Private helicopter rescues lost children
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Asia
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: At Work
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK, Yorkshire
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
re Sky Watch (Flying Pencil)
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Asia
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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
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
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?
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?
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
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
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%2...n%20201205.pdf
You might read the information at this link....from your very own CAA.
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%2...n%20201205.pdf
You might read the information at this link....from your very own CAA.
Last edited by SASless; 15th Feb 2006 at 13:27.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Letsby,
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.
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.
Last edited by SASless; 15th Feb 2006 at 15:36.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chico, CA
Age: 56
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Private helicopter rescues lost children
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
"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."
"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.
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.
A Sheriff's Office press release noted the children were walking toward some lights, which would have taken them deeper into the canyon.
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.