# SAR and Byers



## Spencer100 (23 Jun 2015)

I can not comment if this is right or not.  But I usually don't agree with Byers on the face of it.  But I would love to hear everyone else's take on it.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/rescues-require-helicopters-not-parachutes/article25042329/


----------



## Spencer100 (23 Jun 2015)

Oh and if we really do need more Helos here are three more 101s.  May be we can get a deal on these  



CBI Likely to Close AgustaWestland Chopper Probe 

(Source: Mail Online India; published June 21, 2015)


Hitting a dead-end, the CBI is likely to close the probe into alleged kickbacks in the deal to buy 12 AgustaWestland AW-101 helicopters to ferry VVIPs. 

 All that is left of the whole scam is an unfinished probe, a scrapped contract and destroyed reputations. 

 As the inquiry has failed to pin down those who were allegedly bribed, the Indian Air Force is back to square one struggling to figure out how to manage safe transport for the country’s high-and-mighty. 

 Time has come full circle since the Rs 3,600 crore contract was scrapped two years ago after Italian prosecutors got the whiff of corruption in the dealings of the top executives of Finmeccanica, the parent company of Anglo-Italian AgustaWestland. 

 The case in Italy was closed last year, and its obvious ramifications were felt in India, where the CBI struggled to move in the absence of evidence despite booking a host of individuals including former IAF chef SP Tyagi and his cousins, who allegedly took money to swing the deal in favour of the helicopter-maker. 

 India has recovered more than what it paid, around Rs 1,800 crore, as the first installment for the contract. 

 Three of the 12 helicopters that were delivered have been gathering dust at IAF’s Palam air base in Delhi, neatly covered. The IAF is only the custodian of these tri-engine helicopters, and its manufacturer has gone into arbitration to settle the dispute. 

 The pilots who were trained to fly these helicopters have returned to other assignments. 

 The IAF has drawn out six newly-acquired Mi-17V5 helicopters for VVIP use. These will replace the ageing Mi-8s which were declared unsafe for dignitaries. 

 Under the old scheme, the Mi-8s would have made way for AW-101s. Since Mi-17V5s were not meant for VVIP use, certain modifications are being carried out to make the model compatible for carrying top dignitaries.


----------



## Harrigan (23 Jun 2015)

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> I can not comment if this is right or not.  But I usually don't agree with Byers on the face of it.  But I would love to hear everyone else's take on it.
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/rescues-require-helicopters-not-parachutes/article25042329/



He is way off base here.  I am not sure why, but it may be a pre-emptive strike at the expected FWSAR "announceable" that no doubt will occur before the election.  That is just my speculation though.  

Some of his arguments may have merit, but the overall argument is weakened by his examples:
- SAR in Greenland - There are 2 x helicopters that do SAR under contract - a Sea King in Sondestrom, and a Griffon (Bell 212) on the southern tip.  That is it.  And the Cormorant is FAR more capable than the Sea King or Griffon.  https://www.airgreenland.com/charter/products/search-and-rescue
- US Coast Guard - Has HH-60 Jayhawks and MH-65 Dolphins.  The Cormorant has more range and payload capacity than both of these types.  Oh, and they also have 42 FWSAR assets too.....  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_of_the_United_States_Coast_Guard
- The Americans, British, and Danes - bad examples if you are trying to say that they use commercial aircraft, which is the reason for that example.  The USCG uses Hercules and CASA's, the RAF now uses Hercules since the Nimrods were retired, and the Danes don't have a dedicated FWSAR asset.

