Private helicopter rescues lost children

[Heliport]

Report from Chico-ER (Northern California) ....

________________________________________________

Private helicopter pilot rescues lost children


A boy and girl, both 11, were pulled from a rugged area of ButteCreekCanyon about 2:30 a.m. Wednesday by the owner of a private helicopter and his pilot.


The rescue concluded an intensive eight-hour search for the children, cousins who went missing about 6 p.m. while exploring hiking trails near PinesElementary School in Magalia. The children were found cold and frightened, but neither was injured.


Local resident Dan Kohrdt said a friend who saw the search effort reported on television called him shortly after 11 p.m. Kohrdt, who owns a Bell 407 helicopter with state-of-the art night-vision equipment, called his pilot, David Gunsauls, and the two men agreed they should assist in the search effort.


Gunsauls, owner of PJ Helicopter in Red Bluff, said he knew about where the children had last been seen, and flew to that location. As they approached the area, Gunsauls said he contacted a dispatcher with the Butte County Sheriff's Office. He said the dispatcher asked them if they were a civilian aircraft, and allegedly advised them they weren't authorized to be communicating on a secure channel. When Gunsauls explained what they were doing, he said he was denied GPS coordinates to the focus of the search.


The two men continued searching on their own and eventually spotted volunteers on the ground from Butte County Search and Rescue.

Incident commander Mike Larish said up to 25 people, some on all-terrain vehicles, were already looking for the children in the Nimshew Road area of Butte Creek Canyon when the helicopter showed up. However, he said searchers were approximately a half-mile from where the children were found, and guessed they could have remained lost for several more hours if not spotted from the air. "They were still on the other side of the creek from us," Larish said. A Sheriff's Office press release noted the children were walking toward some lights, which would have taken them deeper into the canyon.


Gunsauls and Kohrdt spent another hour flying around before they found the children, standing in a small clearing and holding on tightly to one another. Gunsauls said he landed about 100 yards from the children, but the brush between them and the helicopter was too dense to negotiate.

The pilot then performed what he called a "toe-in" maneuver, balancing the front rails of the helicopter on a rocky ledge, and had to hold the craft it in place for several minutes while Kohrdt prepared to grab the two children and hoist them into the back of the helicopter. Kohrdt communicated with the girl on the ground using hand signals. Despite being lightly dressed in jeans and sweatshirts, neither suffered hypothermia.


Gunsauls said he was surprised the Sheriff's Office was reluctant to accept help, especially since there were no other aircraft assisting in the rescue.

Larish (Incident commander) said a much larger response was on order for the search, which eventually would have included 50 more ground personnel, 10 K-9 teams and up to two law enforcement helicopters, which would have launched at first light.

Capt. Jerry Smith, who runs air operations for the Sheriff's Office, said he was grateful for the helicopter rescue of the children, but never would have authorized the aircraft to participate. "It's strictly outside our scope of operations to allow civilians in something like this without pre-approval," Smith said. He emphasized that when the helicopter first showed up, authorities running the search operation on the ground had no idea who was flying it and what the skill level of the pilot might be.


Gunsauls is an experienced pilot and has flown power line installations for PG&E, as well as marijuana eradication missions for the Sheriff's Office.

________________________________________________

[Thomas coupling]

I personally believe this to be the exception to the rule. It should certainly not be considered 'normal' what these two opportunists did.
The results don't justify the means.
There must have been a reason for the 2 police helos not to launch?
The civvy helo could have experienced difficulties during the search phase leading to an even bigger incident. The evolution was a success due mainly to the pilots skill and I would suggest, an element of luck.
Let's not get carried away with the result.
God help us if the UK Skywatch team read this.......................

[SHortshaft]

Surely all must agree the result was wonderful…the children were rescued.

Now whether ‘the system’ worked, or could be improved upon, is surely another matter! Where is this ‘shared responsibility’, between the public and the forces of Law & Order, for public safety that many forces proclaim? How can you have responsibility without an element of authority...in this case “Self Authorisation”?

Wouldn’t it have been more pro-active of the dispatcher at the local Sheriff’s Office to have asked more questions and checked out who this civilian helicopter was rather than just telling him to “go forth and multiply”?

How much of the Sheriff’s concern, which led to the refusal of assistance from a civilian, was as a result of the desire of the Sheriff’s Office to retain total control / authority (power) over the situation, how much was concern for liability issues, and how much was real?

[Bronx]

'these two opportunists'

Seems kinda harsh way of decribing two guys who heard there was a big search on for missing children and went out to help find them.

Owner provides his helicopter FOC.
Pilot gives his time FOC.

Opportunists? :confused:

[SASless]

One has to remember the California Police mentality folks....to say they can be, well.....errr....well the reason they wear neckties is it keeps a certain part of their anatomical makeup from riding up over the tip.

The Sheriff's concern about communicating over a "secure" police channel without authorization is valid.

The Sheriff's concern about an "unauthorized" helicopter participating in the seach is valid.

The Sheriff's concern...not stated...about the PR embarassment is priceless.

The article notes the aircraft is equipped with specialized night vision equipment and the pilot had done drug interdiction flights for the Sheriff in the past thus he was a known personality to the Sheriff.

The larger question is why the two Law Enforcement aircraft were not involved in the search at that time...they too are equipped with very expensive night vision equipment at taxpayer expense. Also, why has the Sheriff's office not set up an arrangement to use the volunteer aircraft exactly as they do the Sheriff's Posse and Rescue Teams?

If you recall...in Utah about two years ago, a Civilian pilot rescued some people, and performed other services without charge and was done by the FAA for doing so. The huge public outcry swayed the FAA's actions to merely giving the guy a written reprimand and threat of license action if he repeated his actions within a year.

Our government agencies, particularly in Californina, maintain air forces at great expense to the taxpayer and at the direct cost of business to local helicopter operators. For this to happen....some mere civilian "opportunist" to come along and do the job for free when the police would not....well that just isn't cricket.

If these guys are at the HAI this year....I will be glad to buy them a brew or two.


http://www.pjhelicopters.com/contact.html

[Gerhardt]

With no other aircraft in the area I'm not sure why the authorities would be concerned that there was a civilian aircraft looking for the children. Looking for escaped felons would be out of line, but looking for lost children? If the pilot is licensed and flying within the legal parameters you would think (hope) that they would be grateful for any and all help they could get.

If those had been my kids the two gents would certainly receive a bounty.

[octavo]

Perhaps even a Snickers too.

[Bell_Flyer]

Human spirit and common sense: 1
Government Bureaucracy: 0

[HeliMark]

Before we really blast the police for their choppers being on the ground, we really need to know what night capability and training they have.

Doing a search in a black hole without an aircraft properly equipped or pilot trained is asking for trouble. I only know of three police agencies in California with NVG capability, and they do not include the biggest one's.

[Thomas coupling]

Since when does an organised professional search involving dedicated specialists with SOP's/strategies/inter service agreements/protocols,
suddenly discover amongst their midst - a rogue element doing its own thing. Not talking to any of the ground troops, not being aware of their intentions; blatently showing due disregard to anything going on elsewhere?

These 'loose canons' wander in do their own thing and stumble across the victims. This was not a co-ordinated search using the information available, it was a lucky shot. Nothing more nothing less.
They weren't to know that within minutes, several other airborne assets might arrive. What then?
They may have become victims themselves during this foray into the unknown, especially during the landing/takeoff phase - what then? Who clears that mess up?

To support this action would cause senseless havoc to future dedicated search and rescue missions. Switch the TV on, pick a mission, ring a buddy and hey presto - instant hero:mad:

I say again: the results DON'T justify the means.

Do it properly, or don't do it at all..................Morons.:yuk:

[SASless]

TC,

Climb down off the saw horse...they tried to talk to the Sheriff's office on the Sheriff's radio frequency....the pilot had flown for the Sheriff's office before....the aircraft had the necessary kit....somewhat shy of what you are supposing in your post. Read the article again and think about what you just said....bit harsh for what really happened.

If the SO had provided the info...the aircraft could have been on target in a matter of minutes...and been told to bugger off when the Pros from Dover showed up. These are not unreasonable people....persistent maybe but not unreasonable.

The SO showed a great bit of reluctance to think out of the box.

In Washington State...I got flagged down by three Washington State Troopers as I landed in my "unapproved" site to pick up my executives....instead of going to jail as I suspected....I wound up searching for a gunman who had shot at a Trooper. The shooter went to jail...I got a free landing pass for the season...the community was served. At no cost to the public mind you.

If it had been my kids out there....I would be standing on the Sheriff's desk asking just what he was thinking by turning down offered assistance. Offered on his very own radio if you recall.

"Hello SO...hear you fellers need some help....be glad to assist....what you want us to do?"

"Buzz off!"

"What about the Kids..."

"Never mind the kids...we have our protocols!"



Sssheeesssh! Gimme a break here!

[Verbatim03]

Butte County Sheriff doens't have any helicopters as far as I know, but they have a fixed wing. The 2 helicopters they are referring to are probably the CHP's H14 and H16 Astars based in Redding to the north but I think know what assets they have further south. Could have been they were fogged in or out on calls, here is the 407 http://www.snowcrest.net/tina/tn9.JPG

[Night Watchman]

Who are UK Skywatch??? :confused:

[Teefor Gage]

Try this link: - UK Skywatch (http://www.skywatch.org.uk/)

[Islandcrazy]

Here's my tuppence worth.

Law enforcement is often about risk management and getting your priorities right. Legal liability is certainly an issue that needs to be considered.

Air Support in open country is the biggest asset that any PD will have to

a) Find your vulnerable person as quickly as possible
b) Release police resources to go catch criminals (or get to the doughnut shop)
c) Reduce the costs on the operation
d) oh...and save lives or at least a lot of distress

but lets be honest the volunteers.... or whatever you want to call them....these guys probably saved lives here. Who knows what dangers awaited these kids.

Well done to them...they saved the police time, money and a potential serious carpeting from their bosses. They deserve a commendation for their efforts. Its the usual though...if the unusual tactics pay off they they are heroes if it all goes wrong then......

