will have a few. In the smaller states, population and geography increase the odds of success.
Leo
Very true BUT I know for a fact that our Wing has unfortunately been following CAP's record retention policy -- in other terms chucking out mission records after 4 years (I think it is), so we're not going to have enough details to do any of that sort of follow-up based on what we have.
The AFRCC should have that sort of stuff but given all the times they've moved and the amount of paper that would have been involved I strongly suspect that anything more than a few years old is buried in a warehouse somewhere. All their more recent stuff is going to be on the computer, but I don't know how far back that goes.