# Discussions related to privatization of SAR



## dimsum (11 Apr 2016)

> OTTAWA — The Liberal government is asking if the military should continue to be involved in search-and-rescue missions, or whether private companies and other alternatives should be relied on to save Canadians in distress instead.
> 
> The idea has been raised as part of the government’s defence review, and is sure to stoke strong reactions both inside the military and across the country. The previous Conservative government aired a similar proposal five years ago, before letting it quietly die.
> 
> Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said last week that everything was on the table as he launched consultations with the public, parliamentarians and defence experts on how the military should be structured for the future. Consultations will continue until the end of July, with a new defence policy to be released in early 2017.



http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/liberals-considering-privatizing-search-and-rescue-operations-as-part-of-canadian-forces-review


----------



## ModlrMike (11 Apr 2016)

There's nothing that could go wrong with that option.  :


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Apr 2016)

If we kept the hercs, the PYs, and the O&M funding, no reason why we shouldn't give SAR to another agency or privatize.

My fear is that this will be used to cut the CAF because they won't have the funding to let us reroll the everything under the SAR umbrella.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Apr 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If we kept the hercs, the PYs, and the O&M funding, no reason why we shouldn't give SAR to another agency or privatize.
> 
> My fear is that this will be used to cut the CAF because they won't have the funding to let us reroll the everything under the SAR umbrella.



I could see the possibility of having the Coast Guard take on part of the responsibilities, with trained SAR Techs as the US Coast Guard has done, but not take over the Whole responsibility.  The CAF covers not only all our SAR off the three coasts, but all the SAR across the country; well outside the coverage of the Coast Guard.  Our current SAR command centers need not be duplicated to create a duplication of effort, but remain the central control for any and all Agencies that provide SAR.

I can not see any logic in PRIVATIZATION of SAR.  Who would seriously run a SAR organization and actually staff it with competent SAR Techs with no income or profit to maintain a functional and efficient SAR capability?  Privatization of SAR is sheer madness in my mind.  This is a NATIONAL requirement, not some ski slope with volunteer Ski Patrols.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (12 Apr 2016)

I agree! The number 1 reason of any private companies is to make financial profit, not spend money on training requirement to keep competent crews at the level of our current SAR crews.


----------



## Hungover_cat (12 Apr 2016)

I think the cost alone of paying for private SAR services will be enough to deter the government from going that route. At least, I hope! 

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## SeaKingTacco (12 Apr 2016)

Actually, the only SAR the CF does by statute involves aircraft accidents and incidents and some marine SAR. We were given those roles after WW2 because we had the spare capacity and the technology involved in aviation was much more rudimentary, so it made sense for the military to do it.

Anything on land (lost hiker, etc) is handled by provinces and municipalities. Military aircraft can be requested and can be allocated to those searches, just like military aircraft can do medevacs, on occasion.

The fact is, the vast majority of SAR calls today are done with civilian aircraft on contract already- Canada is just too big (and the CF too small) for a yellow helicopter or airplane to be everywhere.

If I was in charge, I don't know that I would contract out SAR, exactly. I would look seriously at moving all federally mandated SAR to the Coast Guard however. The fact of the matter is that the sole reason that the CF exists (ultimately) is to put iron on a target. SAR, as feel good as it is, does not contribute to that. This is not to call into question the professionalism of SAR crews and Sqns- the whole SAR question just sucks the life and much of the staff attention away from other things like warfighting. I should know- I have served as an Operations Officer of an MH Sqn and the world stops when the Cormorants go unserviceable and we have to backfill their role with a Sea King and crew. Which causes an (unhealthy in my view) over focus in my community of training too much for a role that is (at best) only a small part of our possible mission set, again, at the expense of thinking about and preparing for war.

At the end of the day, any part of the CF can and will be called upon to help out in SAR situations as a secondary role. My question is: how much of our limited time, energy and budget should go towards preparing for that one role?


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Apr 2016)

While it's been done in the U.K., I can't see _any_ company being able to make _any_ money given the distances involved here in Canada - unless the service standards drop _*BIG*_ time.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 Apr 2016)

I tend to agree with SKT here.

And BTW, many here who come from the air side of the house see SAR as a CF thing. In fact, the Coast Guard already is responsible for the maritime side of things, with the Air Force providing the air assets for it and the Navy merely providing coordination facilities and secondary assets if, by sheer coincidence, we happen to be in the area. The SAR centres in Halifax and Victoria are jointly manned with the Coast Guard, Navy and Air Force for that very purpose.

I suggest, however, that we have to look at SAR through an historical perspective: The maritime side evolved out of the old lifeboat services. These were very localized volunteer organizations: people from fishing villages located near dangerous maritime transit points would keep and man a boat to save souls at sea if ship floundered on the local danger. Anything on the high seas was, and still is to a large extent, was an "all-hands" matter for any other ship in the area.

Air SAR evolved during WWII, where the explosion in the number of aircrafts, their relative unreliability and the need to save as many trained crew as possible led to each air field having an organization to search for and retrieve airmen whose plane didn't make it. After the war, this led to the Air Force being given responsibility for SAR of downed aircrafts in Canada as a whole.

If one is to look for "savings" in transferring SAR to  civilian organization (and I am not dealing here with the quality of the civilian techs vs military ones), we have to keep in mind two things: (1) the fact that the military is already connected into the whole SAR C2 of all departments relevant to the task will be very expansive to reproduce [and, no, I would not let the civilian agency use what we already have, on the naval side at least, these centres are located in restricted access secure headquarters and I would not let anybody in without control over them]; (2) on the air side, the logic behind the development of SAR continue to exist as the responsibility of all commanders - thus, the Air Force would still need to continue to maintain a SAR organization for its own needs, which cannot be delegated to outside agencies [which is why, for instance, even though maritime SAR is a Coast Guard responsibility, Comox maintains its own crash boat for its own planes needs in case of an accident over water].


----------



## SeaKingTacco (12 Apr 2016)

The RCAF no longer has crash boats, OGBD.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Apr 2016)

The crashboats were transferred over to the newly formed CCG in 62/64, Kit's base in Vancouver was lock, stock and barrel from the either the RCAF or Marine Services including personal were given to Transport Canada. Before that Transport Canada, Department of Marine ran 2 lifeboats at Bamfield and Tofino from my reading.
As i recall there was a private helicopter based in Prince Rupert for a bit to be used as a SAR/medivac helicopter.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 Apr 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The RCAF no longer has crash boats, OGBD.



My bad!




But they should  ;D


----------



## George Wallace (12 Apr 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The fact is, the vast majority of SAR calls today are done with civilian aircraft on contract already- Canada is just too big (and the CF too small) for a yellow helicopter or airplane to be everywhere.



For those exact points, I don't think it would be economically feasible for a 'Private Contractor" to fulfill the role.




			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> If I was in charge, I don't know that I would contract out SAR, exactly. I would look seriously at moving all federally mandated SAR to the Coast Guard however. The fact of the matter is that the sole reason that the CF exists (ultimately) is to put iron on a target. SAR, as feel good as it is, does not contribute to that. This is not to call into question the professionalism of SAR crews and Sqns- the whole SAR question just sucks the life and much of the staff attention away from other things like warfighting. I should know- I have served as an Operations Officer of an MH Sqn and the world stops when the Cormorants go unserviceable and we have to backfill their role with a Sea King and crew. Which causes an (unhealthy in my view) over focus in my community of training too much for a role that is (at best) only a small part of our possible mission set, again, at the expense of thinking about and preparing for war.