TC as an ASU pilot I am sure you would want to save lives first and face second? These guys got to be heroes...just like you!! :)


IC

[Stan Switek]

There are some recent court case decisions that would have made the sheriffs department liable had they authorized the aircraft to participate in the operation & for some reason the aircraft caused injury or property damage. Having said that it is very commendable that the air crew had the figs to do the right thing & rescuse the kids.

[SASless]

Stan,

Police Agencies throughout the country use non-sworn volunteers, sworn volunteers, and other community assets for the conduct of searches and other activities. They all have insurance policies or self insure for that liability. There is nothing new about that....they in this case were doing that very thing but not with the helicopter and its crew.

I reiterate my earlier post....the SO got caught flat footed on this one. They had a very valuable community asset, of which they were well acquainted with from prior business contacts. The pilot had flown missions for the SO...probably in the very aircraft possibly. That might explain why the crew talked to the SO on the SO's own radio frequency.

They just had not prior planned and coordinated the relationship thus what happened......happened. The "rules" did not allow for any flexibility by the officer coordinating the operation. More importantly, he was not about to assume that responsibility himself. That should tell us how bad things are getting in our society when well equipped, trained, capable people and assets cannot be incorporated into a government operation during times of disasters.

Does the name Katrina ring a bell....this is just a very small demonstration of what happened and still is happeneing in Louisana and the Gulf Coast in the wake of Katrina and Rita. Lots of people died in that disaster and two children could have died in this one. That is the point in all of this. We still have not learned our lessons from Katrina....even on a local scale.

The US Forest Service a several years ago declared a State of Emergency when Oregon was burning down one summer. It seemed the entire state, at least the part that had trees, was burning. Several small towns near Roseburg, Oregon were threatened by the massive fires in that area. We were called by the USFS...and volunteered four aircraft at no expense to the government. They were desperate for air assets. Result....they refused to use us because our aircraft were not USFS or OAS approved and carded.

Thus...it would seem...the rules got in the way of the emergency. We still did what we could but not with or for the USFS.

Somehow I figure lives outweigh rules any time....there comes a time to chuck the rule book out the window and Gitterdun!

[diethelm]

I Call BS.

There is a federal law know as the good samaritan law which provides indemnity for persons offering help in these situations. There is no logical reason nor legal reason for the authorities not to accept the help of clearly qualified individuals. As a matter of fact, the mere fact that they turned down the help may actually put the department in legal jeopardy should have something awful happened to the children. What a shame that politics and small penis syndrome get in the way of people working together to try to achieve a positive result.

[Warren Buffett]

TC - I say again: the results DON'T justify the means

You are of course, entitled to your opinion. Just wondering, do you have kids?

WB

[Blackhawk9]

Looking at the photo of the 407 involved, it looks like it is set up as a small EMS/SAR config, with breeze lightweight hoist all the latest 407 mods and NVG's , people don't put these on for fun! It was obviously a well equiped A/C with an experianced crew wanting to help and a Sheriff without a clue not wanting to use a well equiped asset, .....probably better equipped than the police helo's on call!!!! Definetly agree with sassless on this one.

[Vfrpilotpb]

This might cause a few wrinckles in someones knickers, but if Joe public, with or without Helicopter tries to help any form of so called specialised Rescue services, and succeeds, with nothing but GUTS and DETERMINATION, oh and just a bit of his/or her own skill, then it makes US the other memebers of Joe Public, wonder why all these Emergencey services and specialised toys that they deffo need to be ready for all things or possibilitys seem a little Negative,

Dont ya Think


Vfr

BLOODY WELL DONE PRIVATEERS, the local Cops were worrying about the dark, Joe Public and his Copter did the JOB,,

GIVE HIM THE CONTRACT:ok:

[BigMike]

Well done to the guys from PJ's.
I think most of us would have done the same if we were in there place.

Think about the situation for a minute. You have a experienced pilot with local knowledge, Night vision capable by the sounds of it, and local Law enforcement dosn't have an Air asset available? AND the pilot has worked with the local cops before, so is a known quantity... what a load of toss.

The Sheriff could have come out of this with a nice PR coup, by telling all that, "thanks to excellent cooperation between a local helicopter company and the Sheriff's Dept, 2 children were rescued from" etc, etc... but no, they are worried about being shown up.

[ATPMBA]

Going to work back in December we had a snow/ice storm, a large tree limb was blocking the main road out of town. A car in front of me was stopped, I got out and talked to the driver, she mention she had to get to the hospital as she worked in the operating room. She had an idea that if we snapped some some of the branches off near the tip of the limb then a car could pass. Well I did most of the snapping and we both got to work. I guess I overstepped my bounds but when I heard she needed to get to work in the OR room I knew what to do.

[ATPMBA]

I think it’s great though two kids got rescued. Perhaps if a regular guy with a bloodhound found them he would have been treated as a hero rather than an opportunist. Not many folks I know have 407’s or NVG, it sounds like the private owner has better equipment than law enforcement. When I heard of this story it reminded me of a sad case several years ago where a 10 year old boy disappeared after taking a short cut through the woods in New Hampshire. He got lost in the woods and died of exposure. To my knowledge no helicopters were used in the search. As for saying the ground searchers were close by is meaningless. Case in point, several years ago a boy scout got lost in the woods for several days, several times searchers on horseback came within close distance but the scout hid as his parents told him to avoid strangers (the times we live in).
I believe the trend will be more civilian helicopter owners and pilots will be stepping up to help out in situations like this. Military heli operations are being closed down because the assets have been deployed oversees or because of budget cuts. New operations may startup as non-profits and user older assets such as Alouette III or B206. A few such organizations already exist in the USA.

[Heliport]

Oroville Mercury-Register report:

___________________________________________________________

Two days after her son and niece were rescued by helicopter, unhurt, from Butte Creek Canyon, Cherokee resident Beverly Boss said she still shook when she thought about what could have happened to them.


Boss' son, Austin Rogers, and his cousin Kovina Dennis, both 11, left the area near Pines Elementary School in Magalia about 4 p.m. Wednesday to explore hiking trails.

When the children didn't return to the Magalia home of Boss' sister, Cindy Woolridge, by 6 p.m., Boss called the Butte County Sheriff's Office.
Search and rescue volunteers began combing Butte Creek Canyon, between Magalia and Butte Creek. Meanwhile, Boss called her ex-husband, Michael Rogers, and the two took an ATV into the canyon to join the search.

Shortly after 11 p.m., a television news broadcast alerted Oroville resident Dan Kohrdt to the search for the children. He called pilot David Gunsauls in Red Bluff and had him fly Kohrdt's Bell 407 helicopter to Chico, where the two men met and took off for Magalia.
Gunsauls said it was clear that officials with the Butte County Sheriff's Office didn't want the helicopter to join the search and allegedly refused to give him the GPS coordinates for the search area.
Bad weather, and the lack of a pilot trained for night flying, had grounded the sheriff's helicopter, and a unit from the CHP.

Undaunted, Kohrdt and Gunsauls continued to search for the children, using a state-of-the-art night vision system, and tracing natural contours on the ground they thought the children might have followed.
They located them about 2:30 a.m. huddled together in a clearing on the north side of Butte Creek -- at least a half mile from where ground searchers were looking, south of the creek.

Gunsauls pulled off a tricky hovering maneuver to get the helicopter close enough for Kohrdt to pull the children into the craft. They were reunited minutes later with their families at Pines Elementary.

Boss said she is grateful beyond words that Kohrdt and Gunsauls intervened in the search.

"Between the weather turning bad and mountain lions, there's no telling what might have happened to them if the pilot hadn't found them," she said. At the time, she remembered being most concerned about the weather, which was turning colder. She said neither child was wearing a heavy coat.

Search and Rescue incident commander Mike Larish said it's likely the children would have spent at least several more hours lost in the canyon if the helicopter hadn't located them. Larish said the children were walking toward some lights, which would have taken them deeper into the canyon.

Boss said after their rescue, the children told her they would never explore that far from home again, and next time, Austin said he would take a compass along.

Boss said the children may have walked up to three miles from the school. She said Kovina fell asleep a couple of times during the night, and that both children lost track of how long they'd been missing. "When they were found, they thought it was about 10 p.m.," she said. Boss said the children had a plan for getting themselves out of trouble, but couldn't really do anything until daylight. She said they planned to walk back to Butte Creek, then follow it until they came to a house, or other place where they could call for help.

The two children reportedly clung close to each other so they wouldn't get separated in the dark. "It was pitch black in that canyon," Boss said. "The children said all they could see were Austin's tan pants and Kovina's white shoes.

At one time, the children told her, they tried to take shelter in a burrow, but it offered no protection from a light rain that started to fall.

The children related that they heard the helicopter fly close to them three times before it landed, but they thought they were hearing airplanes.
Boss said both Austin and Kovina are extremely bright and mature. Austin suffers from Asperger Syndrome -- a condition similar to autism -- which allows him to become very focused on a task and may have helped him in this circumstance, said Boss.

"I'm not sure what motivated these men to do what they did, but we can't thank them enough for it," Boss said.

___________________________________________________________

[ShyTorque]

"Bad weather, and the lack of a pilot trained for night flying, had grounded the sheriff's helicopter, and a unit from the CHP."

Why is there no pilot with a night rating? Maybe this is the crux? Saving face seems a possible reason.

Speaking as an ex police chief pilot, I say "Good on the crew" for sticking with it. :ok:

[SASless]

http://www.buttesar.org/Pics-Helo.html

This takes you to the Butte County Sheriff's SAR Team Home page

N487BC is a Bell OH-58A helicopter/ US Army number 70-15107

From the pic it has a white light Night Sun light and does not appear to have FLIR of any kind. Without NVG's....I can understand them waiting till daylight. Even with NVG's...a search at night without FLIR would be limited in value but still of some worth using.




http://www.buttesar.org/pictures/full/Helo%20-%20OH-58%20Flying%20In%20Victim.jpg




http://www.buttesar.org/pictures/full/Helo%20-%20OH-58%20Toe-in.jpg

[Verbatim03]

Here are some pics of CHP's H14 equipment, they fly at night all the time and they have another similary equipped A-star!
http://norcalscan.org/photo/law/images/DSCN0273.JPG
http://norcalscan.org/photo/law/images/DSCN0274.JPG
http://norcalscan.org/photo/law/images/DSCN0299.JPG

[TheMonk]

"There is a federal law know as the good samaritan law which provides indemnity for persons offering help in these situations. There is no logical reason nor legal reason for the authorities not to accept the help of clearly qualified individuals. As a matter of fact, the mere fact that they turned down the help may actually put the department in legal jeopardy should have something awful happened to the children. What a shame that politics and small penis syndrome get in the way of people working together to try to achieve a positive result."


