# OP Ed piece on expanding SAR capability using ex-Presidential choppers



## jollyjacktar (26 Aug 2016)

I don't always agree with his views but this caught my attention.  Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act.



> OPINION: Former presidential copters should do search and rescue in Canada
> 
> Colin Kenny
> Published August 25, 2016 - 5:37pm
> ...


----------



## captloadie (26 Aug 2016)

_The presidential choppers would only require new avionics suites and side doors to make them SAR ready_

That's all eh? Oh, and maybe train some crew on them . . . . We should be good to go in say 4-5 years.

That said, I do think if implemented correctly, introducing these helos would be  a benefit to the RCAF.


----------



## dapaterson (26 Aug 2016)

What could possibly go wrong with machines that have been sitting idle for years? Just look at those wonderful British submarines!


----------



## Lightguns (26 Aug 2016)

"The Griffon is a converted civilian helicopter never designed to be used for SAR. It’s considerably slower than the Cormorant, has less lift capacity and less than half the aeronautical range."

Do tell!!?!  You would think someone might have noticed that before we bought them.........


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Aug 2016)

captloadie said:
			
		

> _The presidential choppers would only require new avionics suites and side doors to make them SAR ready_
> 
> That's all eh? Oh, and maybe train some crew on them . . . . We should be good to go in say 4-5 years.
> 
> That said, I do think if implemented correctly, introducing these helos would be  a benefit to the RCAF.



Maybe the stupid thing is that we acquired them, not that we're not using them.  If these are the only ones ever built, why bother?  A bunch of spare parts...vague.  ALL spare parts (like spares for each and every component?).

More info needed to have an opinion, but this might look easy and cheap etc to those not famil with air ops.  Personally I don't consider a range of 1400 (max) anything to write home about but...I'm biased from LRP on what eff ranges are.


----------



## dapaterson (26 Aug 2016)

The US bought a/c similar but not identical to the Cormorants.  As costs spiralled, they canned the program, and liquidated the assets they held.  Canada bought them up as a cheap source of spare parts, since they are very similar.

If Canada were to refurb the helicopters that have not been flying, and add Canadian avionics, radios and SAR gear, they would be almost but not quite the same as the in-service Cormorants - or, in other words, they would be different. I am not an engineer, so I can't quantify how different they would be, nor what the impact on training and maintenance would be.  Nor can I say what it would cost to do so, and whether that would be a cost-effective way of doing things or not (compared to other options, such as buying new).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Aug 2016)

It would be very hard, if at all doable, to maintain currency/proficiency/category on the 2 *similar* platforms.  I was part of the 'dual qual' folks between Block 2 and Block 3 Aurora, and it isn't as easy or ''fun" as it might seem.   :2c:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (26 Aug 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> "The Griffon is a converted civilian helicopter never designed to be used for SAR. It’s considerably slower than the Cormorant, has less lift capacity and less than half the aeronautical range."
> 
> Do tell!!?!  You would think someone might have noticed that before we bought them.........



Well, when we bought them, we had not even decided to acquire the Cormorants yet - so its kind of idiotic to compare them as part of your decision to acquire the Griffon - especially when you consider the Griffons were not acquired as SAR assets to start with.

Hindsight is always 20/20.


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Aug 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Well, when we bought them, we had not even decided to acquire the Cormorants yet - so its kind of idiotic to compare them as part of your decision to acquire the Griffon - especially when you consider the Griffons were not acquired as SAR assets to start with.
> 
> Hindsight is always 20/20.



Then why in the hell did we buy them to begin with?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (26 Aug 2016)

To replace the Kiowas, Twin Hueys and Iroquois then in service and getting due for replacement: The Griffons were meant as tactical Army helicopters, with only a few assigned to the limited SAR role around CF bases.

It is unfair to compare them to Cormorants acquired right from the start to carry out  air SAR around the whole country.


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Aug 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> To replace the Kiowas, Twin Hueys and Iroquois then in service and getting due for replacement: The Griffons were meant as tactical Army helicopters, with only a few assigned to the limited SAR role around CF bases.
> 
> It is unfair to compare them to Cormorants acquired right from the start to carry out  air SAR around the whole country.



Not the Griffins, the other "not quite" Cormorants.  I thought that was what you were referring to as buying before we bought the Cormorant.


----------



## dapaterson (26 Aug 2016)

We bought the not-quite-Cormorants as sources for spares, as there are great similarities.

