NOAA put out a press release yesterday claiming that SARSAT had its 6000th save recently: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20081031_sarsat.html
However, I'm not at all sure that this was a SARSAT save at all. Take a look at the NTSB report below of the accident in question:
QuoteNTSB Identification: WPR09LA022
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Wednesday, October 22, 2008 in Concrete, WA
Aircraft: STINSON 108-1, registration: N97946
Injuries: 1 Fatal, 2 Serious.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On October 22, 2008, about 2205 Pacific daylight time, a Stinson 108-1, N97946, lost engine power during an undetermined phase of flight. The pilot made a forced landing into tree-covered terrain about 5 miles southwest of Concrete, Washington. The airplane was owned and operated by the airline transport certificated pilot, and it was substantially damaged. The pilot was killed, and the two passengers received serious injuries. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the dark nighttime flight. The personal flight was performed under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91, and no flight plan was filed. An acquaintance of the pilot reported that the flight originated from Concrete, and the pilot was probably heading toward Auburn, Washington, where the airplane is based.
The airplane came to rest within 75 feet of an occupied private residence. The occupants reported to the National Transportation Safety Board investigator that they observed colored lights from the airplane as it flew over their home at near tree-top altitude. They described the engine noise as "on and off" and "sputtering or clanking."
The airplane was initially examined on-scene by Safety Board and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) investigators. In pertinent part, the integrity of the flight control system was confirmed, and the main fuel screen contained fuel that was devoid of debris. The propeller was not found torsionally deformed, and no evidence of chordwise scratches or "s-bending" was present.
The passenger who occupied the front right seat in the airplane reported to an FAA inspector that, seconds prior to the crash, the pilot stated that the engine was losing power. The passenger also reported that he did not hear the engine backfire or an rpm surge during the flight.
The airplane has been recovered from the accident site. An additional examination of the airframe and engine are pending.
The plane crashed within 75' of a house and the occupants heard it go over. For this to have been a SARSAT save you would have to believe that they didn't actually call anyone to report the crash and that they didn't realize it was there until a SAR team activated by the SARSAT system got there to check it out. I suppose its possible that the pilot manually activated an ELT on the plane prior to the crash, but I would still doubt that it had anything to do with getting medical help to the site quickly.
More likely would be the possibility that the ELT did activate after the crash, getting SARSAT involved, but that no one realized it until long after the victimes left the scene.
Doing a little investigation into this after River's post, I found media reports that said the owner of the property where the plane crashed called 911. I agree that it would be hard to imagine a Sarsat alert being processed and having SAR find the crash before the 911 response. I sent an email to NOAA asking if this should really be considered a Sarsat save. Here is NOAA's response.
Mike,
Thanks for pointing this out to us. I will look into what happened on this rescue and where our process let this slip by. You are correct in that this is not a save. We are currently in the process of updating the press release to indicate that it wasn't.
You will be happy to know, SARSAT did pass 6,000 rescues on the 26th when two hunters were stranded on Kodiak Island. Double checked that one. The current total is 6,002 and that doesn't include the two survivors from the plane crash.
Sorry for any confusion.
Jeff
LT Jeff Shoup
U.S. NOAA Corps
SARSAT Operations Support Officer
My point to NOAA was that Sarsat is a great program and giving it credit when credit probably wasn't due risks the program's credibility. I was glad to see NOAA's response.
Mike
Let's also give kudos to NOAA for admitting and correcting their error in a very professional manner.
Everyone can take that home as a lesson in leadership.
BZ NOAA and SARSAT!
Quote from: lordmonar on November 04, 2008, 11:52:14 PM
Let's also give kudos to NOAA for admitting and correcting their error in a very professional manner.
Everyone can take that home as a lesson in leadership.
BZ NOAA and SARSAT!
+1
That's an excellent response from NOAA and reflects extremely well on them.
Who says a post on CAP-Talk can't make a difference?
thanks for following up sardak
Quote from: RiverAux on November 05, 2008, 12:10:10 AM
Who says a post on CAP-Talk can't make a difference?
Nobody ever said that. ;)
People from NHQ, corporate officers and people making changes at their squadron all read CAPTalk and take things away from the ideas, discussions and sharing here. That's why I try to emphasize keeping the discussions professional and relevant.