The USAF has specialists to fill the CSAR role in combat situations.  Although our SAR Techs are not expected to do so, most are Remusters from Cbt Arms units, so that possibility could exist in the CAF.


----------



## mariomike (12 Apr 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> While it's been done in the U.K., I can't see _any_ company being able to make _any_ money given the distances involved here in Canada - unless the service standards drop _*BIG*_ time.



Interesting story about that,

Privatisation of UK's search-and-rescue helicopters raises safety and job fears
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jan/31/search-rescue-helicopters-privatisation-fears
"Many military jobs will be affected."


----------



## SeaKingTacco (12 Apr 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> For those exact points, I don't think it would be economically feasible for a 'Private Contractor" to fulfill the role.
> 
> 
> The USAF has specialists to fill the CSAR role in combat situations.  Although our SAR Techs are not expected to do so, most are Remusters from Cbt Arms units, so that possibility could exist in the CAF.



If we were to go down the CSAR route, you would find a massive resource bill that would eat the entire CF. it is a huge undertaking, only done by the very largest of Air Forces.


----------



## sandyson (12 Apr 2016)

Will the trend to privatization continue until only the combat arms are military?  Hospitals are civilian. Much of housing, maintenance and logistics is. Intelligence is probably 90% when the source input is considered.  Personnel management is certainly a civilian trade.  Why do we still have recruiting offices for paper pushing? The air forces employ civilian agencies to train pilots and design training using civilian 'enemy'. Most if not all gaming and simulation is civilian. The navy is going to have a new civilian operated 'oiler' as its basis of support. Regular soldiers are very very expensive.  They have priced themselves out of the market.  I'm not surprised at the idea of removing search and rescue (SAR) from military tasks.  If there is a potential savings in dollars it will be done regardless of costs.  e.g. unification. DND is going to cost less 'come hell or high water' because it has a tiny political base and is losing that.  A civilian SAR is to be expected.
However: as civilians take over more and more of 'warfare support', do they not now lose the qualification of 'collateral damage'?  War would now mean the whole nation not the military on the playing field and the rest in the stands applauding.  There are implications to this privatization trend.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Apr 2016)

Food for thought:

DND/CAF is the largest government Department.  As it is continually being used as the largest source for cost savings by cutting or cutting back on programs, procurement's, and other costs; it should be realized that the smaller you make that Department, the fewer cost saving cuts you will be able to find in the future.

 >


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Apr 2016)

Yes, you can only prune a tree so much before all you're left with is a stick.


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Apr 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Yes, you can only prune a tree so much before all you're left with is a stick.



But then you can use said stick to beat the animal to death it was tethered to.      :deadhorse:


----------



## George Wallace (12 Apr 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> But then you can use said stick to beat the animal to death it was tethered to.      :deadhorse:



But only once.

 [


----------



## cavalryman (12 Apr 2016)

sandyson said:
			
		

> Will the trend to privatization continue until only the combat arms are military?


Why stop there?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condottieri


----------



## brihard (12 Apr 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> For those exact points, I don't think it would be economically feasible for a 'Private Contractor" to fulfill the role.
> 
> 
> The USAF has specialists to fill the CSAR role in combat situations.  Although our SAR Techs are not expected to do so, most are Remusters from Cbt Arms units, so that possibility could exist in the CAF.



This has me wondering. Let's say that one day for whatever reason the CAF determines that we have an urgent operational requirement for CSAR. Now, I anticipate that the 'RTFN' answer would involve existing assets (likely CSOR & JTF2 Med Techs with 427 SOAR as aviation), but if we decided that we wanted a sustainable capability to deploy two birds with crew at any point in time for CSAR, what would it take to do that out of what we already have? Would a 'best' solution be hiving CSAR off as a specialty within our existing SAR and running appropriate candidates through a shooter course? Or would it make more sense to do it as a modest expansion within the tan-hat community?


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Apr 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Why stop there?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condottieri


Given the curious attention paid to ribbons & bows these days, there's also this option ...


----------



## mariomike (12 Apr 2016)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Let's say that one day for whatever reason the CAF determines that we have an urgent operational requirement for CSAR.



Regarding CSAR, an interesting discussion here,

CANSOFCOM Search and Rescue? 
http://army.ca/forums/threads/39515.75
4 pages.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Apr 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The USAF has specialists to fill the CSAR role in combat situations.  Although our SAR Techs are not expected to do so, most are Remusters from Cbt Arms units, so that possibility could exist in the CAF.





			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> This has me wondering. Let's say that one day for whatever reason the CAF determines that we have an urgent operational requirement for CSAR. Now, I anticipate that the 'RTFN' answer would involve existing assets (likely CSOR & JTF2 Med Techs with 427 SOAR as aviation), but if we decided that we wanted a sustainable capability to deploy two birds with crew at any point in time for CSAR, what would it take to do that out of what we already have? Would a 'best' solution be hiving CSAR off as a specialty within our existing SAR and running appropriate candidates through a shooter course? Or would it make more sense to do it as a modest expansion within the tan-hat community?



CSAR involves much much more than just PJs.  Canada would never, ever have the ability to do CSAR.  Why?  $$

Even if you sent SAR Techs to train to the PJ CSAR job, Canada doesn't have the kit to effect CSAR and never, ever will.  Unless we do a complete 180 on defence spending.  IMO...never going to happen.

Most stuff on CSAR other than the words "CSAR" are part of the 'not discussed on public forums', so I'll leave my  :2c: at what I said so far...


----------



## George Wallace (12 Apr 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Given the curious attention paid to ribbons & bows these days, there's also this option ...



A Swiss Guard would add a bit of colour to Parliament Hill.   >


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 Apr 2016)

More on UK at DID (further links at original):



> Britain’s Next Search-and-Rescue Helicopters: Civilian Contractors
> 
> October 16/15: The Royal Air Force has ceased external link external link providing Search and Rescue (SAR) services for the United Kingdom mainland, with the Royal Navy scheduled to follow suit next year, with the responsibility then falling to a civilian government agency and private contractors through a GBP1.6 billion contract awarded in March 2013 external link external link. The RAF’s H3 Sea King helicopters used to conduct SAR operations are being retired as the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and private company Bristow Helicopters Ltd are phased-in to replace them. The latter will eventually become wholly responsible for the mainland UK’s SAR coverage...
> http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/british-searchandrescue-a-billion-pound-partnership-02271/



I cannot believe any Canadian gov't would dare privatize SAR given the almost pathological importance we attach to the federal government’s being in charge of aerial (RCAF) and maritime (CCG) search and rescue, e.g.:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/search-for-labrador-boy-lost-on-ice-raises-more-questions-1.1149323

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/burton-winters-picked-as-top-news-story-of-2012-1.1273794

No gov't would dare face the outcry from a major botch of a privatized SAR mission.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Apr 2016)

They have a long history of RNLI and Trinity House filling the needs of what the CCG mostly does. The UK has the benefit of a denser population in a smaller area making private contracting likely more realistic.

Currently a huge part of our SAR Techs time is in training and maintaining certifications. Even we don't keep the stations manned 24/7 with military who don't get OT either and can't go on strike. I don't see a civilian provider doing it cheaper, unless they cut training, certifications and services. The first thing to go would be the diving, followed by the parachuting, then medical certification being cut back. They would then lobby to increasing the mandated response times. If you fine them to often for missing those times, then they go belly up and your scrambling to fill the void.

The Forces would be nuts to give it up, it provides huge political capital for them and the politicians. CCG would like to get out of inshore SAR altogether, which would then reduce them to a mainly navigation aid provider/maintainer which is a role ripe for privatization. In fact it's only the offshore SAR requirements that keeps them from going that route.