See:  http://casr.ca/doc-news-vh71-cormorant-delivery.htm and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_VH-71_Kestrel to start.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Aug 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> "The Griffon is a converted civilian helicopter never designed to be used for SAR. It’s considerably slower than the Cormorant, has less lift capacity and less than half the aeronautical range."
> 
> Do tell!!?!  You would think someone might have noticed that before we bought them.........



I thought the Griffon, in SAR role, was intended merely to return pilots that got lost while doing circuits and bumps at air bases.  It was only given a civilian response role if a fisherman got lost in the immediate vicinity of the base.

The Cormorant was purchased for dedicated long range SAR duties, IIRC.


----------



## Harrigan (26 Aug 2016)

The Cormorants were always intended to be the primary rotary-wing SAR asset at the four main SAR bases (Comox, Trenton, Greenwood, Gander).  However, with only 15 airframes, it was always going to be tight, and the initial availability problems with the Cormorant resulted in the decision to reduce from 4 main bases to 3, Trenton being seen as the base that could get along with a less capable SAR helicopter.  The loss of a Cormorant in 2006 exacerbated the situation.

The VH-71 purchase was for spare parts, and has been a rare procurement success, the "aircraft" having provided key replacement components for the flying fleet that have more than justified the relatively paltry sum paid for them.

It is tempting to get some of them to flying status, at least to get back to the original 15 primary SAR helicopter figure and potentially allow Trenton to regain its Cormorants.  But as a previous poster said, "Canadianizing" a currently out-of-service airframe and converting it for a role that it was not designed for (the VH-71's were designed as VIP transport helos from the get-go, and have some rather unique features built into them that would need to be re-engineered to make them equivalent to the CH-149), is bound to cost more than anticipated.  That said, if no new Cormorants are being contemplated (and I don't believe it is), it might be a possible solution to the current SAR shortages.

Harrigan

P.S.  I also believe there is a bureaucratic problem with converting them to flying airframes.  IIRC, they were purchased and exported from the US specifically as spare parts, and I believe there are some legal issues to resolve if Canada were to make them fly again.


----------



## Good2Golf (26 Aug 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I thought the Griffon, in SAR role, was intended merely to return pilots that got lost while doing circuits and bumps at air bases.  It was only given a civilian response role if a fisherman got lost in the immediate vicinity of the base.
> 
> The Cormorant was purchased for dedicated long range SAR duties, IIRC.



 :nod:

Hence why CH-118 Iroquois (Huey) helicopters equipped units that were called "Base Rescue Flights."  Cold Lake, Moose Jaw, Bagotville, Goose Bay - all BRFs, not primary RW SAR units.

Perhaps the main gear boxes of the VH-71s are useful...but ask the Danes how they enjoy operating a split-configuration Merlin fleet...

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## quadrapiper (26 Aug 2016)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> The Cormorants were always intended to be the primary rotary-wing SAR asset at the four main SAR bases (Comox, Trenton, Greenwood, Gander).  However, with only 15 airframes, it was always going to be tight, and the initial availability problems with the Cormorant resulted in the decision to reduce from 4 main bases to 3, Trenton being seen as the base that could get along with a less capable SAR helicopter.  The loss of a Cormorant in 2006 exacerbated the situation.
> 
> The VH-71 purchase was for spare parts, and has been a rare procurement success, the "aircraft" having provided key replacement components for the flying fleet that have more than justified the relatively paltry sum paid for them.
> 
> ...


Expect the least-awful way to make this work, should it happen, would be to place the VH-71's at one of the four SAR bases, and displace Cormorants to the other three? Or would there be any benefits to splitting them up - different capabilities?


----------



## Journeyman (27 Aug 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I don't always agree with his views but this caught my attention.  Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act.
> 
> 
> > In October, 2011, SAR technician Sgt. Janick Gilbert and his crew were called to fly to Igloolik, Nunavut, to rescue a young man and his father stranded on the ice. Thirty minutes before sunset and total darkness, the SAR techs parachuted down into waves more than 10 feet high. The temperature was -8C and winds were gusting up to 60 kilometres an hour. Sgt. Gilbert landed the furthest from the liferaft and was found five hours later, floating lifeless in the water. He was posthumously awarded the Star of Courage for his actions.



Would new helicopters, based in southern Canada, have made the slightest difference?  No.

