In Part I in the Jan/Feb issue, Jim Segerstrom offered an overview of the history of search and rescue, and a review of modern-day search techniques. He also covered issues relating to rope and water rescue. This issue, Jim focuses on helicopter rescue, urban search and rescue, and confined-space rescue.
Despite an admirable success record, rescue mishaps occur each year involving helicopters. These are usually highly publicized. When it comes to helicopter rescue, the old saying applies: "When you do something right, nobody remembers. When you do something wrong, nobody forgets."
Such incidents have led to an industry-wide effort to provide improved equipment and techniques that will make helicopter rescue safer and simpler.
Some of the forums where manufacturers, pilots and end users gather to exchange information and develop techniques include the Office of Aircraft Safety of the Department of the Interior, the Short-Haul Working Group, the safety and rescue conferences held bi-annually by the Marine Survival Training Center of the University of Southwestern Louisiana and the North American Helicopter Rescue Working Group, the North American Technical Rescue Symposium, and the Airborne Law Enforcement Association.
At the federal level, regulatory agencies are taking a hands-off, "wait and see" position. Current FAA regulations specify two categories of helicopters in the non-military area: Part 91 helicopters are those operated by public agencies and are not-for-profit. Part 133 helicopters are those operated by the private sector, theoretically for profit.
Part 133 operators are required to conform to stringent safety requirements. These regulations are very specific about which private helicopters can perform rescues and under what circumstances. Public service aircraft are not required to conform to part 133 safety requirements, and, as long as they don't charge for service, can perform search and rescue operations within the performance characteristics of their helicopter and equipment.
These differences continue to create controversy within the helicopter industry. The public sector operators contend that they are able to fulfill the task with minimal fiscal impact on taxpayers. The private operators contend that they are more suited to the task as so many of them perform duties such as long-line reference flying on a day-to-day basis rather than very occasionally, and that the helicopters they are flying meet more stringent safety requirements.
Another area of consideration is the role of military helicopters in rescue operations. The public perception is that the Army, Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard have fleets of specially fitted helicopters and highly trained personnel who are ready to perform search and rescue at a moment's notice. Again, the truth is far from the perception.
The only immediately available and dedicated helicopters in the military for civilian operations are in the Army and the Coast Guard. Some units of the regular Army, the Army Reserve and active-duty units of the National Guard provide air ambulance services to the civilian population through the MAST program, Military Assistance to Safety and Traffic. The Coast Guard has around 90 helicopters in its fleet, whose primary mission is airborne law enforcement, but all of which are equipped for a dual mission in search and rescue.
The Navy, regular Army, Marine Corps and Air Force all have helicopters equipped for SAR operations. Availability of these aircraft depends on local arrangements, pre-determined "Memoranda of Understanding" between agencies and military units, and the assignment of the aircraft to support local authority through the national military dispatch system for Inland Search and Rescue, which usually has to be accessed by state authorities. The procedure can be ponderous, and can cause significant delays.
It should be apparent at this point that getting a rescue helicopter to a scene takes substantial planning. Ground rescue teams need to be well-versed on the performance characteristics of the helicopters they might be using; cross-train frequently with them; have good landing zone management and signalling skills, and pre-determined communications; and have good initial information about on-board emergency procedures, and rescue and on-board firefighting information on those aircraft.
There are three general "sizes" of helicopters regardless of their use: small, medium and large. All are used for SAR.
Small helicopters are generally used for transportation, but also find applications such as airborne law enforcement.
Medium helicopters are usually described as "utility" aircraft--having one or two engines, capable of holding up to 10 passengers, and able to lift heavier loads.
Large helicopters are just that--capable of lifting heavy loads, frequently used for airborne firefighting, or for lifting large numbers of passengers. The SAR applications of each size depend on their FAA A "type," location and equipment. Virtually all have another primary role, with SAR being secondary.
The "consensus" standard for the utilization of helicopters for search and rescue has started to form in recent years, as all groups involved have exchanged information.