You could mandate the RCN to provide offshore SAR and then privatize the rest. Likely done slice by slice. The feds used to provide airports, docks,  staff and equipment to fix them, dredging and they are almost completely out of that role now


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 Apr 2016)

Colin P.: Bang on the politics--the warm and fuzzy SAR mission gets the forces great popular credit across the political spectrum.  About the only one that does? Remember the NDP thinks they should be fighting forest fires at home and abroad--Smokey the Soldier?  Their 2011 federal election platform:
http://www.cdfai.org.previewmysite.com/the3dsblog/?p=209

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Apr 2016)

But the tail wags the dog.

SAR is an appropriate secondary use of transport squadrons.  It makes little sense to me to stand up squadrons primarily/solely for SAR and have those dollars taken away from militarily useful capabilities.  Because our SAR capability, to my understanding, serves no military purpose.


----------



## Loachman (12 Apr 2016)

We do not need to see transport squadrons - or Tac Hel Squadrons, or MH Squadrons - becoming excessively distracted from their primary functions by constant calls for their secondary functions.


----------



## Altair (12 Apr 2016)

The defense minister said it won't be privatized


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 Apr 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> You could mandate the RCN to provide offshore SAR and then privatize the rest.



The day the Navy is mandated to provide offshore SAR is the day you cease to have a Navy. Our job is to fight and train to fight, not to save lives. If we have to  have the presence along Canada's coasts required to provide SAR, then we don't have any ship to deploy on anything else - so what's the point of spending all that money on warships.

What would you do if we had to got fight somewhere, like Gulf War I? Sorry old pal, no SAR this year, we're somewhere else.


----------



## DonaldMcL (12 Apr 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> We do not need to see transport squadrons - or Tac Hel Squadrons, or MH Squadrons - becoming excessively distracted from their primary functions by constant calls for their secondary functions.



I'd ask the CP-140 guys about that.... Calling EITS =D


----------



## mariomike (12 Apr 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> The defense minister said it won't be privatized



Financially, privatization with a company like ORNGE for example, does not make sense to me. 

CEO: $418,000.18 Taxable Benefits: $994.68

A lot of their Paramedics are on the Sunshine List. One made: $164,589.78 Taxable Benefits: $1,909.75

Their Chiefs make more than that.

And, that's with no SAR training.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Apr 2016)

Are our SAR Techs trained and licensed as paramedics?


----------



## mariomike (12 Apr 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Are our SAR Techs trained and licensed as paramedics?



I just know what I read on here,



			
				HappyWithYourHacky said:
			
		

> I only ask because Sar Techs also do their program through the JIBC(same as Med Techs?) and are not required to earn a licence at any point. The protocols do change after course however, I believe they reflect the BC PCP protocols very closely (It's been awhile). There are some "advanced" skill/protocols added at the QL6A level that fall somewhere in between PCP and ACP as far as I can tell.





			
				kj_gully said:
			
		

> Once fully qualified, we are pcp + (super PCP?). the time spent maintainingACP currency is prohibitive, and those skills are very perishable and would not be often utilized.





			
				Altair said:
			
		

> The defense minister said it won't be privatized



I saw this on his Twitter, Is that what you are referring to?

"No one does SAR better than the @CanadianForces. #DefenceConsults is about having an open debate & always improving."


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Apr 2016)

No one does SAR better, because our SAR Techs have unlimited liability. They can't say no to a lawful order to conduct a mission. Civilian agencies most definitely can scrub missions for safety.


----------



## mariomike (12 Apr 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Civilian agencies most definitely can scrub missions for safety.



The SOP of the city department I worked for read, "Paramedics are reminded of their responsibility under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Section 43, (1) and (2).2 These sections exclude paramedics from the right to refuse work where the circumstances are inherent in their work and/or if the work refusal would directly endanger the health and safety of another person."

I never put it to the test, but I knew a few who did. They were fired.


----------



## Ostrozac (12 Apr 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> No one does SAR better, because our SAR Techs have unlimited liability. They can't say no to a lawful order to conduct a mission. Civilian agencies most definitely can scrub missions for safety.



It's notable that the two largest agencies worldwide responsible for Search and Rescue over vast distances and harsh climate are the United States Coast Guard and the Russian Maritime Border Guards. Both are what we would consider unlimited liability services.

Could the private sector handle SAR in the south of Canada? Absolutely. The private sector has provided unlimited liability services before (East India Company, Air America, Blackwater) -- but such services don't come cheap. And what's the point of privatizing if you don't save any money?


----------



## expwor (13 Apr 2016)

Does the Government intend for all SAR to be privatized.  Does that mean the RCC's will be closed down and the private corporation sets up their own?  And capital equipment, thinking of big ticket items, like airplanes and helicopters, the private corporation would need those wouldn't it  Since  privatized wouldn't they need airports to be based out of, since the military (and I assume the bases too) are no longer in the picture.
This privatization would need a company with aircraft, pilots/aircrew, ground crew, and SAR techs.
Who ensures the civilian SAR techs maintain proficiency in skill sets.  For that matter who establishes standards
Just a couple quick thoughts off the top of my civilian head

Tom


----------



## mariomike (13 Apr 2016)

expwor said:
			
		

> Who ensures the civilian SAR techs maintain proficiency in skill sets.



In the U.K. ( according to this article ), they seem to rely on former military members.

"Many pilots and crew are former armed services personnel. Six of the nine pilots who will be based at Humberside are ex-military, as are nine of the 10 rear crew. “It’s a bit like a reunion here of military crews I’ve flown with in the past,” said Forsyth." "Forsyth, herself a former military SAR commander..."
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/30/pilot-defends-civilian-search-rescue-service-bristow


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Apr 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> In the U.K. ( according to this article ), they seem to rely on former military members.
> 
> "Many pilots and crew are former armed services personnel. Six of the nine pilots who will be based at Humberside are ex-military, as are nine of the 10 rear crew. “It’s a bit like a reunion here of military crews I’ve flown with in the past,” said Forsyth." "Forsyth, herself a former military SAR commander..."
> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/30/pilot-defends-civilian-search-rescue-service-bristow



And the 'poaching' rates are likely astronomical as a result.


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Apr 2016)

He who shall not be named (or linked to) has written an update to the story over at the usual site.


How's that for cryptic?


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Apr 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> The defense minister said it won't be privatized



CCG isn't private.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=6449160

Most Canadians think these are Coast Guard already....  



> Here are a few pictures of a Canadian Coast Guard Cormorant helicopter practicing/demonstrating their skills at a SAR competition a few weeks ago. There are more on my Flickr, have a look, C&C welcomed.
> PIC #1
> PIC #2


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Apr 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> He who shall not be named (or linked to) has written an update to the story over at the usual site.
> 
> How's that for cryptic?


There's also some sources we _can_ share  ;D


> Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has headed off a potentially divisive debate by declaring the Liberal government will not privatize military search and rescue.
> 
> Sajjan made the comments Tuesday in response to an NDP question, after the Citizen revealed that the government’s defence review included questions about whether there were “alternatives” to having the military conduct search and rescue missions.
> 
> “The previous government might have been looking at privatizing search and rescue,” Sajjan told the House of Commons. “But I can assure the member that this government is not, because the Canadian Armed Forces play a critical role in search and rescue.” ...


----------



## mariomike (13 Apr 2016)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Could the private sector handle SAR in the south of Canada? Absolutely.