Nice way to self-servingly cash in on Sgt. Gilbert's death though.  :


----------



## RubberTree (27 Aug 2016)

A slight tangent but can anyone explain the numbers I've quoted below from the article:

"This is just one example of more than 10,000 SAR incidents that occur each year. Around 1,200 are considered life-and-death situations."

Is this world wide or strictly in Canada? I feel I am let to believe that we are speaking strictly about Canada but I have a hard time believing that SAR is activated that often.


----------



## mariomike (27 Aug 2016)

RubberTree said:
			
		

> A slight tangent but can anyone explain the numbers I've quoted below from the article:
> 
> "This is just one example of more than 10,000 SAR incidents that occur each year. Around 1,200 are considered life-and-death situations."
> 
> Is this world wide or strictly in Canada? I feel I am let to believe that we are speaking strictly about Canada but I have a hard time believing that SAR is activated that often.



CAF SAR is involved in the coordination of roughly 10,000 aeronautical and maritime incidents annually, tasking military aircraft in over 1,000 cases.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-canada-north-america-current/sar-canada.page


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (27 Aug 2016)

Actually RubberTree, you would be amazed as much at the number of calls SAR receives as some of the types of call they get.

One of my reserve communication support clerk (wrens communicators before they could become sigs) was a civilian radio operator at RCC Quebec. Every year, for internal purpose, they made a compilation of the craziest distress calls they got during the year. She used to get me a copy.

Just a few for instance: American boater who had to be re-fueled three times on the St-Lawrence river because he had heard that the Coast guard doesn't charge you for the fuel when they rescue you. Third time was not a charm: Coast guard showed up with the RCMP and seized the boat. Another one: boater who had to be towed off rocks and sand bars five times in the same week again on the St-Lawrence river, between Sorel and the entrance of the Saguenay. It was  a stretch he had never sailed before and, get this, it turns out he was navigating using a provincial road map.

On the West Coast, there were so many distress calls for insignificant reasons from boats from the Oak Bay marina that the coast guard got them to acquire and operate their own "rescue" boat. I remember interrupting one of my Sea Readiness Inspection on a Gate vessel in front of Victoria to proceed to the location of such a distress call - then calling the Coast guard on a government side channel to tell them I was responding, where I was, and checking if they needed my assistance: That's when I learned about the "Oak Bay" distresses. The Coast Guard operator blankly asked me if I was new to the West Coast (which I pretty well was - and certainly so as a captain - as most of my sailing had been on the east coast).  ;D


----------



## RubberTree (27 Aug 2016)

Thank you both for the info. I guess I didn't realize that a) SAR gets a lot of nonsense calls similar (I imagine) to 911 dispatch in a big city and b) they are responsible to respond to said nonsense. 

I think I would enjoy the compilation

RT


----------



## Journeyman (28 Aug 2016)

RubberTree said:
			
		

> ..... I guess I didn't realize that a) SAR gets a lot of nonsense calls ...


A significant percentage aren't "nonsense" per se, but simply 'shit happens + SOP.'   

Joe Cessna-driver lands and goes home but doesn't close out the flight plan; he shows up as missing, but the resultant phone calls to sort it out are still logged as an "incident."  Not a biggie, but still part of someone's "job" -- and for John Cessna, laying in his 180 wreckage somewhere out in the boonies, it's a pretty good thing that someone is doing that job (and someone whose mindset isn't "well, it's 14:30 on a Friday; I'll phone around on Monday.")


----------



## observor 69 (28 Aug 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> A significant percentage aren't "nonsense" per se, but simply 'crap happens + SOP.'
> 
> Joe Cessna-driver lands and goes home but doesn't close out the flight plan; he shows up as missing, but the resultant phone calls to sort it out are still logged as an "incident."  Not a biggie, but still part of someone's "job" -- and for John Cessna, laying in his 180 wreckage somewhere out in the boonies, it's a pretty good thing that someone is doing that job (and someone whose mindset isn't "well, it's 14:30 on a Friday; I'll phone around on Monday.")



And as a private pilot I thank all those "someone's" for what they do.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (28 Aug 2016)

Same story for the maritime side of things, when the boaters take the time to file the strongly suggested sail plan recommended by the Coast Guard.

When no distress call is received, first step (because change of mind and weather delays are more frequent - but usually much less fatal for  maritime incidents) used to be for the Coast Guard to call for everyone to keep a lookout for "insert description of late vessel" in the area of expected location of that vessel for the next 12 hours, then if still not traceable, to start a search. 

