More Search And Rescue For The Forces?

[Kip Powick]

Partial text of a TORSTAR srticle...Friday 14 Dec 2012...

(perhaps some ofthe 'unused $$$" for the F-35 could be put here)

..............................................

New Democrat MP Jack Harris said the software woes highlight the problems confronting Canada’s search-and-rescue network. They include Griffin helicopters that lack range, outdated Buffalo aircraft on the West Coast and a two-hour “wheel’s up” response time outside of business hours

.

“There doesn’t appear to be sufficient resources devoted to search-and-rescue,” Harris told the Star.

“The Canadian Forces exist first of all to defend Canada and protect Canadians. Well, the protection of Canadians includes, in my books, having a world class search-and-rescue system,” Harris said in an interview.

The Star asked the military for a response to these concerns more than a week ago. A spokesperson said Thursday that they would not be able to provide a comment.

However, Defence Minister Peter MacKay told the Star that he wants to make search-and-rescue a priority for the Canadian Forces.

“Search-and-rescue is an area where we are constantly called upon to do more,” MacKay said in an interview. “You are seeing more people pushing the limits of human endurance and going into places in the mountains, on the water, in the Arctic where we’re going to be pressured.

“We are continuing to do everything we can to prepare for that challenge. We’re going to be doing more in the area of SAR in the near future.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1302009--star-exclusive-outdated-software-puts-rescue-missions-at-risk-documents-warn

[Seeker]

Kip, I don't know if you've read the posts in the other thread about the F-35 but I don't think they will be any extra $$$ - I think we've being lead astray with the true costs of choosing a non-F-35 option. I do however agree with your idea that we could do much the necessary costal surveillance and routine patrols with drones much cheaper than with manned aircraft. Whichever aircraft is chosen, I think we could do with a lot less of them.

Regarding the SAR responsibility; absolutely should this be a priority. One thing I'd like to see is some discussion about allowing for cost recovery when the subject of the search was found to have acted negligently. I know this is a huge can-of-worms but I've had discussions with a friend who spent some time running the NFLD SAR centre and have heard many stories about the money wasted "saving" amateurs who had decided to row across the Atlantic in a canoe or boneheads who go out-of-bounds because the skiing is better. If there was a cost to these decisions maybe there'd be less drain on the resources in the first place.

[Kip Powick]

......................................................

Regarding the SAR responsibility; absolutely should this be a priority. One thing I'd like to see is some discussion about allowing for cost recovery when the subject of the search was found to have acted negligently. I know this is a huge can-of-worms but I've had discussions with a friend who spent some time running the NFLD SAR centre and have heard many stories about the money wasted "saving" amateurs who had decided to row across the Atlantic in a canoe or boneheads who go out-of-bounds because the skiing is better. If there was a cost to these decisions maybe there'd be less drain on the resources in the first place.

I ran the HZ RCC for 4 years and we tried to get the govt to " charge to recover costs" for negligent acts that required SAR but it never happened. We also tried to get the govt to require a "bond" from those that wanted to try to set a world record, particularily when it came to transiting the water.

My counterpart in the Canadian Coast Guard and I actually went down to the HFX shipyards and talked to a fellow who wanted to row across the Atlantic and set a record. He only had one arm and also suffered from emphysema but he was determined to have a go. We called the Press, in particular the Halifax Herald, and got as much PR as we could and the media and the public weighed in on the discussion and the fellow finally conceded that perhaps it was not a good idea.

As well the trans-Atlantic ballooon flights were a real pain in the a$$ as we had to have crews on standby "just in case".

The biggest offenders were the fisherman, some would go out and fish ,( if the fishing was going well), and then run out of gas and have to be towed in by a CG vessel. There was no way to recoup the costs and we were told quite bluntly that instead of the owner admitting they, (the vessel), had screwed up, they would call in that they had a severe mechanical problem...how are you going to debate that???

Because of the public pressure when someone is "lost" at sea, there never will be a method of recovering costs for stupid acts. No matter what happens, when someone goes missing at sea, and there is a loss of life, the public feels it is the SAR people who are to blame because it is our job to find everyone... no matter where they are.

I was once asked by the Press if there was any way we could ensure there would be no loss of life at sea. I replied , "that it was certainly possible.............if we sent an aircraft or CG ship out with every vessel that put out to sea in our region". ( I was then cautioned, after the paper came out , by the Admiral running the East coast that, " sarcasm was not a good thing to espouse in a Press interview".)

Anyhow, I could relate a hundred stories, some funny , some very sad, about the goings on in an RCC as well as SAREC St John's but ................well y'know

[Thebean]

The best SAR aircraft for the west coast is the new -400 Twin Otter. Low and slow.

The Vietnamese have figured it out. Eventually Canada will as well....

[Seeker]

Kip;

Oh yeah, no doubt a "cost-recovery" law would be virtually impossible to enforce but I'd bet that it would pay for itself a hundred times over even if it was never enforced once. Simply having the option to seek costs would tighten up everything. People would suddenly realize that maybe they should get a SPOT device (http://www.findmespo...dex.php?cid=101) and maybe they should leave a sail plan (http://www.tc.gc.ca/...g-plans-165.htm) - you know, just in case so they can show they weren't unprepared. The extra effort spent in preparation would reduce the need for rescue and speed up the process when it was needed. An added benefit would be that any organized project, like the balloon flights you mentioned, would see their insurance companies factoring in the cost of rescue into the premiums which would have the a similar effect as the bond option.

[DEFCON]

I think the recent death of a Navy Seal raises a point. A physician made a personal choice to go to Afghanistan to help the locals. No surprise, he got into trouble and needed 'rescue'. When the dust settled, the good Dr. was safe and a Seal dead. Is trading one life to save another worth it under the circumstances? Is the expense to rescue someone that's bound & bent to join the Darwin list justified?

[J.O.]

Speaking of paying for SAR:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/12/19/bc-snowboarder-search-bill-boucher.html

[boestar]

The men and women that work as SAR Techs understand that there is an inherent risk to their job. Their job is to save lives and they are willing to risk theirs in that role. Even when there is a small risk involved there is still risk. The SARS have a very tough job and ask any one of them and they will tell you they LOVE it. Like a Fireman or Policeman they put their lives on the line to save the life of another. I am pretty sure if you asked them to NOT go on a rescue mission, you would get an argument.

I don't see this as trading one life for another I see this as a trained professional doing his job and exposing himself to risk doing it. If that should then end up with his/her death then that is a tragedy and they should be marked as a hero dying in the line of duty IMHO.