There is ( non-private ) municipal SAR in the GTA. 
The Toronto Police and Paramedic Marine Unit is responsible for 460 square miles of open water on Lake Ontario. 24/7/365. Their operational jurisdiction is from Etobicoke Creek (Peel Region) to Rouge River (Durham Region) and extending 13 nautical miles to the US/Canada border. They are also responsible for all waterways within Toronto.
http://torontoparamedicservices.ca/special-units-teams/marine-unit/

They also take care of Heavy Urban Search and Rescue (HUSAR).  
http://torontoparamedicservices.ca/special-units-teams/heavy-urban-search-and-rescue/


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Apr 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> They also take care of Heavy Urban Search and Rescue (HUSAR).
> http://torontoparamedicservices.ca/special-units-teams/heavy-urban-search-and-rescue/



Now there's a worthy task that we will not have enough of on the 'Shake and Bake' Coast when the big one hits. If there's one thing the guvmint could pour money into - IMHO - it would be to increase this capability.


----------



## Bass ackwards (13 Apr 2016)

If they privatized all SAR in this country, what would happen to all the various volunteer SAR organizations that currently exist? 

If a company's bread and butter is air search and rescue, for example, how are they going to feel about the existence of outfits like CASARA who do it for free?


----------



## mariomike (13 Apr 2016)

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> If they privatized all SAR in this country, what would happen to all the various volunteer SAR organizations that currently exist?



Public or private ( preferably a public employer ), if I was a vollie, I would jump at any opportunity to get on the job.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (13 Apr 2016)

mariomike's post should serve both as an example of what already exists on a volunteer basis on the one hand and the actual responsibility at law for rescue and coordination of rescue efforts for what I would term, for lack of better term the "commercial" side of things. Let me explain. 

Mariomike talks of "responsibility" for 460 square miles of water and "operational jurisdiction" over it. This is incorrect. The City of Toronto has elected unilaterally to provide its citizens with a more advanced form of "lifeguard" service in view of the fact that  pleasure boating on the lake is an important leisure activity of this citizenry. No higher government charged Toronto with this task and Toronto has no legal obligation to provide it. Similarly, the policing on the water is the responsibility of the RCMP, but by agreement, they can delegate such authority to Toronto for those waters outside the city's local waters. In Quebec and Ontario, for instance, the QPP and OPP have marine divisions authorized to patrol the waters otherwise the responsibility of the RCMP. 

We can be thankful that TO has elected to provide such service which is of good quality and of a higher level than would likely be provided by the Military/Coast Guard on the smaller scale (pleasure crafts) it is provided at. 

Such local services, whether they call themselves "SAR" or not (SAR is not  protected trademark), are important resources for smaller scale emergency needs of a local nature and are very useful secondary resources to the JRCC's, but the JRCC's retain responsibility for actual distress. For instance, if JRCC Trenton received a call from a boater on the lake say five miles off Toronto Island saying they have lost someone overboard and can't find him, you can be absolutely sure that, while they may call on the TO police marine division to help, one or two big yellow birds or whirlybird from Trenton would quickly show up, followed by any red and white hull in the area and grey ones if any are available (the Navy has heavy Rhib's at Hamilton, Toronto and Kingston reserve units). In reverse, I don't think that the TO maritime unit would be the one going to do SAR if, in the middle of a bad storm, they happen to pick up a distress call from a cargo ship floundering mid-lake: they would pass it on to  Trenton.

These local initiatives would not be affected by any "privatization" of SAR. it is the large scale/commercial SAR that we are talking about here.

Here is what I mean by commercial. By analogy, let's think of the aids to navigation maintained by the Coast Guard. If there were no commercial traffic on the water - no cargo, no fishermen, only pleasure crafts for people's leisure - does anybody believe that the federal government would bother having a Coast Guard or with maintaining all these light house, transits and buoys? I don't think so. They would let any such matters in the hand of locals, should they wish to have some in their corner of the world.

I surmise it's the same for the SAR that the federal government is responsible for: The maritime side grew out of the lifeboat services - these services were meant to go after professional seamen that got in trouble: fishermen, cargos ships, people that had no choice but to go to sea in all weather to earn a living - not to go after pleasure boaters too stupid to wait the storm out before setting out. Again today, I suggest that such service only exists for such mariners, not to go after boater Joe who didn't put enough gas in his tank or Sam, who just got his head knocked out by the boom of his sailboat. That, when human life is a t stake, SAR assets go after boaters is just a bonus from the fact that the organization exists.

On the air side, let me ask this: would we have such an organization as we have now if there were no commercial air traffic? Imagine that the only planes are small one or two passenger private planes for leisure that don't require much more than a green field to take off and land. I don't think that the government would bother with providing airports, air navigation, air traffic services, and I suggest, bother to maintain a system of air search and paramedic services for all these individuals. The air SAR side of things exists to deal with the Boeing 737 that crashes way north of TO, for instance. That they can go after joe public and his piper airplane is just a bonus again.

So it's this large scale/commercial side of SAR that is at issue here, and that would not affect any local initiatives in any way, save coordination as secondary resources if need be, which would remain with whoever does the "large scale" SAR task. (For instance, someone mm talked of TO's HUSAR and someone else mentioned its usefulness for the big one on the West Coast. Well, TO's HUSAR would not just show up there on its own, without telling/asking anyone and just start to do its thing all by itself wherever they felt like it. This would be coordinated at a higher level, and that higher level is the JRCC's.)


----------



## mariomike (13 Apr 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Mariomike talks of "responsibility" for 460 square miles of water and "operational jurisdiction" over it. This is incorrect.



I was quoting their website: "The unit has a unique responsibility; it is the largest command, encompassing approximately 460 square miles of open water on Lake Ontario. The operational jurisdiction is from the Etobicoke creek (Peel Region) to Rouge River (Durham Region) and extending 13 nautical miles to the US/Canada border. Marine Unit is also responsible for all waterways within Toronto."


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Apr 2016)

I'm not sure it's been linked or included in this post before, but here is some info on our SAR program.

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/mrgnc-mngmnt/rspndng-mrgnc-vnts/nss/prgrm-en.aspx

National Search and Rescue Program

The National Search and Rescue Program (NSP) is a Canada-wide horizontal program that integrates organizations and resources involved in the provision of search and rescue (SAR) services to Canadians, including SAR response and prevention. The responsibility for the NSP resides within Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, through the National Search and Rescue Secretariat (NSS). The NSS' role is to serve as a central coordinator for the National SAR Program, working directly with federal, provincial/territorial as well as air, ground and marine volunteer SAR organizations involved in search and rescue activities

The National Search and Rescue Program is founded on two pillars, prevention and response with the following vision:

A Canada where the critical importance of Search and Rescue is reflected in a multi-jurisdictional approach to promoting individual, collective and organizational behaviour that minimizes the risk of injury or loss of life while maintaining timely and effective response services.

Within Canada, SAR activities span a multitude of jurisdictions:
•The Canadian Armed Forces are responsible for aeronautical incidents; 
•The Canadian Coast Guard is responsible for marine incidents; 
•Parks Canada is responsible within national parks; and 
•Provincial and territorial governments are responsible for searches for missing persons including those who are lost or overdue on land or inland waters - commonly known as Ground Search and Rescue (GSAR), and often delegated to the police service of jurisdiction. 

Notwithstanding these various jurisdictions, the National SAR Program attempts to achieve integration and interoperability amongst partners. Prevention, investigation, education, regulation and enforcement efforts span multiple jurisdictions, necessitating a shared responsibility for safety.