While subject to individual opinion, the general opinion is that the following represents low- to high-risk uses of helicopters for SAR:
Short-haul is considered the simplest and safest of the rescue applications, exposing the crew and aircraft to minimum risk for the shortest time, and requiring the smallest amount of annual training and expertise.
Having stated that, helicopter authorities are currently prepared to argue indefinitely about issues such as which aircraft can perform short-hauls; what is a "safe system"; when a rescuer should attend the victim at the end of the line; what is the appropriate length for the system; how much time and training the pilot and crew chief should have in long-line reference flying; and how the system should be attached to, and releaseable from, the helicopter. Such controversies are beyond the scope of this article.
In helicopters, it is difficult, often impossible, to provide the rappeler a top-rope belay. The lines sometimes get snagged in ground obstacles. Victims on the ground have grabbed the rope and stopped the rappel. Rappelers have lost control of the rappel, turning themselves into what some aircrew generously describe as "ground darts." Sometimes rappelers get their gloves, clothing, even their hair, caught in the rappel device, necessitating either a lower from the helicopter, or cutting of the line. While exciting, rappelling from the aircraft requires rigorous and frequent training.
Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) is a new catch phrase, defining the application of both heavy rescue and sophisticated search equipment to aid victims of major structure collapses.
In the 1990s, urban terrorism has given yet another mission to urban search and rescue teams, with the added spectre of chemical and biological weapons in the mix.
The USAR model calls for a task force approach: 60 personnel divided into three "teams," each with a team leader, supported by a self-contained medical unit, and with attached search dog teams. The task force is further supplied with a small headquarters cadre made up of a task force leader and his assistant, and a small unit of technical specialists, including heavy equipment operators, architects, construction and transportation specialists and liaisons.
The task force is equipped to be air-transportable and fully equipped to take care of itself for 72 hours. Team members are personally equipped to deal with the environment of where they are being sent. Team equipment is usually palatized for shipment either by air or heavy truck. It includes extensive trenching, shoring and cutting equipment, power sources, lights, medical and living equipment, jacks, timber, technical rope rescue equipment, and, more frequently, basic personal protective equipment for hazardous materials, contaminants, basic NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) protection and swiftwater rescue.
The rescue teams are highly trained in trenching, shoring, confined-space rescue, lifting heavy objects, using remote cameras and sensing equipment, and treating crush trauma injuries.
The equipment for such a task force costs millions of dollars. Team members require on-going training, as well as updating their physical capabilities, innoculation records and passports. Task forces even need their own integral logisticians, some considered to be the most highly trained members of the task force--individuals prepared to support the task force's needs regardless of where they are deployed.
In turn, this has spawned a cottage industry of small rescue companies, providing awareness and operational-level training, both to industry and fire departments.
Utilizing sections of the technologies already mentioned, confined-space rescue uses cave and mine rescue techniques, rope rescue, trenching and shoring, and search information to reach victims trapped in enclosed spaces--in buildings, tanks, pipes, vertical shafts and underground areas--and extricate them.
Confined-space rescues may require the ability to penetrate walls, and excavate and shore shafts. Rescuers may need to be lowered and raised vertically, using heavy tripods, special harnesses and wrap-around victim litters. Communications and lighting require increasingly sophisticated ropes and cables with integrated communication lines and soft lights to illuminate the route to and from the victim.
What won't change is the need for new rescuers--prepared to train endlessly and sweat prodigiously, often for no reward and frequently to fail. Search and rescue team members who stay the distance (five years is considered an "old salt" on most teams) require a willingness to endure hardships, long hours, low or no pay--sometimes doing the ugly jobs that others won't do, and more often than not, with no recognition at the end of the job.
| Jim Segerstrom is founder and current vice president for operations for Elk Grove, CA-based Rescue 3 International. A credentialed college instructor, he worked as a paramedic for 17 years, and has written several texts and articles on rescue. He is a 24-year member of the Tuolumne County, California Sheriff's Search and Rescue Team, where he is the current technical team leader. He is also a member of the Advanced Rescue Technology editorial advisory board. |