On the East Coast, where we sailed the Gate vessels coastal, we used to keep a white board on the bridge to note the "bolo's" that were current in our area. I suspect most warships had some form of organization for that too, though there is no standard for it.


----------



## mariomike (28 Aug 2016)

RubberTree said:
			
		

> Thank you both for the info.



You are welcome.  



			
				RubberTree said:
			
		

> I guess I didn't realize that a) SAR gets a lot of nonsense calls similar (I imagine) to 911 dispatch in a big city and



Our City Police / Paramedic Marine SAR crews have an operational jurisdiction of approximately 460 square miles of open water extending 13 nautical miles to the US/Canada border. 



			
				RubberTree said:
			
		

> b) they are responsible to respond to said nonsense.



b) Surf or turf, when the tones go > you go!  Said nonsense is our bread and butter!


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 Aug 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Would new helicopters, based in southern Canada, have made the slightest difference?  No.
> Nice way to self-servingly cash in on Sgt. Gilbert's death though.  :



He's a politician, it's what they do.  Where I do agree with him is on better equipment for SAR work and that was the spirit in which caught my eye on his proposal.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Aug 2016)

What about a SAR/Utility version of the Cyclone? Basically without the ASW suite and fitted with a winch and some some search tools (FLIR, etc)


----------



## navig8ur (29 Aug 2016)

I stood in the hangar on the IMP flight line in Hfx and looked upon these magnificent helos and thought..............we need to find a way to make this work.

9 flight tested helos ranging from 3 to 90 hrs..........we can do this.

Yes, obstacles remain.........we should look at how to overcome.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Aug 2016)

Given IMP's record in on time delivery of Auroras coming through the line, any solution should look for some other company.


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 Aug 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Given IMP's record in on time delivery of Auroras coming through the line, any solution should look for some other company.



But they do deliver.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Aug 2016)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> P.S.  I also believe there is a bureaucratic problem with converting them to flying airframes.  IIRC, they were purchased and exported from the US specifically as spare parts, and I believe there are some legal issues to resolve if Canada were to make them fly again.




I am pretty sure that Harrigan is right. I'm too busy, lazy, actually busy (family visiting) to go search, but I do recall that part of the agreement was that the machines could not be flown. So, good idea or not, possible or not, it might be illegal.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Aug 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I am pretty sure that Harrigan is right. I'm too busy, lazy, actually busy (family visiting) to go search, but I do recall that part of the agreement was that the machines could not be flown. So, good idea or not, possible or not, it might be illegal.



Buy nine new registration numbers and transfer the parts?


----------



## CBH99 (29 Aug 2016)

Ummmmmmmmmmm....just thinking here....but wouldn't converting them into flying condition actually make our problem worse in a way?

The Cormorants we operate now are an orphan fleet.  Spare parts were hard to come by, and still are - just ask some of our European allies how many spare parts they have for their fleets of AW-101 and EH-101.  They faced the same challenges for spare parts that we did.

Now we buy these 9 airframes, which are also an orphan fleet.  We buy them purely as spare parts for the aircraft we have.


1.  Where would we get spare parts for the 9 airframes we bought as spare parts?

2.  The 9 helicopters we bought are an orphan fleet, which is slightly different than the orphan fleet we already operate.  Now we would have to secure spare parts for 2 orphan fleets, when we couldn't seem to find enough spare parts when we only had 1 orphan fleet?

Am I complicating this too much in my head, or am I right in thinking the idea might end up being even more of a headache?

*Not to mention, if converted to flying condition, modifications would have to be made to the airframe to make it effective for SAR.  Which means we are literally begging for delays & headaches.


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Aug 2016)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> ...Am I complicating this too much in my head, or am I right in thinking the idea might end up being even more of a headache?
> 
> *Not to mention, if converted to flying condition, modifications would have to be made to the airframe to make it effective for SAR.  Which means we are literally begging for delays & headaches.



No...it would likely be quite a headache, even if one worked out the reversal of the Government's likely conditions place on procuring the un-registered airframes and spares.

CBH99, you weren't perhaps referring to the VH-71's lack of rear ramp, or complete lack of sliding door on the starboard side of the aircraft, were you?    ???