With you 100%. :ok: Sheriff Office was wrong. Glad the kids were OK.

[Stan Switek]

Stan,
Police Agencies throughout the country use non-sworn volunteers, sworn volunteers, and other community assets for the conduct of searches and other activities. They all have insurance policies or self insure for that liability. There is nothing new about that....they in this case were doing that very thing but not with the helicopter and its crew.
I reiterate my earlier post....the SO got caught flat footed on this one. They had a very valuable community asset, of which they were well acquainted with from prior business contacts. The pilot had flown missions for the SO...probably in the very aircraft possibly. That might explain why the crew talked to the SO on the SO's own radio frequency.
They just had not prior planned and coordinated the relationship thus what happened......happened. The "rules" did not allow for any flexibility by the officer coordinating the operation.

SAS I think we are saying the same thing just in different words. I was offering a possible explaination why the incident commander declined the air crews initial offer. I'm not saying I agree with it. Just offering one possible explaination. Good smariten laws aside, I will repeat that some recent case decision may have influenced the incident commanders decision. Thats the only explaination I can think of but it doesnt mean I agree with the decision. Just because the guy is in law enfocement doesnt make him right.

As for the comparison to Katrina, that was a natural disaster on a multi-state level. Not sure if it is even a valid comparison.

[Stan Switek]

"Bad weather, and the lack of a pilot trained for night flying, had grounded the sheriff's helicopter, and a unit from the CHP."
Why is there no pilot with a night rating? Maybe this is the crux? Saving face seems a possible reason.
Speaking as an ex police chief pilot, I say "Good on the crew" for sticking with it. :ok:

The media is notoriously inaccurate. It it possible the meant to say not NVG trained?

[SASless]

Stan,

I refer to a very common...."Father Knows best attitude" prevalent amongst the police agency/fire agency organizations in our country. We also have to remember the "political" aspects of all of this. As I said before twice now, I am of the opinion the SO is guilty of ignoring available assets "before" the event. I can understand to a point why they did what they did while the event was on-going....don't agree mind you....but still give them some leeway.

In the state of California, helicopters have become a part of a very great many fire departments and are almost invariably owned and operated by the county as a public use aircraft. The private sector is quite capable of providing those assets at a cheaper rate than the political units. The public owned aircraft in turn compete with the private sector for that kind of business which harms the private helicopter sector.

Consider the USFS and OAS use of contractor aircraft....so far it is mandated by law, just the opposite of what is happening with the States and County governments. The only reason private sector aircraft, pilots, and maintenance support staff are not used is the fact the public operations are paid for by Tax Money....and do not have to be operated in a cost effiecent manner.

An unusual indicator of the difference between the two concepts....in the State of Oregon, where state law requires public owned aircraft to operate to regular FAA Standards and not just to Public Use Standards....there are no state owned aircraft. They are all leased from private sector contractors.

Thus I suggest the private sector provides better equipment at a lower cost than do government run operations using taxpayer money dollar for dollar.

[Stan Switek]

Sas,

I understand what you are saying but I think you are straying off the topic. I suspect the factors you cited were not involved in the incident commanders decision to decline the initial offer of air support by a private operator. I suspect a supervisor concerned may have made the decision, rightly or wrongly with liability. said supervisor has to act in a manner consistent with the expectations of his agency, not how they do things in another state.

Good Samaritan statues do not exempt an agency from liability. For the sake of discussion, the incident commander gives the aircrew permission to assist, they fly into this extremely dark area & the ship goes down. It is very likely there will be litigation & some liability on the part of the public agency. Most public agencies are self-insured so any judgment comes out of the general fund for that city or county.

On the other hand, the agency declines the offer of assistance. There is some sort of accident involving the company & aircraft that was denied permission to assist. Liability to the public agency is minimal if any. I don’t know that was that case but to me that seems like a more plausible that some of the other explanations about being embarrassed, saving face ect.

There was also a comment about a public agency being sued for not doing enough to locate the kids. Under existing case law the chances of winning a judgment are non-existent. This may sound harsh but existing case law says law enforcement has no duty to protect an individual. (1984); Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197.

Think about it, if there was such a duty, victims could sue every time they were victimized. That is not the case. As bad as it sounds, if law enforcement had of packed it up for the night & went home, there would have been no liability on their part. I know that sounds terrible but that is the law. The reality is no public agency is going to do such a thing, I hope.

Re Good Samaritan Laws, there is no protection from gross negligence. http://www.swc.cc.ca.us/~kjacobs/goodsam.htm

Just my thought on why the offer of assistance was declined. Again, I commend the aircrew for doing the right thing.

[diethelm]

Davidson does not address the issue of a public agency actively forbidding an asset being deployed which can clearly be shown to provide relief and does not interfere with the agency carrying out its duties.

Further, a well trained aircrew with an asset more properly equipped than that of the Agency seems to me to be a tough case of gross negligence.

The problem is that we actually need to debate this stuff and try to make excuses for the incident commander. By doing so we simply give the next person an excuse for a bad decision.

[SASless]

Pete Cunha, a local California Highway Patrol pilot contacted by the newspaper, also said rescuers should have left the task to experts. "It's not a game for amateurs," said Cunha. CHP has a couple of FLIR equipped Eurocopter 350B3’s but won't fly them in rough terrain at night. He said the authorities have to keep control of these types of operations (even if they can't or won't participate in them). "If we allowed this kind of thing to continue, for instance, could you imagine the onslaught of good-minded people wanting to become involved in uncontrolled situations?" he said, likening the incident to volunteers with hunting rifles showing up at a police standoff wanting to help. "We simply could not have that."

The civilians had both FLIR and NVG's.....the Butte County SO 206 has neither.

Seems to me the "Experts" did the job and the Amateurs sat out the night.:ok:

I wonder if they were running up and down I-5 looking for speeding truckers or something? One must have priorities you know.

[diethelm]

Pete is an idiot. Comparing a well equipped, well trained crew of a 407 with a bunch volunteers with hunting rifles is asinine. We should all pray Pete does not ever reproduce.

[SASless]

Diet...

There is your typical Chippie attitude for you!

He is setting there with his coffee and doughnuts watching Telly....and some mere civilian helicopter pilot pulls off a rescue in the middle of the night....I don't blame him for being testy.

He could have asked why his department did not equip and train him to do similar work...after all...that is why they are out there, right? To serve and protect is the motto isn't it?

What he is really miffed over probably is the fact the guys continued after being told to bugger off....refusing to obey a police officer can be a mortal sin in California.

[Stan Switek]

Davidson does not address the issue of a public agency actively forbidding an asset being deployed which can clearly be shown to provide relief and does not interfere with the agency carrying out its duties.
Further, a well trained aircrew with an asset more properly equipped than that of the Agency seems to me to be a tough case of gross negligence.
The problem is that we actually need to debate this stuff and try to make excuses for the incident commander. By doing so we simply give the next person an excuse for a bad decision.

But that is not the manner in which the law is usually applied. Gross negligence refers to an actul act, not a failure to act or omission. As I explained in a previus post, law enforcement has no mandated legal duty to protect the indvidual (Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197).
Botton line is things worked out for the best & the kids are safe & well. And yes, I bet the CHP continued to hammer people for speeding on the I-5. I think what bends me out of shape is that CHP didnt at least mount up, fly to the area (weather permitting), survey the scene & make a determination if the search was within their capability. The fact they didnt even try irks me.

[Stan Switek]

Pete is an idiot. Comparing a well equipped, well trained crew of a 407 with a bunch volunteers with hunting rifles is asinine. We should all pray Pete does not ever reproduce.


If you do not know the capabilities and qualifications of those offering assistance, do you blindly allow them to become involved & become potential victims themselves while at the same time subjecting your employer/tax payers to substantial liability? It seems this could be better handled in the future by the parties meeting to confer & drafting some type of memorandum of understanding for future instances.

[SASless]

Stan....

In case you missed it....this was on page one of this thread. The civilian pilot and the helicopter operator were not "unknown" to the Sheriff's Office. That part of California is not a very populated area as compared to down south in the state.

Gunsauls is an experienced pilot and has flown power line installations for PG&E, as well as marijuana eradication missions for the Sheriff's Office.

[Stan Switek]

Stan....
In case you missed it....this was on page one of this thread. The civilian pilot and the helicopter operator were not "unknown" to the Sheriff's Office. That part of California is not a very populated area as compared to down south in the state.
Gunsauls is an experienced pilot and has flown power line installations for PG&E, as well as marijuana eradication missions for the Sheriff's Office.

SAS,

The point I was making was did the incident commander that night have specific knowledge at to exactly who the crew was & their capability to carry out a night operation in a very rural unpopulated area over very rugged terrain? Just because the PIC had done some daytime marijuana eradication in the past for the sheriffs department does not automatically qualify him for this much more demanding mission.

Like I said before, I think there needs to be a meet & confer to clear up any future misunderstanding as well as make the sheriffs department aware of the capabilities and services that the company has to offer. I think that is a better way to go rather that bashing any of those involved without having all the facts.

[SASless]

Stan,

I pray that is exactly what happens.

The press reports did not seem to indicate any "bad" feelings about the event. The SO and CHP ought to be flexible enough to look for any additional capability they need even if it means signing a Call When Needed (CWN contract) with private operators who could assist in the conduct of emergency operations either as the primary unit or as backup units when needed.

The maximum benefit to the community should be the guiding principle and not protecting turf as has happened in the past in other locales.

I am sure you are aware of the fire fighting turf wars in your state.

[Thomas coupling]

Sasless I don't know how far up the management ladder you are or have been. What happened that night on face value and to the average guy in the street (including pilots) seems to make sense.
For every action, there is a reaction and people like you and myself do not have to work with or live throught the repercussions IF anything went wrong.
I'm surprised the yanks have even warranted such an activity since your nations motto is:if it moves...sue it!