In a country the size of ours, it is astounding that someone would suggest that we DON'T need FWSAR.  Considering there are plenty of locations that are simply out of reach of Cormorants but still within our area of SAR responsibility (mid-Atlantic Ocean, vast stretches of the Arctic), we simply must have some means of getting to people as fast as possible, and a Hercules is much faster than a Cormorant (with a lot of other advantages as well - range, endurance - amount of droppable kit, etc).  The suggestion that we could simply have a commercial aircraft forgets the fact that we already use commercial aircraft for searches.  RCC's will use whatever asset is available to start searches immediately (commercial, CASARA, CF, whatever....), while the primary SAR assets are enroute.  However, searching is all the commercial aircraft can do.  They can't "rescue", and surely the rescue portion is rather important.
What Mr.Byers also didn't mention about the Igloolik incident is that Sgt Gilbert was the 3rd of 3 SAR Techs that jumped to the site.  The hunters were successfully recovered, but obviously at a tragically high cost.  Had that been a commercial aircraft only conducting the search, they would likely have found the hunters and waved to them while waiting for the Cormorant.  The Hercules which did arrive on site dropped rafts, equipment, food, radios, etc in addition to the SAR Techs.  And you need a ramp to do that...

One item that I agree on is his point about having a common asset between Tactical Airlift and SAR.  That would seem to be an efficient use of resources.  It is what the Air Force has now with the Hercules, though it uses the old fleet for SAR, and the new fleet for Tac Airlift.  Should the C130J win the FWSAR bid, that dual-role would be continued.

I am sure we would all love to see SAR assets and crews on 24/7 Standby everywhere in the country, including the North.  But with only 14 Cormorants, 13 Hercules, 5 Buffalos and some Griffons allotted, it is simply not possible to have more than the number of bases the CF has at the moment.  Heck, the loss of that single Cormorant in Nova Scotia a few years ago was directly responsible for the reduction of the number of Cormorant bases from 4 to 3 (with Trenton replaced with the Griffon).  

But feel free, Mr.Byers, to advocate for a significant increase in the defence budget to increase aircraft, crews, bases, etc for SAR.  Or, if no more money is coming, then please identify which current CF capabilities you would like to see abandoned to make room (financially and personnel-wise) for an increased SAR role.  Ideally this discussion would be part of a National Security Strategy.

I am certainly not against an increase in SAR resources, but there are no easy or perfect solutions that don't involve some sort of compromise between cost and capability.

Harrigan


----------



## YZT580 (23 Jun 2015)

We used to use amphibious aircraft as well which offer the benefit of greater range and speed and the ability to land on water; provided it isn't too rough and provided it isn't frozen which kind of makes Artic operations very seasonal.  Helicopters  are a great idea if you can station a couple say six hours apart across the north.  With spares you are looking at a fleet of 30 or more and that doesn't do the Atlantic or the Pacific.  |Jumping is not a perfect solution but it provides a far quicker response than what mr byers suggested.


----------



## Harrigan (23 Jun 2015)

Agreed.  Amphibious aircraft offer a very good SAR platform, especially in a country with as many lakes as ours.  I believe the Japanese still produce new-build amphibious aircraft - not sure if they use them for SAR.  I am not aware if they were even considered as a FWSAR option (I certainly didn't hear anything about them)

The actual number of cases per year in the North is very, very small (less than 2% nationally I believe), though obviously any SAR in the North is by definition challenging.  That said, it is simply unrealistic to expect the same response time in the High Arctic as one would expect in southern Ontario, or in BC, without a massive increase in personnel, aircraft, helicopters, and money.  

Harrigan


----------



## Spencer100 (23 Jun 2015)

I think Bombardier still builds the CL-415 in Thunder Bay


----------



## Ostrozac (23 Jun 2015)

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> I think Bombardier still builds the CL-415 in Thunder Bay



North Bay.


----------



## Spencer100 (24 Jun 2015)

Yup sorry North Bay

They are building trains in Thunder Bay.  The new streetcars for the TTC.  I think they are having some problems with them.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Jun 2015)

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Yup sorry North Bay
> 
> They are building trains in Thunder Bay.  The new streetcars for the TTC.  I think they are having some problems with them.


As well as these ....


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Jun 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> Agreed.  Amphibious aircraft offer a very good SAR platform, especially in a country with as many lakes as ours.  I believe the Japanese still produce new-build amphibious aircraft - not sure if they use them for SAR.  I am not aware if they were even considered as a FWSAR option (I certainly didn't hear anything about them)
> 
> The actual number of cases per year in the North is very, very small (less than 2% nationally I believe), though obviously any SAR in the North is by definition challenging.  That said, it is simply unrealistic to expect the same response time in the High Arctic as one would expect in southern Ontario, or in BC, without a massive increase in personnel, aircraft, helicopters, and money.
> 
> ...