Regards
G2G


----------



## George Wallace (30 Aug 2016)

Other than spare parts, the only use I can see for the 'bodies' is as training aids at the Schools for Mat Techs and various other aircraft Techs for patching Battle Damage, engine repairs/installation, or for Firefighters.  Well within the 'legalities' by which they were purchased.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Aug 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> No...it would likely be quite a headache, even if one worked out the reversal of the Government's likely conditions place on procuring the un-registered airframes and spares.
> 
> CBH99, you weren't perhaps referring to the VH-71's lack of rear ramp, or complete lack of sliding door on the starboard side of the aircraft, were you?    ???
> 
> ...



I thought these had a rear ramp?


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Aug 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I thought these had a rear ramp?



Gangway <> full-width ramp.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (30 Aug 2016)

Article from a March 2015 article in Vertical Mag about the Cormorant program and also the feasibility of making some of the VH-71s flyable.



> RCAF considers putting VH-71s into service to cover mid-life Cormorant update
> 
> Posted on March 10, 2015 by Vertical Mag
> 
> ...



 Article Link


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Aug 2016)

sounds like the "prohibition on flying airframes" was to get around TB policy or procedures. That can be changed with a stroke of the pen if there is a will to do so. My reading shows there is something like 200+ flying versions of this helicopter, not exactly an orphaned fleet, from reading wiki, it appears the factory sold so many orders they could not keep up and that led to the shortage of spare parts?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 Sep 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> What about a SAR/Utility version of the Cyclone? Basically without the ASW suite and fitted with a winch and some some search tools (FLIR, etc)



Isn't that pretty much what the Cyclone is now??    :stirpot:


----------



## Lumber (1 Sep 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Isn't that pretty much what the Cyclone is now??    :stirpot:



Nooooooo those ones are grey! Not the same.  :stirpot:


----------



## dimsum (1 Sep 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Nooooooo those ones are grey! Not the same.  :stirpot:



SAR Hercs aren't painted school-bus yellow, neither are the Auroras when it's a long weekend and the Buffs break they hold SAR Standby  :stirpot:


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Sep 2016)

Yellow is the SAR world's "buttons and bows"...  

"Fight in, pick-up and GTFO SAR" (a.k.a. CSAR) is usually grey.  :nod:

Regards

G2G


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Sep 2016)

SAR world, kit that is painted orange is 20% more than the non-orange version. Frankly well we are at it, change the Crashboats back to Black and yellow. That ugly grey and puke yellow sucks.


----------



## dimsum (2 Sep 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> SAR world, kit that is painted orange is 20% more than the non-orange version. Frankly well we are at it, change the Crashboats back to Black and yellow. *That ugly grey and puke yellow sucks.
> *



Well, that's to save on washing it down when they (invariably) get puked on.   :nod:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Sep 2016)

You got to admit this looks better (dsclaimer, I painted her and was driving at the time)  [


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Sep 2016)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> SAR Hercs aren't painted school-bus yellow, neither are the Auroras when it's a long weekend and the Buffs break they hold SAR Standby  :stirpot:



GFTT!

Buff's your coast, Herc's my coast but the rest is the same.   :nod:


----------



## Spencer100 (24 Aug 2019)

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/205299/canada-to-buy-additional-ch_149-helos%2C-upgrade-fleet.html

Buying new


----------



## Cloud Cover (24 Aug 2019)

Must be an election coming, but it’s a good move nevertheless.


----------



## brihard (25 Aug 2019)

1000 SAR flights a year? Damn. I know some missions will involve multiple flights, but still... Wow.


----------



## dapaterson (25 Aug 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> 1000 SAR flights a year? Damn. I know some missions will involve multiple flights, but still... Wow.



Given the size of Canada, three a day across the country isn't that many.


----------



## brihard (25 Aug 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Given the size of Canada, three a day across the country isn't that many.



True enough.

At least some of our pilots are getting good hours...


----------



## suffolkowner (25 Aug 2019)

It is interesting to compare to previous suggestions that for a greater expansion in fleet numbers

https://www.skiesmag.com/press-releases/leonard-welcomes-ch-149-cormorant-mid-life-upgrade-fleet-augmentation/

also a brief examination of the purposed upgrade

https://www.skiesmag.com/features/an-investment-in-capability/


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Aug 2019)

3 calls a day might not seem like much, but it is if you consider not all "calls" are single sortie and/or "flying day" missions and can pull more than a single airframe and crew into the fold.