Insurance / libel / damages / law suits is the real world these days and it is what happens AFTER the event turns very ugly. This event could so easily have turned very ugly very quickly and YOU have to stand back and look at the bigger picture.

It's no good heralding the tributes of a drug interdiction "experienced" pilot who knowingly operates outside limits (to boost his ego).

Maybe thats the problem. The US doesnt have NVG limits does it. Correct me if I'm wrong but anyone can buy an over the counter set of NVG's and go wazzing in rural areas in their private helo can they not?

Why then do you mention in another thread that you can't understand the reason for so many crashes in the (USA) EMS world. Possibly because the limits set by the FAA are too low.
This guy goes night flying on goggles and commences low level searches in hazardous terrain and then lands at an unidentified landing site upon which he commences some pussy footing manouevre to recover kids half on and half off the ground.
No wonder you guys are asking for it if you think this is "acceptable" and the perpetrator should be applauded for it:mad:

Next time this happens in the state next door, there will be a squadron of do gooders trying it on again....then your stats will start to climb again and you'll all go round saying:

"...don't understand, the guys were heroes...".

If you're going to do something, DO IT RIGHT

[PS: Sasless, I lied about chilling:p ]

[SASless]

This event could so easily have turned very ugly very quickly and YOU have to stand back and look at the bigger picture.

It did not turn ugly. Folks were standing back...ergo the intervention.

It's no good heralding the tributes of a drug interdiction "experienced" pilot who knowingly operates outside limits (to boost his ego).

You are a mind reader now along with your other many attributes?



This guy goes night flying on goggles and commences low level searches in hazardous terrain and then lands at an unidentified landing site upon which he commences some pussy footing manouevre to recover kids half on and half off the ground.
No wonder you guys are asking for it if you think this is "acceptable" and the perpetrator should be applauded for it

It is hard to argue with success but you have managed thus far. Would you be happier if it had been a pre-arranged landing site marked with White Tires and a survey on file?

If you're going to do something, DO IT RIGHT

The kids are home with Mum safe and sound. State rests its case your Honor.

[Bronx]

Thomas coupling
What happened that night on face value and to the average guy in the street (including pilots) seems to make sense.
That's not how it looks to me. Some pilots would agree with you and most wouldn't but with two children missing and no law enforcement helo avilable there's no way the average guy in the street would think it makes sense to turn down the help of a private helicopter especially one flown by a professional pilot.
I know you'r a police pilot now but I don't know anything about your background. Were you in the army before? You always come over like you've done all your flying in a strictly controlled environment with rules and regs for everything. Many guys here have got years of experience flying difficult jobs all over the world where they gotta make decisions for themselves and think out of the box when there's a need. There's a whole world out there. The sort of jobs guys do in parts of America, Canada, Australia, Africa, New Zealand, PNG and so on don't fit into your tidy little box but the guys build up a whole lot of experience.
You're happy doing what you do, that's good, but your attitude to anyone who don't do things your way is silly and your comments about the guy who found and rescued the two children are disgusting.
He's got an ego? :eek:
Pots and kettles. :rolleyes:

Ease up fella.
There's more to the helicopter world than flying around the hills of Northern Wales.

[Stan Switek]

I am sure you are aware of the fire fighting turf wars in your state.

Only in bad made for TV movies. Mutual aid agreements pretty much spell everything out.

[SASless]

Stan,

Don't fly EMS anymore so I don't get to watch many movies...good or bad. The wee fuss that occurred about the leased aircraft and whether the SO's would get some surplus Hueys....you remember that one don't you? It was all over the newspapers for months...private operators felt they could do a better job...Sheriff thought he could...the fire department thought fire fighting was their rice bowl. All brought on by the CDF refusing to launch a bird to dump some water on a tiny brush fire just before dark that later burned down half of California. You do remember that situation don't you?

[Thomas coupling]

Bronx: Pay attention, listen up OK?

Read the post again - I stated that to the average person on the street, what eventually happened (there being a rescue by an unidentified helo picking them up) was the right thing to do, and made sense.....OK? Got it now.

Which leads me to point two: You are (like me) just another driver doing a run of the mill commercial helo job. You're not seeing the BIGGER picture are you? All you can think of is a local lad helping out and everything turns out fine? Can't you just think about it for 10 minutes?
People can't go round doing "their own thing" without any structure/co-ordination/pattern. Otherwise there would be no jurisdiction in any areas with fire/ambulance/police...even military. Joe public would turn up wouldn't they? They'd do it all.

Just for once....don't worry about my ego trip....think carefully about the repercussions when, next time it all goes wrong.......

[Flying Pencil]

TC,
What's your beef with Skywatch? Have got in the way of your operations in the past?
I hadn't heard much about them until reading this thread. On their website they say they were actually asked to help (in an observation role) by SAR at Kinloss. I think involving them in a thread about someone who actively took part in a rescue(against the wishes of the authorities?) is a little unfair.

FP.

[SASless]

I would think the Home Boys are now trying to figure out how to compete with the visitors now since the visitors had the equipment, ability, and Flexibility to pull off the rescue without any problems....the kinds of problems that prevented the Home Boys from making a try at it even.

[Thomas coupling]

It's a shame a representative from the police flying unit in question doesn't give us his views on the subject...he must be around here somewhere:E

[Letsby Avenue]

Sorry - Just wandered in so to speak... What a bunch of cowboy's, gotta agree with TC on this one - I'll get my coat. :)

[SASless]

Letsby,

Quite a few years ago...a Bristow S-76 crew pulled off a rig evacuation that earned them the Queens Medal and other awards. They were not SAR trained nor was the aircraft equipped for hoisting. They did a very superb bit of flying that night and rightfully earned their praise.

Would you suggest they were cowboys?

It was a split crew....one Brit...one American.

[Thomas coupling]

Bloody hell Letsby...easy does it now!

SASless...give us a break, where is the comparison.

Was the Bristow S76 and crew just passing bye on their private flight, totally unprepared for what they were about to experience? Were they untrained offshore pilots? Did they intervene against the wishes of the co-ordinating authority?
I think not...I bet they were employees of the same oil company for which the rescue was taking place, they were fully trained offshore operators and they were current night overwater trained.
Apart from that, I can see the similarity in your comparisons Sassy....good one mate.

[Bell_Flyer]

TC
People can't go round doing "their own thing" without any structure/co-ordination/pattern

You are in good company there. The Rt Hon Jim Hacker and the venerable Sir Humphrey Appleby would be so proud of your post. R u sure you didn't pen that episode where the hospital ran perfectly but for one omission - no patients? Bless your heart for reminding me of that very funny episode!:)

[SASless]

Date:
14th November 1990.

Details:

The Shipwrecked Mariners' Society "Edwin and Maisie" Lewis Award to the 1989/1990 winners of the outstanding air sea rescue to two Bristow Helicopters crews whose courage and skill and determination saved 51 lives in a North Sea oil rig drama in November 1989.

In darkness on 8th November 1989 the oil rig "Interocean II" broke loose from its tow in the North Sea. From North Denes, near Great Yarmouth two Bristow helicopters flew out to the rig over vast seas and in 85 mph winds. Despite its vast bulk the rig was tossing like a cork. Defying the dangers of a landing platform that was heaving 25 ft up and down beneath flailing superstructure, the 2 helicopters made 5 increasingly dramatic touch downs to ferry all the oilmen to safety. Minutes later the rig capsized.

G-BJGX rescued 31 people in 3 trips - Captain Stuart Gregg and Co-pilot Mike Wood.
G-BISZ rescued 20 people in 2 trips - Captain Dale Moon and Co-pilot Roger Williams.

These crews also received the Queen's Award for Gallantry for this rescue.

These guys who were S-76A pilots flying the line out of North Denes. They were dispatched as a safety precaution to de-crew a Jack Up rig which was under tow and had lost a tow line.

These were not SAR aircraft, had no special equipment, no Winchman or Cabin Crew and had no special training for the task. The situation they encountered far exceeded what had been described or forecast. The rig was moving violently and greatly exceeded landing limitations. When Captains Gregg and Wood arrived for the final lift....the lights on the rig went out...thus they had to back onto the landing deck in the dark.

Except for being dispatched for one kind of flight and executing a very much different chore....the basic concept of "un-trained amateurs" doing a SAR job holds.

I know these guys....ordinary men who did a very extra-ordinary bit of flying that night. In my book these guys are Heroes. The Queen agreed as well.

An interesting side note TC...the Captain of the second aircraft is an American who has worked for Bristow for a great many years....and got a Gong from the Queen for this flight.

By the standards some have set here they would fall under the catagory of Cowboys.

Texaco sent a six sentence thank you letter and misspelled one of the pilot's names.

The owner of the rig never sent any kind of letter.

[Thomas coupling]

Bell Flyer: what are you talking about buddy?

SASless: I'm not going to bite...you know and I know the two scenario's are completely and utterly different.:ugh:

[Islandcrazy]

I think this is a bit more simple that protcols, litigation, skills etc.

The problem, as I see it is this. The helicopter crew contacted the police and were refused permission to use the channel and were refused the coordinates of the search area. The message was clear from the police 'do not become involved in the search'. The pilot decided to ignore the instruction (albeit implicit rather than explicit) from the police.

They went ahead and rescued the kids and this made them heroes but had anything gone wrong they would have been in it up to their necks. In my opinion when the police say 'no' then its time to bow out and leave it to them.

IC

[SASless]

TC,

How you think they are so different?

Neither crew were SAR crews...actually none of the three were to be correct.

The weather conditions far exceeded OpsMan limits for the BHL crews.

The landing deck criteria did not meet any approved limits for the aircraft.

The crews had no special training for the task.

The crews were not Officially Sanctioned to do a "Rescue".

If anything would have happened....they would have been in an awful legal situation....the insurance carrier would have refused liability I am sure.

Why are the two events so "utterly" different?

[[email protected]]

Sasless - I think you have taken this thread way off course with this N Sea rescue (these guys did well and deserved their awards and praise).

