Hey guys, so the title explains most of my inquiry. I have attended a local S&R meeting a couple times and am not very impressed. For one, it is military run and we can only go searching if the military is called. Most local searches the military is not contacted.
Secondly, they only allow 4 seat aircraft. They say it is because you require a pilot, navigator, and spotter. They search at 90 kts. The navigator basically watches the gps and tells the pilot when to turn.
My question is, am I missing something, or why is a navigator necessary? I feel that they are losing a lot of aircraft/pilots that are two seat planes. When I am looking for something, I can see it a lot better at 60-70kts then at 90. And a 2 seat aircraft with full fuel can easily have more range/endurance, then say a 172 with 3-4 people and half fuel.
So what say the brains?

David

Having spent yesterday at low level in the mountains, spotting deer, and also having done a little SAR now than then I would add this to the conversation:

The pilots needs to focus only on flying the plane at low level, maintaining airspeed, fuel management, engine mangement, watching for terrain, and general situational awareness. Navigation is probably possible at the same time, but if bad weather or other conditions (smoke / terrain / other aircraft traffic) increase pilot workload much, I would say flying a good grid becomes hard to do while you're doing 6 or 7 other things.

Also, one spotter can't watch two sides of the plane at once, given the pilot should not be spotting.

2c

Battson wrote:Having spent yesterday at low level in the mountains, spotting deer, and also having done a little SAR now than then I would add this to the conversation:

The pilots needs to focus only on flying the plane at low level, maintaining airspeed, fuel management, engine mangement, watching for terrain, and general situational awareness. Navigation is probably possible at the same time, but if bad weather or other conditions (smoke / terrain / other aircraft traffic) increase pilot workload much, I would say flying a good grid becomes hard to do while you're doing 6 or 7 other things.

Also, one spotter can't watch two sides of the plane at once, given the pilot should not be spotting.

2c

Well I'm going to go the other way a bit, I have a little bit of time on game surveys, flying grids and never a one of those hours did we have a navigator (swans,geese,ducks,moose,sealions, whales, even salmon with tracking)? Have another couple of hours flying fire patrol spotting smokes and following a given path, not once did I have a navigator and I would say the pilot spots about 40% of the smokes, Add a couple more hours flying circuits over a forest fire with the airtach in the right seat and again with no navigator but making your track on the moving map and watching for the stray aircraft or helio that happens to be at the wrong altitude.
Search and rescue is not done at tree top level.
I think the pilot has to be involved, most of the time thats who usually knows what things look like from the air as they are usually there a whole lot more than the spotter!
I can show you where a navigator,pilot, and spotter bit it in the mountains in a 172!! They were official SAR!!
I have done a couple of hours on SAR, Only once with the official bunch that I will never fly with again!, A few were for aircraft and a couple were for ground bound winter search's, I think if you are going to find someone who is lost you need to think outside the box!! as if they were in the box, they would not be lost!!
I found the plane once, and then looked for another day to find the pilot!! he made it 3 miles from the plane!!


MHO and $.02 both way over priced!

Yeah that's true.
I guess it depends a lot on the terrain. There are places here were you can't afford to take your eyes off the ball, but there are other places where it's just not important provided you can see the ground beneath you.

I agree with you battson, but in this day of bwing able to plot your grid out on a gps I should be able to follow that while flying.
You are also correct in saying that a spotter can only look out one side of the plane, but in say a C-172, put a pilot, navigator, and 2 spotters in it and there's not much room for fuel left... I tend to side more with M6, especially about the pilot knowing what to look for. But that's why I'm posing the question here, as there's people with many more hrs then me, bith flying and searching.

I have no SAR experience at all, so my comments here are 100% opinion. That said;

I agree that the pilot should be spending most of their time flying safely and being aware of navigation, search grid position, etc. A good GPS will allow this to happen without a navigator.

When you have a 4 seat aircraft, and the availability of two spotters in addition to the pilot, then by all means use the two spotters. More eyes, looking in more directions. All good.

If you do have six pairs of eyes in an airplane, and your regulations are only allowing one pair of those eyes to be actually looking for the victim, then you are wasting valuable resources.

If you have a two seat airplane available, and your beloved para-military regulations prohibit them from going out and looking for a lost child, then you're a f**king idiot and the parents of that child should take a blowtorch to your rulebook.

A single seat ultralight or a backpack powered parachute can only cover a small area, but cover it at 30 knots and 100 feet above the terrain. That is something that the 182's and 206's cannot do. Even if the height and speed of the ultralight is not an advantage, that pilot can still cover 5 or 10 square miles and free up the larger airplanes a little more.

10 local 2 seat Cubs and 150's and Ercoupes (and their local pilot/owners) can contribute to SAR in a meaningful way. They know the local area better than the para-mil types. They know the local terrain, reporting points, and local weather better.

