Private helicopter rescues lost children
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chico, CA
Age: 56
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rescue
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: At Work
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: At Work
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
"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
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chico, CA
Age: 56
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rescue
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...
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...
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chico, CA
Age: 56
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rescue
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.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: At Work
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.....
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.....
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Spain
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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....
Last edited by SASless; 2nd Feb 2007 at 15:53.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: By the A&P
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: By the A&P
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
"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?
Just Dropped In
Join Date: May 2001
Location: um....er.....
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Thankfully all turned out well & the kids were safe & well
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!
Thankfully all turned out well & the kids were safe & well
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?
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?
Just Dropped In
Join Date: May 2001
Location: um....er.....
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Reasonable people can disagree about most topics thus any opinon is welcome.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: By the A&P
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.