The National SAR Program bridges the efforts of federal, provincial, territorial, and local search and rescue authorities, as well as the contributions of the private sector, non-governmental organizations, and the volunteer community towards a common goal: saving lives. The framework is supported by government at all levels, first responders, and a trained network of SAR volunteers to provide a comprehensive safety net for Canadians.
------------------------------------------------------

Technically, the CAF is 'responsible' for aeronautical incidents, but we all know our SAR Sqn's and pers do much more than just aeronautical incidents.  I'd guess the majority of their calls are NOT aeronautical related and this is where things become expensive;  it costs money to fly a Cormorant around, even if only to Cape Chignecto to rescue hikers.  It also takes the SAR asset and crew out of the game for a certain time, and once you start a crew day, it keeps on ticking until it dies.

Privatizing SAR;  I think it would have to be inclusive of all areas and worded very carefully.  I have grown up and now work around SAR and SAR Sqns pretty much my entire life as a kid and for the past decade or so in the RCAF.  SAR (IMO) should continue to be part of the business of the CAF, not just because 'it has been', but because the CAF has been involved in saving a great many lives over the years.  Sure, holding Ready 2 can suck when you are SAR standby for a non-SAR unit.  If we can go to places like Iraq with the intent to save lives by helping destroy ISIS, I think we can also maintain our SAR Sqns.  

The average Canadians' opinion probably is 'what is SAR?  Is there an app for that?'.   ^-^


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Apr 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The day the Navy is mandated to provide offshore SAR is the day you cease to have a Navy. Our job is to fight and train to fight, not to save lives. If we have to  have the presence along Canada's coasts required to provide SAR, then we don't have any ship to deploy on anything else - so what's the point of spending all that money on warships.
> 
> What would you do if we had to got fight somewhere, like Gulf War I? Sorry old pal, no SAR this year, we're somewhere else.



I don't disagree at all, but logic sometimes is forced from the room when politics get involved. As for what you mention in your other posts, a big challenge for volunteer marine rescue (and others) is being called away from family dinner to go on a call, when you get back at 2:00am and the wife asks; "did you save a life" and you replay, "nah just another idiot with more beer than gas in their boat" It gets old pretty quick and the wife starts saying 'time for a new hobby". 

In our local situation the closure of Kit's base and the local marine rescue group jumping up to say they can replace them, has left a very bad relationship between the CCG personal and the volunteers that will take years to mend. They used to work closely together in training and on search. You can bet training will be non-existent or unproductive. I hope things will be put aside during searches, but the close cooperation is completely gone. CCG tried to do the same in Powell River, the unions up there said, no one will volunteer to replace a laid off CCG crewman so the idea died. (they have a mixed crew of fulltime and volunteer)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (13 Apr 2016)

I was in no way implying that you made that up mariomike, only that you were the one who mentioned it in your post.

It does not change my two points, which are that (1) such local SAR resources would continue to exist even if the federal government decided to privatize its SAR function, as they are of a different order, and (2) that it is responsibility that  Toronto elected to take on itself - it was not charged with it by anyone else and does not relieve the proper authority in law from any responsibility.

Just a small example if I may to illustrate: The RCMP could not just come in and start investigating a murder that occurred at the corner of Yonge and Dundas. That's TO police legal responsibility and jurisdiction. But they could arrest someone on the water one hundred feet from the Toronto shore and charge them with drunk driving. Even if TO Police has an agreement with the Federal government giving them the capacity to act, the RCMP retains legal jurisdiction over all territorial and internal waters of Canada.

That's all I was driving at. 

P.S.: Just saw EITS's excellent post above, and for clarity's sake: inland waters does not cover the great lakes, even though they are from a legal point of view "internal" waters of Canada. Inland means enclosed lakes (though, exceptionally, I believe that the CG has, or used to at least, a lifeboat on lake Winnipeg) and non-commercially navigable rivers.


----------



## mariomike (13 Apr 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I was in no way implying that you made that up mariomike, only that you were the one who mentioned it in your post.



I was just a grunt in the big machine. Most of what I know about the politics of the institution is from what I read in the papers.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Apr 2016)

CCG inland SAR response and navigational support has been gutted over the last decade and a bit. There was a summer program to put RHIB on major lakes, I think that's gone. No new navigational buoys, Office of Boating Safety gutted and no educational outreach.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Apr 2016)

But GST is 2% less...


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Apr 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> But GST is 2% less...



But you'd be crying if it was 4% more...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Apr 2016)

The problem with Canadians is that most seem to be disconnected to the fact that their taxes and fees pay for services. Everyone wants to pay less tax, at all levels municipal, provincial and federal. But no one wants to experience a real cut in services to themselves. They are fine with services being cut to someone else, but not them. Canadians also suffer from “Someone has to do something” as in government or an organization. I note Americans are more likely to say “I needed to do something, so I did it”


----------



## GR66 (13 Apr 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Within Canada, SAR activities span a multitude of jurisdictions:
> •The Canadian Armed Forces are responsible for aeronautical incidents;
> ...



What if instead of talking about "privatizing SAR" we simply examined the feasibility of transferring responsibility of the first line item from the CF to another government agency?  Transport Canada?  Public Safety Canada?  Keep the task government run but remove the responsibility from the CF so that the CF can focus on its core responsibilities?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (13 Apr 2016)

You are right on Colin! That's why, of all the online forums related to the Lib's Defence Policy Review 2016, I am not touching, even with a ten foot (any left in Canada? No, just 3 meters ones) pole the Defence Budget Discussion Forum:

For one thing it is stupid to start with to have a forum on budget without even knowing what your other policies are going to be. For another, these are numbers and items that most people inside the government but outside defence don't even understand. To think that ordinary Canadians will be able to comment other than saying "It's OK/too much/not enough" without any reason other than their political outlook on life is ridiculous and a waste of time.

And you're bang on as regards the ailment of the Canadian psyche, Colin. It is unfortunately something that we have encouraged even for businesses when we started in the fifties and sixties with some good intentions social programs, like unemployment insurance. To wish to assist in a self financed program for structural changes in industry so people may adjust is one thing, but when we started to define requirements in such a way as to "cover" the off-season of seasonal industries in the outlying areas, it became a system to finance and subsidize the corporations operating there in season. If you only cut wood in winter and there is no other work there in summer, then let the industry pay its people extra so they remain available for next year. Don't ask me in manufacturing Canada to pay for it. It got even worse when we started using it to finance self employed people in cyclical industries, i.e. fisheries. In the US, the fisherman knows he his an independent business and its up to him to finance his whole operation or go under. He doesn't get government payments so he can continue to pay his mortgage on his boat during the off-season.

/RANT OFF


----------



## Brasidas (13 Apr 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> He doesn't get government payments so he can continue to pay his mortgage on his boat during the off-season.
> 
> /RANT OFF



Isn't that the same country that pays farmers not to farm, though?


----------



## mariomike (13 Apr 2016)

GR66 said:
			
		

> What if instead of talking about "privatizing SAR" we simply examined the feasibility of transferring responsibility of the first line item from the CF to another government agency?  Transport Canada?  Public Safety Canada?



Does the right to refuse unsafe work ( ie: rescue ) apply to Transport Canada and Public Safety Canada employees?


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Apr 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Does the right to refuse unsafe work apply to all federal employees? Excluding the CAF and RCMP, are certain other federal employees exempt?