Then the actual resources used on "a call" increases quickly...the last SAR I was called out on was the helo that went down last winter IVO Sudbury.  That was a multi-day, multi-aircraft "call".    

https://wawa-news.com/index.php/2019/03/12/search-continues-for-missing-couple-and-helicopter/

The helicopter was initially reported missing Wednesday, March 6...Joint Rescue Coordination Centre Trenton began the search with RCAF aircraft and Civil Air Search and Rescue Association (CASARA) personnel on Wednesday, March 6, and the mission was upgraded to a major SAR operation on Saturday, March 9..and ended with the discovery of their aircraft on March 11, 2019.

At its height, the search involved seven RCAF aircraft, a Canadian Coast Guard helicopter, and three  Civil Air Search and Rescue Association (CASARA) aircraft. RCAF personnel and aircraft came from 424 Transport and Rescue Squadron from 8 Wing Trenton, Ontario; 435 Transport and Rescue Squadron from 17 Wing Winnipeg, Manitoba; 439 Combat Support Squadron from 3 Wing Bagotville, Quebec; 405 Long Range Patrol Squadron from 14 Wing Greenwood, Nova Scotia. RCAF aircraft included three CC-130 Hercules aircraft, three CH-146 Griffon helicopters and a CP-140 Aurora long-range patrol aircraft.

Some SAR Sqns are actually Transport and Rescue Sqns...the crews are likely not short on hours very often.

442 Transport and Rescue Squadron

The primary role of 442 Transport and Rescue Squadron is the provision of aviation resources in support of the Joint Rescue Coordination Center (JRCC) Victoria.  This region consists of approximately 920,000 square kilometers of mainly mountainous terrain of Yukon and British Columbia and 560,000 square kilometers of the Pacific Ocean extending to approximately 600 nautical miles offshore, including over 27,000 kilometers of rugged British Columbia coastline.

424 Transport and Rescue Sqn

424 (Tiger) Squadron is a Transport and Rescue Squadron based at 8 Wing Trenton. To fulfil its roles, 424 Squadron operates the CH-146 Griffon helicopter and the CC-130H Hercules.

424 Squadron and 435 Transport and Rescue Squadron, operating from 17 Wing Winnipeg, Manitoba, provide primary search and rescue response for the Trenton Search and Rescue Region (SRR), the largest in Canada. The Trenton SRR extends from Quebec to the British Columbia/Alberta border, and from the Canada/United States border to the North Pole.

The Squadron crews one aircraft of each type on standby response posture in order to respond to distress cases as tasked by Joint Rescue Coordination Centre Trenton.

435 Transport and Rescue Squadron

435 Transport and Rescue (T&S) Squadron at 17 Wing Winnipeg; and 424 T&R Squadron at 8 Wing Trenton, Ontario, provide primary search and rescue response for the Trenton Search and Rescue Region, the largest in Canada, which extends from Quebec City to the British Columbia/Alberta border, and from the Canada/United States border to the North Pole.

413 Transport and Rescue Squadron

413 Transport and Rescue Squadron (TRS) conducts search and rescue and airlift throughout an 1,800,000 square mile area in eastern Canada. 

As the primary air search and rescue unit on Canada's East Coast, 413 Squadron crews cover an area extending from the south of Nova Scotia , north to Iqaluit on Baffin Island as far west as Quebec City and east out to the middle of the Atlantic.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Aug 2019)

It would be interesting to see how many searches have taken place in the last 10 years vs rescues. with the advent of more GPS capable alert systems, searching hopefully will become less common.


----------



## kev994 (26 Aug 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> It would be interesting to see how many searches have taken place in the last 10 years vs rescues. with the advent of more GPS capable alert systems, searching hopefully will become less common.


The number of major searches has dropped a lot in the past ~10-20 years, almost everyone is right on track and has a cellphone that pings. There were talks a few years ago of getting rid of CSAD2, it’s a wider search area, nobody has been found in it in a very long time.


----------



## daftandbarmy (27 Aug 2019)

kev994 said:
			
		

> The number of major searches has dropped a lot in the past ~10-20 years, almost everyone is right on track and has a cellphone that pings. There were talks a few years ago of getting rid of CSAD2, it’s a wider search area, nobody has been found in it in a very long time.



I always carry a SPOT, and most of the people I know who go into the backcountry carry similar devices these days. 

Mostly, I carry mine so I can let people know I'm OK if I'll be back later than planned. I haven't had to use it yet (props to CAF map and compass training  ).


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Aug 2019)

Spots are great, I got them for my work and then my program adopted them across the country. A very cheap way to provide emergency comms and locations.

This report talks about the evolving changes in SAR https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/301/286/mowbray.pdf


----------