Back to the thread and I agree with TC that there was a huge potential for cock-up by these 'rescuers', they may well be very experienced NVG/SAR operators but power-line work and drug busting ops don't seem like good qualifications for the job.
I agree that they did the right thing in getting airborne to help the search; I agree that the local law enforcement were less than pro-active; I am particularly pleased that the 'rescuers' found the kids BUT - that is where they should have stopped - they should have called in the location to the ground troops and let them do their job.
There was a need to locate the kids, justifying getting airborne and ignoring the police. Once they had been located (uninjured and not in peril and only 1/2 mile from ground troops) the need to push the limits was negated. There was no need (apart from a perceived need to complete the 'mission') to attempt a tricky NVG landing and subsequent winching which put the helo, AND the KIDS, at far more risk than letting ground troops walk in and recover them.

This I believe is what TC is trying to get across - yes, by all means help when there is a need and no other immediate alternative but know when to stop - do it properly or not at all.

[SHortshaft]

It would seem that to be the officially sanctioned rescuers is not always a guarantee of achieving a successful out come (see USCG Ditches Dolphin during rescue thread).

As a result of such events surely the argument against the ‘volunteers’ that “This event could so easily have turned very ugly very quickly and YOU have to stand back and look at the bigger picture” is diminished!

Maybe volunteers form a significantly larger part of the bigger picture than some would like?

[[email protected]]

Shortshaft - of all the thousands of rescues done by the USCG, 1 ends up with a crash - pretty good odds really. Whereas I could guarantee that if every person with a helicopter went out and tried to rescue people from situations that they weren't trained for, we would see a very big turnround in the statistics.
I don't think anyone is against volunteers per se but when the volunteers put the casualties at more risk because they don't know when to hand over to the rescue services - that is where I and others take issue.
The children were lost, any parent would want every available asset searching for them - but, once they were located (not in any other danger than getting a bit cold) attempting a winching rescue in the dark without a man on the wire to ensure the safety of the kids was unneccessary. I and many others spend our lives winching people out of such situations and there is always a balance of risks to be achieved - if they don't need rescuing because there is an easier and safer way out and they are uninjured then you don't do it.

[BigMike]

Fair point Crab. I dont think these guys were using a winch, but the pilot did a "toe in" fairly standard procedure in Canada, to off load his passenger to reach the kids. Probably the only thing you could question is loading them back in, in this manner, when the pax could have waited with them to the search party arrived. Mind you, you have to take the media reports as not telling the real story, so it might not have been quite as dramatic as they made out.

I agree, every man and his dog with a helicopter would be a recipie for disaster, but this was an experienced pilot with a well equipped aircraft, for which the situation was not that difficult. It would be interesting to hear the pilots account.

[[email protected]]

Bigmike - the first post says 'hoist the kids' into the cabin so I am assuming they used the winch. If not then a 'toe in' landing in the dark is still an unneccessary manoeuvre when ground troops are close at hand.

[Heliport]

Crab

The report says the pilot performed 'what he called a "toe-in" maneuver' and held the helicopter in place enabling the passenger to 'grab the two children and hoist them into the back of the helicopter.'
'Hoist' as in to haul or lift up, not hoist as in equipment for lifting.


Some time ago, a photograph of an AS355 doing a toe-in on a mountain peak in Canada prompted posts of admiration and even suggestions that the picture might not be genuine - and responses from some bemused Canadian and American pilots who regularly fly in the mountains wondering what the fuss was about because it was nothing out of the ordinary to them.


H.

[[email protected]]

Heliport, the old adage of 'don't assume - check' applies, I should have checked my US/UK dictionary since they usually refer to winching ops as hoisting.

Nevertheless I stand by my statement that the 'toe-in' manoeuvre ( a fancy way of saying you put the front of the skids on the ground and stare at the mountainside) was an unneccessary risk in this situation, regardless of how often it is used very successfully in mountain ops all over the world.

[SASless]

Crab,

A Toe-in landing on NVG's is not exactly a "normal" everyday operation however it is not all that difficult for an experienced professional pilot with a modicum of ability. Without knowing the exact situation...such as what size stream and depth of the canyon or what kind of terrain separated the search party from the victims, it really is hard to to judge what was reasonable and what was not.

What is easily evaluated is the Sheriff's Office having told the civilian crew to cease communicating on the SO's radio frequency and the effect that might have had on the decision to land and fetch the kids home to safety. If the SO refused the offer of help to the extent they refused to even talk about the matter either on the radio or in person with a view towards arriving at some compromise....then when the crew followed SO directions to remain clear of the radio frequency...you have a problem with them for complying with the directive.

Which is it you want...compliance or not?

At the point they found the young ones they were merely a couple of guys out having a joy ride who happened to see some kids standing in a clearing. They broke no laws by doing what they did. No TFR had been issued, they did not charge for their flight, they did not have to have any kind of permission to land where the did. The FAA did not take certificate (license) action against them. The Sheriff did not file any charges.

Don't you recall the CAA out for pilots who engage in "Lifesaving"? Leaves one pretty much a free road as I recall.

What is the problem?

[diethelm]

So the guy living across the street was always complaining about the phoenix police helicopters and the medical helicopters and the noise of the commercial planes and blah blah blah. Then, one day a couple years ago, boy genius was on a ladder on top of his stairs changing a light bulb and back he went. Not only did he fall the distance of the ladder but all the way down the stairs. Oops, this could be a spinal cord injury. So out comes the paramedics and the wailing wife and they call for the medical helicopter. Of course, being the smart ass, I could not help but point out that he was adamantly opposed to those noisy contraptions and maybe they should just load him up in the ambulance and send him off down the bumpy old road to the level one trauma center in traffic.

Now it is my bet that if it was the children of any person posting in rotorheads on any side of the issue, their attitude would clearly be, lets give that private guy with all sorts of hours, night vision goggles and training a chance just as Mr. Grumpy across the street could not have cared less whom the noisy contraption bothered when he needed its services.

I believe the moral is that hypocrisy is the lubricant of social and political intercourse.

He is fine now and pissing and moaning even louder because Phoenix Police switched from Notar's to Astar's and those things are much louder in an orbit.

[[email protected]]

Sasless, you still don't get it. I think they did the right thing searching for and finding the kids because the kids were at risk - they could have been injured or clinging to a cliff face somewhere. Once the kids were found (safe and well) they did not need rescuing by helicopter and doing so put them at more risk than leaving them where they were.
You surmise a great deal in your post about their ability and the comms but did they actually try to tell the SO where the kids were?
I am a parent and I would want every asset searching for my kids but I wouldn't want them put at more risk by untrained people doing a 'good deed'.
As for the UK - the skywatch site clearly states that they will clear the area when the emergency services arrive unless requested to stay - that is a professional attitude with which I have no problem at all.
This is not a simple good guy or bad guy thread, this is a good guy going a bit too far.

[ayaarr]

The danger and skills required for the rescue I think would have been far less than what that pilot requires for power Line Washing or using a 200' line and the pilot with the experience he has would not have attempted the task if he thought he wasn't capable of doing it safely.
Sorry most of us don't regard SAR in a multi crew/engine helicopter as requiring exceptional piloting skills only capable by an elite select few.
I think the real issue here is that the guy was not an ex Mil trained SAR Pilot and did something so easily that "some" would like us to believe is so difficult.
Crab you and Thomas have probably saved more lives than the rest of combined and we respect you for that but please reciprocate the respect.

Fly Safe

[parker]

Thanks for your support Flying Pencil. Just to clarify for anyone interested, Sky Watch is NOT an emergency service. We don't have an immediate call out facility or aircraft on standby. And we don't have the equipment or training to carry out the sort of stuff that the professional air emergency services do as part of their regular work. However, where local liaison exists with emergency services we can usually have an aircraft on the job inside an hour.

What we do have is 150 aircraft with voluntary crews that carry out pro-active air observation in areas that have the potential of making incidents at which people or property may be in danger. Anything seen is called in via ATC for relay to the appropriate emergency services. The pilots donate their time and aircraft free of charge.

We also do simple air observation and search work in support of some emergency services - basically they describe us as a "helpful additional resource". Our crews include include ATPL's, Commercial, IR's, stacks of ex-military, police etc.

Our role (and motto) is "OBSERVE, REPORT and then CLEAR OFF" as soon as the emergency services have the job in hand.

We've been operating for four years during which time there has never been an accident, incident or any case where we have "got under the feet" of the professionals. But we have been able to do some useful stuff.

You can learn more about us on our web site skywatch.org.uk which also has a list of some of the incidents we have helped with.

kind regards, Arnold Parker, Head Gaffer, Sky Watch

[SHortshaft]

Crab,

I guess SASless is not the only one that doesn’t get it.

Your position appears to me to be that Search is okay but Rescue is only for the “big kids”. It is not okay for a relatively experienced and qualified pilot to do a night landing (all be it a “toe-in”) to pick up the lost children but it is okay for the pilot to make a medical decision from a few hundred feet away to decide that the kids are ‘safe and well’ when he is presumably not trained, experienced or qualified in making that decision (there was no mention of the pilot being a doctor or para-medic).

Two other small points:

1. This is not the USCG’s first mishap, nor (unfortunately) will it be their last. They seem to specialize in extreme mission for which the risk must be proportionate. My point is that professionalism is no guarantee of anything in aviation.

2. I don’t think that there is a danger of every man and his dog with a helicopter getting involved in these search and / or rescue events. Many of us (perhaps even most of us) know our limits and many aircraft owners (perhaps even most) will not release their machine unless they know that they are going to derive some reward / benefit.

And a question:

Is there any interface between the SAR community and the operators / private owners in your jurisdiction where the issues of protocol and boundaries in just such a case can be discussed?

Happy landings,

SH

[Thomas coupling]

ayaar: I'll take that comment of yours about SAR not requiring specialist trng and crews with the contempt it deserves. 90% of SAR call outs are because the conditions are atrocious or the lie of the land is extremely inhospitable - hence the call out. Anyone who is NOT trained AND current is going to die that night trying to rescue said victims. So dont tell me SAR crew are not elite - they are by their very nature.

Shortshaft: In the Uk these DiY heroes would have incurred the wrath of the CAA for:
operating within 500' of persons/vehicles/structures for one.
Lanidng at an ad hoc site at night with no landing aids (lighting).
Operating NVG which is not certified.
Endangering the lives of the kids.

Overall - no one over here would even think of doing what these guys did, it's a different mentality - we're not they are:p

[SASless]

TC,

Enlistiing the CAA as allies is not exactly the position I would take in any matter. If that is all you have to fall back on....it is the sign you have totally lost the bubble.