On a related subject:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/german-soldiers-forced-to-leave-nato-exercise-early-due-to-overtime-limits-a6978766.html



> German soldiers forced to leave Nato exercise early due to overtime limits
> 'It can’t be that we can’t fulfil our Nato obligations because of overtime'
> Matt Payton Monday 11 April 2016



And a really cool, high tech weapon for the unionized UN soldier.   >


----------



## mariomike (13 Apr 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> And a really cool, high tech weapon for the unionized UN soldier.   >



Some union jobs have the right to refuse unsafe work, some don't.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Apr 2016)

I knew in my day we could refuse to go in, but generally it was more the case of the Captain saying "No you will not", in rescue situation it's always good to have an experienced person outside of the loop being the cool head.


----------



## Bass ackwards (13 Apr 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The average Canadians' opinion probably is 'what is SAR?  Is there an app for that?'.   ^-^



From an article about SAR on The Weather Network:  

Last month,	Nunavut MLA Pauloosie Keyootak and two family members were found alive after being lost in the tundra for 9 days by a search and rescue group aboard a plane. _Keyootak says the group got lost because of bad weather and a faulty GPS app on a smartphone._
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/liberal-government-considers-privatizing-search-and-rescue/66292/

My initial post was concerned more with how privatized -and therefore likely unionized- SAR types would interact with volunteers who might well be regarded as a threat in union eyes. 

Seems it's all a moot point now, anyways.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Apr 2016)

GR66 said:
			
		

> What if instead of talking about "privatizing SAR" we simply examined the feasibility of transferring responsibility of the first line item from the CF to another government agency?  Transport Canada?  Public Safety Canada?  Keep the task government run but remove the responsibility from the CF so that the CF can focus on its core responsibilities?



The money would go with it, if it did happen.  So, no real net gain IMO.  There is a possibility that the GoC thought 'it we privatize or at least remove the CAF from the picture, we don't have to go thru with FWSAR procurement/replacement and could save some bucks there".

I think the SAR the CF does it best left where it is.  Following the UK model, they also got rid of their MPAs.  How'd that decision work out for them?


----------



## mariomike (13 Apr 2016)

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> My initial post was concerned more with how privatized -and therefore likely unionized- SAR types would interact with volunteers who might well be regarded as a threat in union eyes.



Only this. It applies to secondary employment,

"Secondary Employment: Working a secondary job part-time, paid on call, volunteer or otherwise as a firefighter, emergency medical services worker, public safety or law enforcement officer, or as a worker in a related service, whether in the public or private sector, where such job is within the work jurisdiction of any affiliate or which materially erodes the conditions of work of any affiliate."
http://twohatter.com/resolution%20no%202.htm


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Apr 2016)

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> From an article about SAR on The Weather Network:
> 
> Last month,	Nunavut MLA Pauloosie Keyootak and two family members were found alive after being lost in the tundra for 9 days by a search and rescue group aboard a plane. _Keyootak says the group got lost because of bad weather and a faulty GPS app on a smartphone._
> http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/liberal-government-considers-privatizing-search-and-rescue/66292/
> ...



My brother in law is with the RC Marine SAR as a volunteer. They are apparently highly regarded by the 'Regs' who value their local knowledge and the extra manpower. Without them, the full timers would be strapped.

He also mentioned how lots of people are getting into trouble by relying on their GPS smartphone apps as opposed to more reliable navigation tools like, you know, a map/charts and compass.

Apparently even Siri has limitations....


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Apr 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> He also mentioned how lots of people are getting into trouble by relying on their GPS smartphone apps as opposed to more reliable navigation tools like, you know, a map/charts and compass.
> 
> Apparently even Siri has limitations....



My brother-in-law, after having visited our house once, relied on his phone for directions.  He and my wife's sister got to know one of the neighbours after they walked into the neighbour's house without ceremony.

One of my bosses, returning to Montreal from Upstate New York found himself lost on logging roads in the Adirondacks or the Green Mountains, having missed the turn-off for Cornwall.


----------



## Journeyman (18 Apr 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> My brother-in-law, after having visited our house once, relied on his phone for directions.



A real man doesn't need no steenkin' directions  -- we just know!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Apr 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> My brother-in-law, after having visited our house once, relied on his phone for directions.  He and my wife's sister got to know one of the neighbours after they walked into the neighbour's house without ceremony.
> 
> One of my bosses, returning to Montreal from Upstate New York found himself lost on logging roads in the Adirondacks or the Green Mountains, having missed the turn-off for Cornwall.



Yes same just happened to me going to Halfway river FN, GPS told us to take a turnoff we quickly saw that it was unlikely, but got stuck turning around in the snow. The problem in Canada is that most of the publicly available GIS data is ancient history. I should add that with more devices like Spot and such, there should be less focus on search and more on rescue in the future.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Apr 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> One of my bosses, returning to Montreal from Upstate New York found himself lost on logging roads in the Adirondacks or the Green Mountains, having missed the turn-off for Cornwall.



Well, if the GPS kept him out of Cornwall, it sounds like success to me...


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Apr 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Well, if the GPS kept him out of Cornwall, it sounds like success to me...



As a one-time denizen of Cornwall - six months downwind of the pulp-mill - I quite agree.  Although I understand the mill has gone away now.


----------



## sandyson (18 Apr 2016)

Civil or military, would RPV employment as searching tools be of use to cut some costs?  Rescue would still be necessary but cheaper search platforms may cover more area at less cost.


----------



## YZT580 (19 Apr 2016)

RPV deployment just means doubling the time required to effect a rescue since you would still have to deploy a manned aircraft once the rescuees were found.  Now if you could find a means to deploy RPVs in conjunction with a manned asset you would have an advantage.  Unfortunately though, many search operations are conducted in less than favourable weather conditions, thus limiting the effectiveness of an RPV.  So, the short answer is they could be useful but not at the cost of reducing available manned assets so they would add to the cost of S&R


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Apr 2016)

An RPV may be more useful where there are no dedicated assets, such as the North, they can start searching as the larger SAR are inbound.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Apr 2016)

Where are they launching out of?  How much is the link to the platform from the GCS going to cost?  North = sat comms IIRC.

If you are going to try to do a search with a UAV, what sensors are you intending to put on it?  Who will it 'belong' to (probably RCAF but...who knows).

UAVs are great for looking with a straw.  In bad Wx and Vis, they are going to be next to useless IMO.  The search area might be clear, but the transit 'to' the search area might have Wx that will keep them on the ground.  

Keep in mind, you can have a GCS anywhere in the country that can 'fly the mission', but you still have to have a launch/recovery station with people to fly and service them.  They don't transit as fast as people seem to think they do (thinking along the line of Pred/Reap).

I think there is a place for them to possibly add to the search cap for a surface ship or something that is already in the area, but other than that, I think you're looking for a manned platform that can make it to the search area thru or above Wx, search in degraded Wx (Mk 1 Eyeball) and search if you're sensors are degraded as well (Wx, system failures).

And as someone already mentioned, unless the UAV is carrying something like a SKAD, it is going to be able to do nothing.  If you dropped a survival pack from a wing pod, it might be of some use (basic survival kit, comm's kit, etc) but that is going to slow your transit down even more with extra drag.

Seeing a PIW is hard on a manned platform with Mk 1 eyeballs and sensors.  A UAV would be even less capable than a manned platform.

 :2c:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Apr 2016)

I was thinking a private on contract or provincial/territorial ownership. Pretty clear a leap in commercial drone/RPV tech is coming in the near future, they will fly themselves and the user just has to tell it where to go and then use the sensors. The North is the best place to push this. Less air traffic and it would reduce the outright costs and long term operational costs. If government thy could be seconded to the local Provincial Emergency program or Forestry department. Based at areas with existing small airfields without existing aircraft operating tenets. This would mean the local group could start an air search right away, weather permitting, while they call in other resources to assist. I would not give them to the military.