----------



## Harrigan (25 Jun 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The thing about SAR is that if you station an assets in the area, you will get more calls than if you don't have it there. If the locals know there is a SAR assets in the area they will ask for it. If not, often the rescue/body recovery uses the local resources.



What that speaks to is a fundamental misunderstanding amongst the public/media of the Canadian Search and Rescue system.  Ground SAR is NOT a Federal responsibility, nor is Body Recovery.  Aviation incidents and Marine incidents occurring in "federal waters" (Oceans, Great Lakes, etc) are a Federal responsibility.  Responsibility for Ground SAR and inland lakes and rivers that are not federal waters is a Provincial/Territorial responsibility.  While I am loathe to use a Wikipedia link, this is a good overview of the system with links to the relevant official docs:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Search_and_Rescue_Program

Sadly, your comment that "if the locals know there are SAR assets in the area they will ask for it" is accurate, but again that speaks to the misunderstanding above.  What should be happening is that the local resources who are responsible for the incident are used first, and if it is unsuccessful or if they know that the search area is too vast for their resources (ie.hunter lost in the barrens who didn't leave a plan), then assistance is requested from federal agencies.  

That is what happens in most cases, even in the North.  They use local resources from the villages, and if unsuccessful, they then call for federal support (which is orders of magnitude more expensive, obviously).  

This is as it should be.  Why would one call for an expensive SAR asset to fly 10 hours to drop supplies to a stranded hunter if you can just use a local boat to do the same.  

Harrigan


----------



## mariomike (25 Jun 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> Aviation incidents and Marine incidents occurring in "federal waters" (Oceans, Great Lakes, etc) are a Federal responsibility.



Also a Municipal responsibility. eg: The Toronto ( combined Police and Paramedic ) Marine Unit is responsible for approximately 460 square miles of open water on Lake Ontario. Their operational jurisdiction is from Peel to Durham Regions, and extends 13 nautical miles to the US/Canada border. 

The Peel, Halton, Durham, Niagara and Hamilton Marine Units also operate on Lake Ontario and Lake Erie. 



			
				Harrigan said:
			
		

> Responsibility for Ground SAR and inland lakes and rivers that are not federal waters is a Provincial/Territorial responsibility.



Also a Municipal responsibility. eg: The Toronto, Peel, Halton, Durham, Niagara, York and Hamilton Marine Units are responsible for all waterways within their jurisdictions.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Jun 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> What that speaks to is a fundamental misunderstanding amongst the public/media of the Canadian Search and Rescue system.  Ground SAR is NOT a Federal responsibility, nor is Body Recovery.  Aviation incidents and Marine incidents occurring in "federal waters" (Oceans, Great Lakes, etc) are a Federal responsibility.  Responsibility for Ground SAR and inland lakes and rivers that are not federal waters is a Provincial/Territorial responsibility.  While I am loathe to use a Wikipedia link, this is a good overview of the system with links to the relevant official docs:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Search_and_Rescue_Program
> 
> Sadly, your comment that "if the locals know there are SAR assets in the area they will ask for it" is accurate, but again that speaks to the misunderstanding above.  What should be happening is that the local resources who are responsible for the incident are used first, and if it is unsuccessful or if they know that the search area is too vast for their resources (ie.hunter lost in the barrens who didn't leave a plan), then assistance is requested from federal agencies.
> 
> ...



That's where the RCC and the Assets commander need to make decisions. Sometimes the locals will try their best without enough equipment risking more lives. Their is also the "optic issue" of being seen to do something, particularity with a FN community. The big advantage of a Federal resource like a lifeboat station is the relationships built with the community and the 2 way support that forms helping everyone fulfill their mandate. It's not uncommon to have federal, provincial, local SAR and adhoc volunteers all working on the same search. Normally the Coast Guard Coxswain/Captain will become the On Scene Commander and will allocate the resources to certain tasks while coordinating with RCC (or sometimes having to tell RCC that they are being stupid). Having a a good and experienced On Scene Commander can make the difference in a search, it does not have to be the Federal authority either. The reality is SAR is complicated, thankfully due to modern tech there is less search and more rescue. Focusing on getting the location tech to people who need it or encouraging them to get it will save tons of money and make existing resource go further. Frankly anyone who buys an PLB, SPOT or similar, should get a big tax break that year.