The CAA is exactly the reason so many ventures do not take place....all due to the archaic and bureaucratic manner in which that organization approaches any change or technology that might require a change in thinking.

If the CAA is your defense of the way ya'll do things....then you have certainly lost the argument.

How many years has it been for the police to get permission to use NVG's for chrissake! Wake up and smell the coffee! How common are GPS IFR Approaches over there? How many of your airlines or Biz operators use vision augmentation equipment?

As I recall....exactly one helicopter showed up....and it had the kit needed and the experienced pilots to do the flight. How many civilian aircraft....heck for that matter, how many Police aircraft in the UK are equipped to do the flight those "amateurs" did?

[Thomas coupling]

SASless - it may have escaped your attention, but the UK has the best flight safety track record in the world. In fact the area peculiar to this type of rescue we are talking about (emergency services) shows our (UK) accident rate to be exceptional compared to the US appalling record (as in your comments with the crashed EMS a/c thread). Even taking ratios into account.
The CAA may be the bane of our lives, but their methods seem to work (did I really say that?).
These reprobates would most certainly incur the wrath of the CAA and I don't think anyone would have objected.
As Crab says - they were well intentioned, they should have acted as spotters and radioed the co-ordinates in to the ground troops. Then they would have been heroes.
I really am surprised something like this has come from the land of litigation:ooh:

[SASless]

TC,

Nice try....you miss a wee small bit of data that ruins your argument. How many of your EMS operations fly at night? How many of your EMS operators do scene flights at night? How many needy patients have been prevented from receiving timely emergency medical care by a properly equipped EMS helicopter crew and Trauma Hospital because of the lack of that service at night?

Does the US EMS industry have a problem....Hell yes! Night flying, single pilot, in VFR only machines, in marginal weather.....Hell YES! We have a problem. But...TC....the job still gets done safely in the great preponderance of the time and needy folks are getting that medical care in a timely fashion....you cannot say the same for the UK.

There in lies the difference TC....our system approaches things with a "get the job done" attitude vice accepting a "nothing to do with me Mate!" atttitude.

As to safety records....I wonder just how good your safety record really is. The track record for privately operated non-public transport aircraft seems to be an issue. It seems you have more than a fair share of the news making events overthere despite the superiority of the CAA system.

But...you might have a point....however if one does not fly at all...one does not make mistakes. Ask yourself just how many aircraft, pilots, jobs, and operations do not exist because of the stifling effect of the CAA's efforts....that answer I is one you probably will not care to admit. Just start with the number of EMS operations that fly at night and provide the full range of services as ours do....is that not proof positive?


http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1/Trends%20in%20GA%20M%20Robinson%20201205.pdf

You might read the information at this link....from your very own CAA.

[Letsby Avenue]

SASless - http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=210098

Casevac (not HEMS) ops are carried out by the police ASUs at night due to the additional equipment on board that enable a safe landing in the sticks without having to have your fingers crossed all the way down:} In addition to the TI camera and Nitesun all UK Police Ops will soon have the option of NVG down to ground level thus ensuring the highest possible standards of flight safety - the welfare of RTA victims is not compromised by the lack of HEMS at night.

[SASless]

Letsby,

the welfare of RTA victims is not compromised by the lack of HEMS at night.


Can you expound upon that a bit....I would take it from that statement then RTA victims do not benefit from HEMS in the daylight then?

Same victims at the same location....one with HEMS service...one without....and the one without has no compromise on emergency service and treatment?

I find that hard to understand.

Do the Police ASU aircraft have all of the trauma kit and specialized training the HEMS aircraft crews do? Do not get hung up on the British favorite game of words...HEMS/CASEVAC/EMS/Air Ambulance....what we are talking about here is the concept of a specially outfitted, design built special purpose equipped aircraft with highly qualified emergency medical crewmembers that can provide extensive emergency medical care. Do the Police aircraft carry Oxygen, Defib's, suction pumps, IV's, can the crews do intubations, administer medications, and all that either upon arrival or while enroute with the victim? I doubt very much any Police aircraft meets that standard.

Thus, it is apples and oranges being compared here.

Have Police aircraft done outlandings in the past....without the pilot having NVG's and the crewmembers having them? Not exactly standard setting procedure/policy there I think.

[ButteRescue]

Was searching Google unrelated to this threat but found it and mandated a reply just to set the record straight.

First, neither Butte County Sheriff's Office nor CHP would fly due to the weather and ceiling conditions, geography and the fact that BCSO's NVG qualified pilots weren't available that particular night. Both BCSO and CHP had pilots and ships set to respond prior to first light in the morning, some 5 hours away.

Second, if the civilian pilot and ship had been so gung-ho about providing search & rescue services, they should have discussed it with the Sheriff's Office days/months/years prior to attempting to respond to an ad-hoc call, suddenly saying, "We're here!" That's how people get hurt or killed. Regardless of whether people snicker about the L word (liability), guess what... In the U.S., it's the name of the game due to lawsuits, frivilous or otherwise.

Third, the children, while lost, weren't in dire trouble. The Sheriff's Office and SAR Team had a pretty good feeling for where they were and had appropriate resources responding to handle the situation.

Forth, once the helicopter spotted the children, they radioed the SAR team that they had been located but refused to provide a location. It would have been very simple for a ship of that reputed "high tech" nature to send simple GPS coordinates to SAR ground teams which could have then hiked or driven the children to safety. Instead, the pilot of the ship decided to play cowboy and do a toe-in at night on a rocky bluff/ledge and load the children.

While we're all happy and thrilled the children were found and were safe, the actions of the civilian ship were inappropriate and dangerous for the circumstances.

[Heliport]

ButteRescue

Welcome to the forum, and thanks for posting your views.

"if the civilian pilot and ship had been so gung-ho about providing search & rescue services, they should have discussed it with the Sheriff's Office days/months/years prior ........"
Where does it say they were "gung-ho" about providing "search & rescue services" for days/months/years prior to this incident? Local resident Dan Kohrdt said a friend who saw the search effort reported on television called him shortly after 11 p.m. Kohrdt, who owns a Bell 407 helicopter with state-of-the art night-vision equipment, called his pilot, David Gunsauls, and the two men agreed they should assist in the search effort.
"That's how people get hurt or killed."
We all respect the skills and often great courage of trained rescuers, and ideally all rescues should be by trained skilled crews, but is there a history/pattern of people getting hurt or killed when civilians perform ad hoc rescues?

"the children, while lost, weren't in dire trouble."
They weren't in dire trouble at the time they were rescued. (The 2 children, boy and girl aged 11, were found cold and frightened and holding on tightly to one another. At the time they were rescued, they weren't suffering from hypothermia despite the weather and being dressed in light clothing. We don't know if they might have later in the night. No-one knew whether they'd find a safe place and wait until morning, or keep trying to find their way home in the dark and fall and be injured for example. Surely what might or might not have happened if they hadn't been rescued when they were is just speculation?

"The Sheriff's Office and SAR Team had a pretty good feeling for where they were and had appropriate resources responding to handle the situation."Incident commander Mike Larish said up to 25 people, some on all-terrain vehicles, were already looking for the children in the Nimshew Road area of Butte Creek Canyon when the helicopter showed up. However, he said searchers were approximately a half-mile from where the children were found, and guessed they could have remained lost for several more hours if not spotted from the air."They were still on the other side of the creek from us," Larish said. (As it turned out)
A Sheriff's Office press release noted the children were walking toward some lights, which would have taken them deeper into the canyon.
"Instead, the pilot of the ship decided to play cowboy and do a toe-in at night on a rocky bluff/ledge"
Play cowboy is obviously a matter of opinion.
Do you know what experience the pilot had? I only ask because when we've had pictures posted of helicopters doing toe-ins, I've noticed that posters from some parts of the world express amazement and those from other parts of the world are amazed at the amazement - because they do it frequently.

H.

[ButteRescue]

I won't argue with you on their response. Pure and simple, they shouldn't have responded, especially when the Sheriff's Office told them not to.

Actually, yes, there is a history and pattern of non-trained rescuers getting injured or killed at a significantly greater rate than trained rescuers in all facets, water, over-the-edge, road/vehicle rescue, and even air rescue. Tons of data. Take water rescue for instance, where a there might be a few dozen deaths of trained rescuers in a year doing water rescue, there are literally thousands of deaths of untrained, would-be rescuers.

As for the rest of your argument, don't believe everything written in a newspaper. We joke that roughly 50% of any story is accurate. Having been there, I can tell you that the children were hunkered down for the night and had only been "travelling towards the lights" earlier in the evening. Once they realized they were lost, they did the right thing and were hunkered down and were going to stay there.

"Play cowboy" isn't an opinion. He was trying to be the hero cowboy. Had it been otherwise, he could have easily said, "We found them, the children are at 121 xx.xxx by 40 xx.xx...we'll orbit until you get to them." But no, had to be the complete hero and risk doing a night time toe-in in a brushy area with children involved. I fly helicopter rescue constantly and love happy endings but even we wouldn't have done this due to the unnecessary risk. In emergency services, risk is always evaluated and you go low-to-high risk in evolutions, not the other way around. This cowboy decided that hero worship outweighed the high risk and ignored the low risk options even though he was asked repeatedly by Search & Rescue personnel the location of the children.

Being there, I know in depth, probably better than anyone what happened. What they did was wrong on a number of levels.

[diethelm]

If the department really knew where the children were, there would not be a search and they would hike to the children and get them. The fact exists that the department did not know where the children were. Hence the comment they had a "good feeling." The children could have been no where near the searchers. With hindsight, now knowing where the children were once the volunteer found them, the department states the children would have been found, we were very close.

The problem is that there are many who are never found. This arguement will never be solved because it is about turf and who gets credit, not about doing the right thing. It is about who is in charge.

I suggest sir, that if it was your child, you would have bought the guy a tank of Jet A.

[Thomas coupling]

Well, well...what do we have here?

What do you think now guys? {Sasless where are you?}

Do you prefer to take the word of the newspapers, or those of the professionals at the scene?
Is this latest comment from Butte going to sort the men from the boys? Will you accept what "one of us" (helo pilots) has to say or would you desperately prefer to choke on your arguments :suspect:

The bottom line here is: the grid ref for the kids could easily have been transmited, the civvy could have maintained station and the kids would have been located....no-one would have pushed their luck.