----------



## mariomike (20 Apr 2016)

Saw this regarding drones,

Published on: April 19, 2016 

The wheels started to turn for Renfrew paramedic chief Michael Nolan in February 2012 after one of his crews helped rescue a snowmobiler whose machine had crashed through the ice on Calabogie Lake.

Paramedic Brad Smith later won a Governor General’s Award for bravery for his role in the dramatic rescue, using a canoe and his hands for paddles to get to the stranded man clinging to a crust of ice. 

But Nolan thought there had to be a better way for paramedics to save lives — and money — in a jurisdiction that stretches its resources over 10,000 square kilometres from West Carleton to near Mattawa, and reaching into west Quebec and Algonquin Park.
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/skys-the-limit-renfrew-paramedics-harness-the-power-of-drones


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Apr 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I was thinking a private on contract or provincial/territorial ownership. Pretty clear a leap in commercial drone/RPV tech is coming in the near future, they will fly themselves and the user just has to tell it where to go and then use the sensors. The North is the best place to push this. Less air traffic and it would reduce the outright costs and long term operational costs. If government thy could be seconded to the local Provincial Emergency program or Forestry department. Based at areas with existing small airfields without existing aircraft operating tenets. This would mean the local group could start an air search right away, weather permitting, while they call in other resources to assist. I would not give them to the military.



Actually, quite interesting.  Any idea on the sensors being pushed/trialed/tested?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 Apr 2016)

Most commercial drone stuff is looking at LIDAR and infrared. Forestry, mapping and now transmission line inspection is the latest area of interest. Quad drones like the DJI Phantom 4 has come out with forward looking optical avoidance, expect this type of feature to be standard on all commercial drones over the next few years. I have heard that the helicopter companies have been complaining about drones, because they are eating away at a lot of their bread and butter contracts, in fact a couple of helicopter companies have actually started offering drones as part of their services. I can see autonomous drones flying remote pipelines and transmission lines on a regular basis. 
http://droneanalyst.com/2014/10/28/gis-biggest-little-drone-market-world/

http://www.dronezon.com/learn-about-drones-quadcopters/introduction-to-uav-photogrammetry-and-lidar-mapping-basics/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIxYt7DkK5A

http://www.flir.co.uk/instruments/building/display/?id=60572


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Apr 2016)

Your post made me do a little Google-fu on this stuff...

Here's one site I found that had some neat video.  Interesting stuff for sure!

http://www.phoenix-aerial.com/


----------



## QiioetSpike (2 Oct 2019)

Isn't it about time we pass on the SAR capability to law enforcement/first responders, the Canadian Coast Guard and private industry? 
I say this for 3 main reasons;

1. The current SAR aircraft fleet of CH-149 Cormorant, CH-146, CC-130H and of course the new CC-295 "Guardian" could all be utilized much better for Army operations. 
2. The amount of funding SAR capabilities eat up is almost 1/3rd of the RCAFs budget, if not more. 
3. SAR is not military role, certainly not a primary or secondary role of any air force, and as our budget suggests, it's more important than our fighter fleet. 

Another point is that by passing on this capability to first responders, private industry and other government agencies, we can create jobs and make money! 

As for the current SAR techs, I would re-assign them as CSAR operators and have them mix in with CANSOFCOM, base SAR, D.A.R.T. and other units like that. I'd love any feedback on the topic, thank you!


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Oct 2019)

Warm and fuzzy, politicians (all parties) like it more than anything CAF do along with distaster assistance, public too. Saving lives, not killing people. Won't change.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Zoomie (2 Oct 2019)

QuietSpike said:
			
		

> 2. The amount of funding SAR capabilities eat up is almost 1/3rd of the RCAFs budget, if not more.


Which would then be stripped from the CAF and sent to the Coast Guard, RCMP, etc if we gave up SAR.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (2 Oct 2019)

QuietSpike said:
			
		

> Isn't it about time we pass on the SAR capability to law enforcement/first responders, the Canadian Coast Guard and private industry?
> I say this for 3 main reasons;
> 
> 1. The current SAR aircraft fleet of CH-149 Cormorant, CH-146, CC-130H and of course the new CC-295 "Guardian" could all be utilized much better for Army operations.
> ...



How much money you got?  Equivalent SAR civvy side would cost WAY MORE $$$$$$


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Oct 2019)

As noted in a post I made a few months ago (IIRC), the SAR Sqn's are not 'just' SAR as well.  Many of them are Transport and Rescue.

What sustained army op's are in need of 295s and Corms?  Has the army asked for those assets ISO C Army activities?


----------



## brihard (2 Oct 2019)

QuietSpike said:
			
		

> Isn't it about time we pass on the SAR capability to law enforcement/first responders, the Canadian Coast Guard and private industry?
> I say this for 3 main reasons;
> 
> 1. The current SAR aircraft fleet of CH-149 Cormorant, CH-146, CC-130H and of course the new CC-295 "Guardian" could all be utilized much better for Army operations.
> ...



SAR is not a law enforcement task. While police will certainly assist with SAR, and in a smaller, local op may well have what’s needed, it’s not a task that requires law enforcement powers or authorities. Conversely, it IS a skill set that, to be done properly, needs considerable skills maintenance that would distract from core police, fire, or paramedic functions- all three services already being highly stretched for resources.

The military is already by far the organization best equipped, trained, deployed, and logistically capable of performing SAR. The skill sets and capabilities have other militarily relevant applications.

While there are always things that can be optimized or done better, I sincerely doubt that any deficiencies in Canada’s SAR middle exist because the wrong agency overall is filling the role.


----------



## Baz (2 Oct 2019)

Point 1.  If SAR went somewhere else, I'd almost guarantee the aircraft would go there as well; if it was a private organization it would be at rock bottom prices.  As a corollary,  why would we want to keep fleets that aren't to meet defined needs?
Point 2.  If the RCAF wasn't doing SAR, they wouldn't get to keep the money it cost to spend how they please.  It would be carved out of ths defence budget,  and probably more than what it currently costs to show how privatizing SAR saved money.

Edited to add: seems there was an avalanche if people saying the same thing at the same time...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (2 Oct 2019)

I'm certain Sartech's would love making bank though from all that extra money they would be able to command!  

You would be spending $$$$Millions of dollars a year in personnel costs to offer equivalent services the Military does Civvie side.  

I guarantee it would not be cheaper!


----------



## Jonezy76 (2 Oct 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> SAR is not a law enforcement task. While police will certainly assist with SAR, and in a smaller, local op may well have what’s needed, it’s not a task that requires law enforcement powers or authorities. Conversely, it IS a skill set that, to be done properly, needs considerable skills maintenance that would distract from core police, fire, or paramedic functions- all three services already being highly stretched for resources.
> 
> The military is already by far the organization best equipped, trained, deployed, and logistically capable of performing SAR. The skill sets and capabilities have other militarily relevant applications.
> 
> While there are always things that can be optimized or done better, I sincerely doubt that any deficiencies in Canada’s SAR middle exist because the wrong agency overall is filling the role.



Not sure about other provinces, but Saskatchewan Canada has volunteer organization to help relieve duties of volunteer Fire Departments and RCMP. It's called SARSAV. They utilize STARS helicopters when needed. They train solely in SAR, but are also volunteers and civilians and only number around 12,000 Canada wide.

Edit to add that they obviously wouldn't be suited for military SAR.