----------



## Harrigan (25 Jun 2015)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Also a Municipal responsibility. eg: The Toronto ( combined Police and Paramedic ) Marine Unit is responsible for approximately 460 square miles of open water on Lake Ontario. Their operational jurisdiction is from Peel to Durham Regions, and extends 13 nautical miles to the US/Canada border.
> 
> The Peel, Halton, Durham, Niagara and Hamilton Marine Units also operate on Lake Ontario and Lake Erie.
> 
> Also a Municipal responsibility. eg: The Toronto, Peel, Halton, Durham, Niagara, York and Hamilton Marine Units are responsible for all waterways within their jurisdictions.



Yes, you are correct.  Municipalities play a huge role, and they tend not to get the credit because they aren't as "hi-viz".  

Harrigan


----------



## Harrigan (25 Jun 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> That's where the RCC and the Assets commander need to make decisions. Sometimes the locals will try their best without enough equipment risking more lives. Their is also the "optic issue" of being seen to do something, particularity with a FN community. The big advantage of a Federal resource like a lifeboat station is the relationships built with the community and the 2 way support that forms helping everyone fulfill their mandate. *It's not uncommon to have federal, provincial, local SAR and adhoc volunteers all working on the same search*. Normally the Coast Guard Coxswain/Captain will become the On Scene Commander and will allocate the resources to certain tasks while coordinating with RCC (or sometimes having to tell RCC that they are being stupid). Having a a good and experienced On Scene Commander can make the difference in a search, it does not have to be the Federal authority either. The reality is SAR is complicated, thankfully due to modern tech there is less search and more rescue. Focusing on getting the location tech to people who need it or encouraging them to get it will save tons of money and make existing resource go further. Frankly anyone who buys an PLB, SPOT or similar, should get a big tax break that year.



Couldn't agree more.  This is why it is a huge missed opportunity that the federal government is not making 406 MHz Beacon carriage for all aircraft mandatory.  A lot of time, effort, and Canadian taxpayer money is spent searching for people who insist on using technology that is no longer monitored by satellites (121.5).  While it is an American link, it does a good job of explaining why everyone who has a plane (or a boat) should be using 406 beacons.  It applies to Canada as well.  http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/emerbcns.html

Harrigan


----------



## dapaterson (25 Jun 2015)

More SAR goodness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Cospas-Sarsat_Programme

The main objections to the 406 beacons seem to be tied to cost for private plane owners.  Given some of the potential cost savings that MEOSAR & 406 would yield, might it be worthwhile for government to incentivize the introduction of the 406 beacons?  Put some money up front to support the transition (much as the US government subsidized TV boxes to move to digital signals) to improve adoption and reduce SAR costs.


----------



## Harrigan (25 Jun 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> More SAR goodness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Cospas-Sarsat_Programme
> 
> The main objections to the 406 beacons seem to be tied to cost for private plane owners.  Given some of the potential cost savings that MEOSAR & 406 would yield, might it be worthwhile for government to incentivize the introduction of the 406 beacons?  Put some money up front to support the transition (much as the US government subsidized TV boxes to move to digital signals) to improve adoption and reduce SAR costs.



Exactly.  There are a lot of other 'boutique tax credits' out there - it astounds me that this one hasn't happened yet.  It is not as though this is "hot off the press" - 121.5/243.0 beacon monitoring ended in 2009.