Red mist is what happened here - the civvy pretender saw his chance for fame and dived right on in..................

Cheers ButteRescue:ok:

[diethelm]

Right then, got it.

This has nothing to do with newspapers versus professionals. This has to do with turf.

Put on the list Thomas Coupling. Any family member lost, leave it to the professionals, no volunteers.

[Heliport]

Having been there, I can tell you that the children were hunkered down for the night and had only been "travelling towards the lights" earlier in the evening. Once they realized they were lost, they did the right thing and were hunkered down and were going to stay there.

How could anyone have known that until after they were rescued?


"As for the rest of your argument"
The only argument I put forward was: Surely what might or might not have happened if they hadn't been rescued when they were is just speculation?
Other than that, I was just encouraging discussion of some of the points you made without expressing my opinion on them, either way.

Question: Are you saying that many pilots not trained in rescuing get killed attempting helicopter rescues each year?



Question: Did they impede the official search?
I ask because I don't know the answer.



Heliport

[ButteRescue]

Actually, it has nothing to do with turf or professional vs. civilian vs. volunteer. It's all about risk. Had civilians on the ground gone in and found the kids and brought them back out by trail or slow ATV or some other reasonably safe alternative, we would have been thrilled. Had the civilian helicopter shown up, even against requests by the Sheriff's Office and found the kids and radioed to ground crews where they were to be taken out by ground, we never would have squawked. But when that same civilian helicopter pilot is in radio communications with ground crews but refuses to give the location to get the kids out by a low risk ground extraction but instead gets his testosterone going and does a high risk toe-in at night in a brushy area with kids, yes, that's wrong and there's no valid or logical arguments you can give to overcome his refusal to do that instead playing hero at significant risk to those he was rescuing.

Having said all of this, when the situation warrants, more risky evolutions become acceptable by regularly trained pilots and crews. We routinely practice and fly live/human short-haul (land, static water, dynamic water), do 10-10/helicast insertions, toe-ins, one-skids, etc. when the condition and risk of the patient/victim mandates it. This was so far from one of those times, it's not even funny.

As for the argument of "What if it was your kid..." As a father of a 9 year old, while I may have been happy that the helicopter showed up and helped search, I would have been furious with the pilot for doing such a high risk evac when a low risk ground evac could have been accomplished in a fairly short time.

And finally, as far as the accident rates for helos (trained vs. untrained rescuers), I have never done a numerical study but anecdotally, it appears to match the same significant increase found in every other form of rescue performed by civilians over trained rescuers. So yes, I'll take a trained rescuer any day of the week and twice on Sunday...

[ButteRescue]

To answer the one question, no, in the air search itself, no, they did not impede the official response. However, once the children were found, I would argue that by refusing to answer location questions and requests to take the kids out by a low risk ground option, that could be considered impeding the official response.

[diethelm]

I can see it now.

Helicopter lands and freezing, hungry, dehydrated children file out happy to be rescued. Parent, ignoring children, goes up and berates pilot for helping.........

Pilot, understanding the situation and quite apologetic to the professionals for actually finding them, loads children back up and drops them off in some random place for the professionals to find.....:)

[estepo]

Thomas Coupling

I seem to be finding it increasingly difficult to rationalise your comments on this subject.

I've actually flown over somebody that had drowned in the Mediterranean, and there was nothing I was able to do to help them as it was clearly too late. It bothers me to think I could have been referred to as a 'moron' for attempting to help him had he still been treading water.

[SASless]

First, neither Butte County Sheriff's Office nor CHP would fly due to the weather and ceiling conditions, geography and the fact that BCSO's NVG qualified pilots weren't available that particular night. Both BCSO and CHP had pilots and ships set to respond prior to first light in the morning, some 5 hours away.


Ah...the Green Eyed Monster is alive and well.

The question I raised way back when this started was why the "Professionals" on the ground refused to talk to the "amateurs" and tell them where to search and thereby not utilize assets available to them at the time.

From my perspective it seems very hypocritical to criticize the "Amateurs" for failing to communicate and at the very same time the "professionals" refused to communicate with the "Amateurs".

When it comes to finding lost children, stand down the "Ego's" and do whats most effective in finding the kids.

Perhaps if the "professionals" had used some basic commonsense and enlisted the assistance offered then the outcome would have been different. Mutual effective communication between the helicopter crew and the ground units would have facilitated the retrieval of the kids by ground units as being the safest method and limited the exposure to both the helicopter crew and kids to any hazards posed by landing in the dark.

I would suggest that once some very big noses got pointed towards the sky....it was all down hill from there.

Lets examine Butte's comments by asking the following question.....

I run across a Deputy fighting with a perp during the course of an arrest...the Deputy is alone in his fight....he is clearly losing the fight and is at risk to be killed. I am not a trained police officer (actually I am but that is besides the point), I am unarmed, and I have my wife in the car with me.

What should I do? Get on my cellphone and call 911 and tell of the guys plight? Do I stand by and merely watch....do I just drive on by?

Do I holler at the bad guy and tell him to give up...do I yell encouragement to the Copper...or do I grab my three cell flashlight that is made of high grade aluminum alloy and join in the fight by choking out the bad guy using that flashlight as a weapon and thereby putting my wife at risk should me and the cop lose the fight.


Which course of action would you suggest Butte?


The concept is the same....

[scooter boy]

SASless you are so right.

Seems to me that the authorities' noses are collectively out of joint because the amateurs got there first and rescued the kids.

Having read this thread in its entirety the stance of the authorities seems completely asinine.

Get over it! Move on!

SB

[MSP Aviation]

SASless - if you were to call 911 the cop would be at risk of being killed/injured. if the heli pilots had radioed the coordinates when asked, instead of engaged in a dick-measuring contest, the children would have been at no additional risk.

[SASless]

MSP,
Had anyone communicated with the kids to confirm that?

How would either the Sheriff's Office or the Amateurs know without making direct contact with the kids?

Absent any direct communication with the victims.....no one could possibly know their actual condition. For what anyone knew, the kids could have been soaking wet from being in the river, hurt, or experiencing some life threatening injury.

Heck fire MSP, they could have been mauled by a Cougar!:rolleyes:

Any way you try to justify what happened on both sides still comes up the same....the Sheriff's Office refused the offer of help and did not do so very politely. That set the stage for everything that happened later.

If I had been in the same situation as the "Amateurs" with night vision equipment and was comfortable with the situation and offered to help only to be told rudely to "Bug.ger off!", I would have done the same thing they did.

I would go look for the kids and worry about having an arm waving contest with the S.O. later. If I was lucky enough to find them....and be able to pick them up...I would have done that too. I would then call the S.O. and tell them where to fetch the kids.

[MSP Aviation]

touche.

"Kohrdt communicated with the girl on the ground using hand signals"

they could have done a simple thumb-and-index finger in a circle "ok?" sign, when the little girl nodded, gave a thumbs up, or gave the "ok" back, they could've continued to orbit and guided ground assets.

so, yes, someone could've communicated with the kids to confirm that. but they could've made contact and then not gone through with the more-dangerous rescue.

and just because the sheriff withholds info/acts rudely to amateurs doesn't give the amatuers the right to later refuse to be part of a team when asked. it would be different if this were an inter-agency thing, but it was not. they were civilians.

in a different note, what's this civvie, unmarked, seemingly un-affiliated chopper doing flying around with winch, NVGs, and rescue equipment?

[Roofus]

Excuse my ignorance......what's the 407's single engine performance like??
I only ask because a single engine failure with only half the skids on the ground could be a little perturbing!
The bottom line here is a substantial difference between different pilot cultures! The Americans have their way.....we have ours! Who's better......who cares??? We each do it our way!
I fly SAR......would I have landed.......no. I'd have relayed the location & loitered on scene.......
But then......I don't have NVG.......I do have a nice winch! I wouldn't have needed to land!
Without knowing the geography & topography of the scene, I can't honestly offer an answer.
What I will say is this.......what risks were involved?? The kids were located....the ground units could have been there quickly......had the need then arisen for a quick hospital transfer, a co-ordinated landing and transfer could have occurred. Was the helicopter put at risk? (Refer to my lack of knowledge ref 407 single engine performance!) Did the helicopter & crew increase the risk to the children? Was the risk justifiable???
I'm not discrediting the pilots obvious skill.......I'm certainly not condemning the wish to ensure the safe return home of these children......but I question whether or not the landing was entirely necessary.
Having read the posts......as a SAR pilot, in the aircraft I fly, with the highly professional crew, with the winch, the nitesun, the FLIR, no hands on knowledge of the casualties condition & the rescue services 1/2 a mile away.....I wouldn't have landed or approached to winch. I'd have guided in the ground teams, loitered to see if any further assistance was required & having provided any assistance necessary, flown home.....happy with a job well done, safe in the knowledge that as an aircraft captain I'd ensured the safe operation of the flight & the safety of all personnel involved, including the casualties.
Without ground rescue teams......a completely different story!
But again......I fly in a completely different enviroment.....the FAA & the CAA are completely different beasts!!
I certainly applaud the pilot & aircraft owners courage & skill.......I do however, based on my environment, question the decision to land.
The different cultures & approaches seem key to the argument! After all.....you guys throw a guy out the helicopter & get casualties to crawl into a basket......how crazy is that! ;) :} :ok:
Thankfully all turned out well & the kids were safe & well :D :D

[SASless]

Hitch hikers raise a thumb when asking for rides.....ergo it is called "thumbed a ride".

Perhaps you are the one that is mistaken here MSP....and the kids did want a helicopter ride.

Hand signals as well as radio jargon must have a commonality of definition to be effective. Now, I am quite sure the kids had a cue card in their hip pocket that told them all about how to signal properly.

Touche' my butt!

A 407 has bags of power at their weight, height, and temp.....better ask what a 212, 412, BK single engine performance is like OEI. I would suggest the end result would be much the same until the twins got to Vtoss well above the obstacles.

Perhaps MSP could tell us how their Dauphins perform with all the gear they carry on them....also do you guys go two crew or three crew for hoist missions?