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Oct 2019)

I dont think this is an either or situation more like government plus the private sector equals prpviding for the public safety. Another option would be for the military to charge if they are called on to rescue someone. Then there is the training value in providing SAR services.


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Oct 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I'm certain Sartech's would love making bank though from all that extra money they would be able to command!
> 
> You would be spending $$$$Millions of dollars a year in personnel costs to offer equivalent services the Military does Civvie side.
> 
> I guarantee it would not be cheaper!



Most likely it would be far more expensive and the service would not be as good.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (2 Oct 2019)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Most likely it would be far more expensive and the service would not be as good.



Just imagine the workers comp settlements from injuries, overtime, etc.

It would be astronomically more expensive.  The reality is services and capability would decline significantly.


----------



## Ostrozac (2 Oct 2019)

It is notable that when you look at the other nations that conduct SAR over large areas in the Arctic, although not always a defence task, they do tend to use unlimited liability uniformed forces — I’m thinking US Coast Guard and the Russian Maritime Border Guards. Privatized SAR might be fine for plucking yachtsmen out of well travelled waters, it won’t cut it for some of the tasks that Canada’s climate, terrain and lack of infrastructure demand.


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Oct 2019)

QuietSpike said:
			
		

> Isn't it about time we pass on the SAR capability to law enforcement/first responders, the Canadian Coast Guard and private industry?
> I say this for 3 main reasons;



Not sure if you’re trolling or just ill-informed and honestly thinking you know a better way of doing things than what’s been refined over half a century.  Particularly with the belief that civilians can do things better for cheaper. 

That said, assuming your seriously want answers to your questions:



			
				QuietSpike said:
			
		

> 1. The current SAR aircraft fleet of CH-149 Cormorant, CH-146, CC-130H and of course the new CC-295 "Guardian" could all be utilized much better for Army operations.



To do what?  What Statement of Capability Deficiency has the Army issued that would be resolved that aren’t already addressed by aircraft such as....well, you know...CC-177, CC-130J, CH-147F and CH-146 and with all the training and experience in global mobility and operations that strategic and tactical airlifters and tactical aviators already do?



			
				QuietSpike said:
			
		

> 2. The amount of funding SAR capabilities eat up is almost 1/3rd of the RCAFs budget, if not more.



Wrong.  CF-188 O&M and NP combined budgets ‘eat’ up approximately 1/2 of the RCAF/DGAEPM funding.  ATIP the CAF 2018 Cost Factors Manual.



			
				QuietSpike said:
			
		

> 3. SAR is not military role, certainly not a primary or secondary role of any air force, and as our budget suggests, it's more important than our fighter fleet.
> 
> Another point is that by passing on this capability to first responders, private industry and other government agencies, we can create jobs and make money!



Incorrect again.  In Canada National SAR is in fact a military by federal legislation.. Also, again, your facts about the SAR funding vs fighter capability are quite mistaken (overstated).

Create new jobs to replaced the RCAF members released due to removal of the aforementioned aircraft fleets?  “We?” “Make money?” Who’s we?  Whose paying “us” (other than ‘us’?)




			
				QuietSpike said:
			
		

> As for the current SAR techs, I would re-assign them as CSAR operators and have them mix in with CANSOFCOM, base SAR, D.A.R.T. and other units like that. I'd love any feedback on the topic, thank you!



...once they passed selection, you mean.  Assuming you intended to say ‘CSAR’ operators (as opposed to CSOR operators), there is no such MOSID in the CAF/RCAF as CSAR Operator.  If you meant this as in the USAF Pararescue Jumper (PJ), then that’s only one member within the wider realm of Joint Personnel Recovery, and not something that Canada has investigated in earnest. If, on the other hand, you meant CSOR operators, then it bears noting that CANSOF Special Operators aren’t simply transferred from other units. They are selected and their own MOSID.  The proper concept is ‘selection-based occupational transfer.’

Others have pointed out the fallacy of expecting that while assets and roles would be transferred to another government department and/or some hybrid with civilian industry, the legacy money would remain behind in DND to do with as it wished for new ‘good ideas.’

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Oct 2019)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> It is notable that when you look at the other nations that conduct SAR over large areas in the Arctic, although not always a defence task, they do tend to use unlimited liability uniformed forces — I’m thinking US Coast Guard and the Russian Maritime Border Guards. Privatized SAR might be fine for plucking yachtsmen out of well travelled waters, it won’t cut it for some of the tasks that Canada’s climate, terrain and lack of infrastructure demand.



A good chunk of the SAR incidents in the North and Sub Arctic are resolved locally by local resources.


----------



## Baz (4 Oct 2019)

Good2Golf

Thank you providing the facts.  A lot of us are aware of the reality but you took the time to detail them succinctly (did I spell that correctly?).


----------



## Journeyman (4 Oct 2019)

Baz said:
			
		

> Good2Golf
> 
> Thank you providing the facts.  A lot of us are aware of the reality but you took the time to detail them succinctly (did I spell that correctly?).


     :nod:

It's always a treat to read posts from people who actually know what they're talking about..... even G2G   ;D


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Oct 2019)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> It's always a treat to read posts from people who actually know what they're talking about..... even G2G   ;D



JM, even a broken clock is right twice a day. ;D

Now, in the spirit of addressing elements of privatization, or more accurately commercialization of elements of specific SAR functions/capabilities, I will point out the example of Cougar Helicopters.

I'm not trying to advertise for them, but I know many of them and they indeed have an impressive capability to conduct rotary-wing SAR in very challenging conditions.  I'll quote from their SAR-related web-site, noting that while they indeed have contributed to missions that would otherwise be the full responsibility of DND, Cougar, like others, has assisted when able, the first sentence of their SAR page is the first sentence for a reason...raison d'être and funding...



> (Link)
> Cougar Helicopters has been providing Search & Rescue (SAR) services since 1991 to the oil and gas industry. Operating from a purpose-built 27,000 sq. ft. facility in St. John's, Cougar team of professionals provide 24/7 SAR capabilities to its offshore oil and gas clients with a dedicated Sikorsky S92 aircraft.
> 
> Safety is Cougar's number one priority. Cougar operates to strict company standards supported by a Transport Canada approved Operations Manual and Standard Operating Procedures specifically written for SAR operations.
> ...



Regards
G2G


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Oct 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> N
> Others have pointed out the fallacy of expecting that while assets and roles would be transferred to another government department and/or some hybrid with civilian industry, the legacy money would remain behind in DND to do with as it wished for new ‘good ideas.’
> 
> 
> ...



Quite agree, if DND gives up any portion of SAR, then it will also give up a equal amount of funding as well. It would not be the first time though, back in 1962 the RCAF gave up Marine SAR and transferred it's marine assets to the newly formed Coast Guard, if fact Kitsilano CCG base was transferred over, base, land, boats, equipment and people from RCAF to CCG.


----------



## Crimmsy (17 Oct 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> JM, even a broken clock is right twice a day. ;D
> 
> Now, in the spirit of addressing elements of privatization, or more accurately commercialization of elements of specific SAR functions/capabilities, I will point out the example of Cougar Helicopters.
> 
> ...



Reading that, curious, what exactly their role is for the O&G industry? Medevac and searching for guys falling off the rigs? Not sarcastic, just trying to understand what makes them SAR vice medevac.


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Oct 2019)

If someone falls overboard off a rig or support ship, that wouldn’t be MEDEVAC.  If another O&G helo goes down, that wouldn’t be MEDEVAC. Etc.

Regards
G2G


----------



## kev994 (18 Oct 2019)

AFAIK Cougar keeps a helo on standby to rescue when they have another transiting to a rig.


----------