EZFlap wrote:10 local 2 seat Cubs and 150's and Ercoupes (and their local pilot/owners) can contribute to SAR in a meaningful way. They know the local area better than the para-mil types. They know the local terrain, reporting points, and local weather better.

Yeah... But they won't be able to call themselves Captains and Majors, and wear cool jumpsuits with patches.

Gump

Sounds like the CAP folks In ANC They don't get much done with the military wanna be's acting like generals. Had some dealings with them during my trooper days. Not to impressed

GumpAir wrote:[

Yeah... But they won't be able to call themselves Captains and Majors, and wear cool jumpsuits with patches.

Gump

Its not CAP. Its in Canada. But it does seem eerily similar and I'm starting to think I want no part of it. Just contact the local ground SAR and RCMP and tell them to call me for any searches. I agree with EZ that 4 out of 6 eyes being used for flying/navigation then you are wasting resources.

I have not done any CAP type searches, but I have done some S&R for the sheriff's office when I lived in Laramie, both in 182s and 172s. Of course, most 2 seaters in that part of the country are too under-powered to be used effectively in the mountains, whereas a 172 is minimal and a 182 is best--but we always had just me and the SO's deputy in the front seat, no one in the back. I can't speak for others, but I made a point of just flying the airplane, looking out for the rocks, etc., and the deputy would tell me what direction he'd want me to go. That way I wouldn't compromise safety trying to look for the lost person while flying.

Sometimes para-military organizations get way too hung up on the para-military aspects without using common sense. I think there are some great people in CAP and other orgs like that, but there are also some who love to wear the uniform without ever having earned the right to wear it.

Cary

SOME search and rescue "organizations" pride themselves on people who never served in the military dressing up in flight suits, and marching youngsters around on weekend "drills".

I've spent around 10000 hours searching for "things" on the ground from aircraft. As the PIC.

If anyone thinks that the pilot can't safely both fly and observe, they need to fire that pilot. I would argue that the pilot MUST be involved in the observation duties....and in fact, I found a lot more "subjects" from my pilot seat than most of the observers I flew with.

And, if the pilot doesn't know PRECISELY where he/she is at ALL times during a search, I sure as he'll wouldn't fly with them.

Observing from an airplane requires a specific skill set. If you don't have a knack for it, you're dead weight, and extra weight in any search means less fuel and less maneuverability....in other words, dead weight.

Here's the question for the rocket scientists who argue that pilots can't safely be observers: How can a pilot who isn't looking out the window fly an airplane safely in terrain, How can that pilot possibly position the aircraft such that the observers have a good view of the search area if the pilot isn't "observing" the search area, and why wouldn't you utilize what should be the most experienced set of eyes in the plane?

Conducting a search or doing a wildlife survey isn't as simple as it might seem to the uninitiated, but it's not rocket science either.

I would NEVER fly as observer with a pilot who hasn't at least had a fair amount of experience AND an introduction to search procedures. The State of Montana Aeronautics Division offers clinics periodically to get volunteer pilots trained to conduct searches. A GREAT program, that should be adopted in every state....and put the CAP out of business.

MTV

mtv wrote:Here's the question for the rocket scientists who argue that pilots can't safely be observers: How can a pilot who isn't looking out the window fly an airplane safely in terrain, How can that pilot possibly position the aircraft such that the observers have a good view of the search area if the pilot isn't "observing" the search area, and why wouldn't you utilize what should be the most experienced set of eyes in the plane?

I'm not a rocket scientist, but I'll guess the answer - professional risk management.
If you're the organiser or the search and responsible/liable for the lives you send out to search, you need to have taken all practicable steps to keep them safe. Having 2 spare seats and then a crash because the pilot was looking the wrong way and missed spotting the wires, etc. - the Judge is going to find you didn't take all practicable steps to ensure safety. That's not to say the pilot can't do some spotting - but you can't plan for it to be their primary role in the aircraft. The primary role of the pilot must always be to fly the plane.

All I do with my spare time in the air is cruise about at low level looking for game and makeshift airstrips - of course the pilot can look out the window and spot stuff... I don't think many will argue with you there!

I don't know about the navigator thing really, I guess GPS isn't "minimum equipment", so maybe that's their thinking.

I don't know if such regulations apply here - certainly the professionals use a crew of three - but often times the locals beat them to it, and almost invariably it's just whoever was available at the time the call comes in. Some expert may be able to correct me there.

Well of course the pilots first responsibility is to fly the plane, nobody's arguing that point. That said, navigation and situational awareness IS a key part of flying the plane safely.

Wires? If you're in the wires environment, you should KNOW where those wires are, with a high recon first.

Hey, I guess you're right.....I must have been totally nuts to think I could actually count critters and fly an airplane simultaneously.....but, ya know, that goes on every day, thousands of hours a year, and there are very rarely accidents in that world. Not unheard of, mind you, but I doubt many of them have to do with a distracted pilot.

And, last I heard, US Coast Guard pilots serve as observers as well as flying.

MTV