If two crew....I would love to see that ...single guy in back lowers the wire...and the kids figure out how to get in safely....

Two guys in back....one goes down the wire....single pilot does the flying and checking clearance at night without NVG's...now that would be a thrill.

How wide, deep and fast was the river? The kids were on the opposite were they not?

[Roofus]

Woa.....calm down SASless.......I made no attacks or criticism of anyone!
I didn't claim to be right.....or claim the pilot was wrong! I merely put down my thoughts & observations based on the 'environment' & the information available. Not only that.....I qualified all my remarks by saying basically....I wasn't there! Were you?
It would appear that other people's opinions don't wash with you......a shame, you write like an intelligent man but leap down people's throats like an insecure one.
Oh....for the record....we have four crew. 2 pilots. Winch Operator. Winch man.

[SASless]

Roofus...my response was directed towards MSP who is a well regarded person who knows a bit about EMS/SAR and police aviation operations.

Reasonable people can disagree about most topics thus any opinon is welcome.

[MSP Aviation]

sasless, i feel my "handle" has deluded - i'm not affiliated with the maryland state police, simply a fan as i have, unfortunately, seen their air unit in action many a time (friends airlifted with head/neck injuries on multiple occasions).

when i first joined pprune, i didn't realize how professional or serious of a forum it is, and that people might assume i was someone that i am not.

perhaps i should change my title, and maybe your response assumed i had a knowledge of SAR/EMS that i don't, although your assumptions were not out of line.

i myself am an amateur, posting my opinion and assumption that certain hand signs are universal, and i believe that it would have been safer for the "crewman" (helicopter owner) to attempt to ascertain the children's condition.

and the "touche" was a friendly joust, as you had raised an issue supporting your point that i did not consider. my opinions are not concrete, i'm interested in why you feel the way you do.

[[email protected]]

So opinion seems fairly well divided here:

On one hand there are those who do this sort of thing for a living who agree that the pilot went one step too far in his risk/reward analysis and should have just passed the location to the authorities;

On the other hand there are those that think the result justified his actions in that the kids are safe and well.

Despite having the waters muddied by talk of cougars, police officers being assaulted and other pointless red-herrings, the question comes down to this - Did the pilot take the only course of action open to him in order to save life?

From the information available the answer would appear to be NO.

He elected to land and pick up the kids instead of giving the location to ground units. At any stage of his 'rescue', had anything gone wrong, the situation could easily have turned into 'Missing kids plus crashed helicopter, location unknown'.

And all the 'I'm a father and I would want them back any way I could' arguments would turn into 'Why didn't that stupid SoB call in the location before trying something clever'

Those of us who do rescue/SAR work see the results of well meaning amateurs all the time and it highlights the first rule of rescue - Don't become a casualty yourself.

In this situation he got away with it and that seems in some peoples mind to justify his actions - frankly I disagree - unless he had no other option and it was the ONLY way of saving life (not shortening discomfort) then his actions increased the risk to the kids.

[SASless]

Crab,

I was being a bit faceitous when I mentioned Cougars but only half so really. California since the banning of Cougar hunting have now begun to see Cougar attacks on humans become more frequent to the tune of about one fatal attack per year now and numerous non-deadly attacks.

As to the pilot taking the "only" action left to him as you suggest, one never has just one choice of action. One may be faced with "good choices" and "not so good" choices.

"What if'ing..." is a game that can be played by anyone after the fact but is not predicated upon being involved directly in the event.

The folks involved in this rescue made a decision based upon their ability, training, and experience just as any crew does. They are not "mad men" or kamikaze's but are seasoned professionals.

It was not so long ago there was a discussion here in Rotorheads about a refused rescue by an elderly couple caught by a rising tide during cold rainy weather. They elected to endure the cold and wet and refused "rescue".

They were criticized for not accepting the offered rescue although they walked back to their car afterwards cold and wet but unharmed.

Which side of the argument will the "professionals" wish to cling to?

[FH1100 Pilot]

crab says: In this situation he got away with it...

Yes, he "got away with" doing something that helicopters are eminently capable of doing...and have been doing routinely for fifty years before there was such widespread availability of sheriff's department with good rescue capabilities.

So...the S.O. should have accepted the offer of help since it was an offer of an asset with capabilities that were otherwise unavailable to them (however temporarily).

So...the 407 pilot should have reported the position of the kids when he found them and discussed all the options before proceeding.

Was the ground rescue party really "only 1/2 mile" away? Could they have given an accurate ETA to reach the kids, and would that ETA have not been long? Could the 407 pilot have then done something differently?

For instance, could the 407 have radioed the coordinates in and then dropped off his partner to stay with the kids until help arrived and circled overhead in the meantime?

As pilots, we're taught to take the "most conservative response." Doing that night toe-in landing might not have been excessively risky in an of itself (helicopters do this, after all). But given the circumstances (rescue posse already and out working and "close by"), perhaps the most conservative thing to do would have been...well, something else.

It's all hindsight, of course. It worked out okay. End justifies the means and all. Could have been tragic - wasn't. Could have had a similar image to the Blackhawk tumbling down the side of the snow-covered mountain - didn't. So there.

But there was a distinct lack of coordination that night. I think both parties maybe lost sight of the fact that it was the safe rescue of the kids that was paramount, not getting into any petty power struggles.

[SASless]

t What Risk?
By Russ Niles, Newswriter, Editor
Smith said the nighttime toe-in maneuver was too risky. "I would not have allowed our pilots to do that mission," he said. Korhdt heard about the missing kids on the 11 p.m. TV news and called Gunsauls, who met him at the airport. Their Bell 407 helicopter has both night-vision equipment and forward looking infrared equipment (the sheriff's choppers have neither). They first found the searchers and then "just followed the natural lay of the land" trying to put themselves in the children's place in terms of choosing a route. They spotted the pair glowing brightly in their night-vision goggles against the dull background of the hillside and went to work. Pete Cunha, a local California Highway Patrol pilot contacted by the newspaper, also said rescuers should have left the task to experts. "It's not a game for amateurs," said Cunha.

Night vision equipment refers to NVG Goggles


Seems these "amateurs" are more capable than the Sheriff's Office.

[SASless]

This link reports an accident involving a PJ Helicopter operated by Butte County using Sheriff's Office pilot and observers. The aircraft was owned by PJ but operated by the Sheriff's Office on an ad hoc charter basis.


http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001211X13175&ntsbno=LAX93LA323&akey=1


Perhaps there is more to this conflict than meets the eye? As I have said before....the SO is familiar with the operator and crew of the "amateur" aircraft.

[Thomas coupling]

You know sometimes when your dad or grandpa does or says something which to you is so: "old school". For example:
My dad used to be a racing driver (formula ford) before getting too old for it and then moving onto advanced motorist instructor etc etc. There is NOTHING you can tell my dad about driving a car: cadence braking / understeering / oversteering / heel and toe / double declutch, blah blah................and on it goes.
When I was little I hung on every word and assumed those 'tactics' were set in concrete.
Now my son is driving - his instructor told him cadence braking went out about 20 yrs ago. You don't use gears to approach junctions (use the brakes - cheaper!). The 'pace' of driving has to rise somewhat to keep up with faster moving traffic today, so he is instructed to drive up to the limit quickly and not loiter etc etc.
It was the same with my helo instructing and techniques - and ATTITUDE towards my every day flying. "I'm an instructor, I'm a veteran helo pilot, therefore everything I know and apply MUST be right".
It was only when I left the Mil did I realise - things change. And on the whole they change for the better (I think). Standards are continuously revised, health and safety is big in industry, risk management is an empire in itself. These have usually been introduced by "outsiders" who don't have specialised experience in a narrow field (helos). An outsider can see the big picture and change things for the better when you might not have spotted it yourself. The thing is - the world might be a lot more bureaucratic but it is certainly SAFER.
I have had to acclimatise to this way of doing things otherwise i too become "old school" and I have yet to be accused of being that to date:oh:
Was the driver of this private rescue helo, old school perhaps. Did he come from the way of thinking - I have a helo, a helo can do most everything, I am experienced, I've seen alot, done a lot - let's go for it?
Would a young 'new school' pilot have gone through the same thought processes perhaps? Or would he/she be more in tune with today's perspectives on things?
Are some of the respondents on this thread 'old school'?

[Scissorlink]

CHILDREN DIE AS FULLY EQUIPPED 407 DOESN'T LAND TO RESCUE THEM ..now that would have been an interesting thread title...

[Roofus]

Scissorlink.......So would

Children Die As Helicopter Crashes Trying To Land........

We could go round in circles with this! :}

[SASless]

TC,

I reckon the CFS subscribes to your concept and invites outside evaluation of their methods, concepts, constructs, and procedures.

[greennorcali]

[B]I WAS INVOLVED IN A PORTION OF THIS EVENT AND NO I WILL PASS TO SAY WHOM OR HOW I WAS, BUT THE PILOT OF THE BELL MODEL 407 (which had higher tech "I.R" and "FLIR" scope's than any CHP aircraft) WHICH AGAIN I MUST INCLUDE HAS SEVERAL BELL HELICOPTER AWARDED TROPHYS ONE OF WHICH RECOGNIZES 25,000 FLIGHT HOURS IN BELL HELICOPTERS, AND LETS NOT FORGET PEOPLE "LITTLE CHILDREN" & "COLD" SO FOR A PRIVATE HELICOPTER OPERATOR BECAUSE THE PILOT HAS OHH 15-16 ASSORTED HELICOPTERS OF HIS OWN AS WELL HAD MADE THE CHOICE AT "O'DARK THIRTY" IN THE AM TO SPOOL UP THE 407 AND START SEARCHING AT THE HOURLY COST PUSHING $700 AT THAT DATE SHOULD SAY A WHOLE HECK OF ALOT FOR U NEGATIVE FOLKS, AND IF THEY WERE CONTRACTED BY BUTTE CO THE BILL WOULD MORE THAN LIKELY PUSH $3K. >> answer this please: were and what was the 2 C.H.P helo's doing that whole afternoon into night???? <<< iam personailly sick of watching the 2 eurocopter AS350B3 million dollar machines we tax payers fund sit and fly laps around the Redding region as though they were at their call in Shasta Co only?:=