Harrigan


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Jun 2015)

as I recall most beacons transmitted on 406 and 121.5. We rescued a guy canoeing around Vancouver Island who was wrecked on Brooks Peninsula. the first hit on a Satellite indicated Northern Vancouver Island, RCC dispatched us (CCGC Racer) to leave Tahasis and proceed northward, on the way further hits narrowed the area down to the outer end of Brooks, within 12 miles we picked up the 121.5 on our HF direction finder, which brought us off the beach, myself and buddy swam ashore, dressed him up and the boat pulled us back out through the surf. Literally no search involved. This was in the 90's and the first real time a electronic aid had brought us so precisely to the causality. 
So I am not sure if 121.5 does not still have a use, many aircraft keep a radio tuned to it while flying in case they pick up a signal. I purchased SPOT's for my unit and carry it everywhere, just sending OK signals every 2 hours while on the road, gives my wife peace of mind and if I am unable to signal for help, it significantly narrows the search area.


----------



## acen (30 Jun 2015)

I've got a PLB which I use for camping, kayaking and the like (ACR ResQLink) which uses 406 as the main and for GPS coordinate transmission and from my understanding 121.5 for local homing. It's nice to know just how accurate these little things can be, and for about 250$, the peace of mind it provides. Obviously it does not replace proper knowledge and training to make oneself a better candidate for successful rescue, but it is nice to increase one's odds should Murphy turn up.


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Jun 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> More SAR goodness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Cospas-Sarsat_Programme
> 
> The main objections to the 406 beacons seem to be tied to cost for private plane owners.  Given some of the potential cost savings that MEOSAR & 406 would yield, might it be worthwhile for government to incentivize the introduction of the 406 beacons?  Put some money up front to support the transition (much as the US government subsidized TV boxes to move to digital signals) to improve adoption and reduce SAR costs.



The heck with cost, if I had my own plane, I would spend the money to do nothing other than get SAR assets on scene via present position ASAP!

In the alternative, allow the private owner to waive the 406ELT purchase, on the condition that they acknowledge and accept responsibility to pay for incremental SAR OP costs beyond those that would be incured if the aircraft had been equipped with a 406ELT....then you'd see guys going out to buy an ELT...  :nod:

:2c:
G2G


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Jun 2015)

Given all the taxes and user fees one faces just for landing and taking off at a commercial airfield why not just add one more user fee:

A SAR tax for aircraft and boats.  

A SAR tax that could be reduced/eliminated if SAR insurance were carried.  SAR premiums that could be reduced with appropriate beacons.

There used to be private Fire Services funded by insurance companies, and I believe in some countries that is still part of the model.  While I would argue against private Fire Services because everyone owns a house and one burning house puts the neighbourhood at risk, most SAR involved incidents only involve the individuals that voluntarily and knowingly put themselves at risk.

If you are a commercial pilot or boat owner or tour operator it would just be another cost of business.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Jun 2015)

The commercial operators are not usually the guys we spend days looking for. And they already have all the appropriate beacons.


----------



## Posthumane (7 Jul 2015)

As a private aircraft owner who recently upgraded to a 406 MHz ELT, I'd like to chime in on the issue.

The cost issue is relative. Sure, a $1000 upgrade which may one day save your life seems like a no brainer, but the ELT is usually not the piece of kit that is at the front of most owner's minds. Most would prefer to not have to use SAR assets at all, so upgrades and repairs to other systems on the plane usually come first. The ELT upgrade is usually close to the bottom of the priority list, after keeping the plane running and being able to navigate, etc. so it only makes the cut when additional funding allows.
The other issue that was brought up quite often is that, while the 406 MHz system offers a substantial increase in capability over 121.5 MHz ELTs, it's been found to be less than stellar compared to lower priced items such as satellite based trackers (i.e. SPOT), PLBs, sat-phones, and so on.
Ideally every owner would have a 406 ELT, and a sat phone, and a SPOT tracker, and the latest and greatest in navigation, weather, and anti-icing systems... but resources are always limited so one has to prioritize.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Jul 2015)

We tried to get a fee attached to boat licenses to help cover the cost of clean of derelict boats, but that flies in the face of the Service Fee Act.

I have seen the costing of SAR for aircraft vs marine and the cost of finding one aircraft is staggering and about 3 times that budgeted for finding a boat.

SPOT is successful because it hangs it's hat on an existing system and offers a fairly reliable, simple to use product at a good price point, it's also more versatile than a 406 ELT.


----------

