Called to order at 9:40 AM by
President Peter McCabe.
Attendance: Peter McCabe, President
(MSAR/ASRC); Martha Ann Ackroyd-Geary, Vice President (Somerset); Keith
Conover, Secretary (AMRG/ASRC); Ron Wisbith, Director (Rescue 40); Tom Hirchak,
Director (Keystone SAR); Roy Keiser, Cen- tral Regional Representative
(STRIKE); Nelson Haas, Northern Regional Repre- sentative (Mountaineer SAR);
Steve Houck, Communications Committee Chair (WEST/SMRG); Norm Smith, PEMA; Don
Shaw, PEMA; Carol Prosseda, Gayle James, and Vikki Coup, STRIKE K-9 SAR; Ken
Boyles, State Parks; Laura Fornwalt, Keystone SAR. Quorum established after
arrival of Wisbith and Hirchak.
Peter McCabe, PSARC President: we
have developed standards for most individual training levels. Now we need to go
beyond this.
Today we are not
asking for endorsement of PSARC by PEMA, but PEMA endorsement of PSARC's goals.
Some states only develop a strong state SAR program only after someone dies in
a spectacular fashion in the outdoors (e.g., Virginia with a state senator's
child lost). We need to develop a good SAR program for Pennsylvania before
something bad happens here.
John Libonati (CAESAR) is still not
sure if he wants to serve; Mike Yee (AMRG) is available and willing to serve;
Peter will finalize this position soon.
Irv Lichtenstein's letter motion,
to the effect that AMRG and Somerset SAR are not in good standing, therefore
their delegates cannot hold office, was apparently mailed to all PSARC member
teams. This was apparently based on a
misunderstanding of a note in a recent SAR Net newsletter. Both AMRG and Some-
rset SAR were noted in the SAR Net as being late in turning in their updated
SAR Resource Forms. This was
misunderstood as being late in paying dues, which would prevent the teams from
being in good standing. Both teams can pro- duce canceled checks for dues that
were endorsed by the PSARC Treasurer, and thus both are still in good standing.
Both Keith Conover (AMRG) and Martha Ann Ackroyd-Geary (Somerset SAR) have
communicated with Mr. Lichtenstein by telephone. The proposal will be on the
agenda at the upcoming membership meet- ing, though it may be withdrawn based
on the updated information. The Board of Directors will take no action on this
item.
In very preliminary form. Keith
Conover, AMRG: proposed changes to Act 45 (see Attachment #1) may make our
standards moot. Suggestion that we postpone fur- ther work on Medical standards
pending action by legislature over next six months to a year accepted by
consensus.
Worked up by Tina Clark (GPSR;
215-675-9839 [H]) with extensive consultation. Noted that we now have four
mounted teams active in the state (GPSR, Hunting- don County, TROT-SAR, and the
new mounted team in SW Pennsylvania (Equi-SAR; not yet PSARC members). The Standards Committee (Tom Hirchak,
Keystone SAR, Chair; 814-946-0168 [H]) will send out for comment by teams in
the near future.
Peter McCabe, President: We need to discuss this at a General
Meeting, as it is a complex topic.
Murmurs of general agreement.
The official communications
Standard Operating Procedures distributed (Attachment #2).
Norm Smith, PEMA: his boss asked
him about six months ago to write a draft regulation with SAR standards. Now
that he has PSARC standards, can use them at least as a straw man. PEMA hasn't gotten to the stage of specifying
regulations as it is not at present a regulatory agency, and PEMA is not
involved in search as there is no legislative mandate. PEMA's lawyers say PEMA
really doesn't have the authority to get involved in search operations. (But
Virginia doesn't, either; see remarks above about how having a Virginia
Senator's child lost in the mountains led Virginia to an active SAR program
despite lack of a legislative mandate.)
PEMA lacks the administrative pres- sure that could allow it to follow
the lead of Virginia. Some present sug-
gested (sarcastically?) that we should take a some Senators' children and the
Governor's children out hiking and lose them.
PEMA currently
doesn't recommend any particular team, because no standards are available for
teams at present. Legislators have put in some legislative initiatives, but
nothing seems likely to be shoeing up as law soon. Maybe it does take some
tragic accident to have someone at a higher level to tell PEMA to get involved
in SAR.
Annex V (V as in Victor, not Roman
numeral 5; Attachment #3) to the State Dis- aster plan is on search and
rescue. Its implications were
discussed. The dis- cussion was wide-ranging and focused on the existing
authority and responsibility for lost person search and rescue in Pennsylvania.
Q: How is fire suppression handled?
A: It is a municipal responsibility.
Norm Smith: The
County EMA Coordinator is responsible for overall management but not for going
in the woods, or running tactical operations; the County EMA Coordinator
doesn't have authority to take over from the municipality, unless there is a
signed agreement to allow the County to assume municipal responsibility. PEMA
can issue directives to have the County and local municipalities work together,
however, this requires a special declaration by the Governor and is therefore
not useful for SAR preplanning.
There are certain
cases of distinct responsibility for search.
DER clearly has responsibility and authority for search on state
lands. Searches related to fire
suppression are clearly the responsibility and authority of the local
municipality.
It was noted that
in the initial phases, searches are handled by both fire and law enforcement
personnel. Pennsylvania needs search
first responder training for both fire and law enforcement personnel.
Speaking of law
enforcement, where did this "you have to wait 24 hours before searching
for missing persons" come from? It seems to be a common oral tradi- tion
among law enforcement agencies. It is
getting stronger, and does ter- rible things for the SAR response (and often in
abductions, too).
Q:
Why is Urban SAR doing so well in PA, but not wilderness? A (Norm Smith,
PEMA): Well, first, it's not doing so well; there are still lots of problems,
and the team is not operational yet. Also, there was a Federal grant with money
attached.
Regarding CAP:
because of Federal mandates, the state can ask them to search for both downed
aircraft and lost persons, though it can't ask PSARC for this. PEMA is now
asking CAP to train itself properly to do lost person SAR, and CAP personnel
are now taking courses such as IC for SAR. CAP accepted PSARC standard as their
standards last year. Peter: can PEMA cite PSARC standards? Norm: in development
of draft directive/regulations, PEMA has included PSARC standards, but these
have not gone to the regulatory commission yet.
Q:
Could PEMA send an informational mailing to all 2439 municipalities in
Pennsylvania recommending that local municipalities ask SAR teams whether they
meet PSARC standards? A: Yes.
Q: What about State Police? A: They
are not particularly interested in manag- ing search.
Again: PEMA can
coordinate but can't directly manage or do search.
There was a brief discussion about
recent intra-PSARC infighting (Barton, Lichtenstein) and the bad taste this
leaves in the mouth of SAR teams and other agencies.
Discussion about standards: we
haven't truly implemented them yet. What does having standards mean? Does it
mean you can exclude non-certified people from a search? No, because there is
no mandate or legal authority for PSARC to do that, and for that matter, even
if there were such a mandate, we don't have enough trained resources to refuse
such help.
Keith Conover,
AMRG: There are several important
points about standards: They are confidence builders, for individuals, for
teams, for responsible agencies, and for regulatory agencies (or even
nonregulatory agencies like PEMA). They
upgrade training by teams to meet the standards. They publicize SAR uniformity across the state.
Ron Wisbith, R-40:
how about spotting clues out and testing a team by having them find a certain
number of them as a test? He gave an example of why standards for teams can help:
a recent search in Allegheny County by a non- PSARC team didn't find the person
even when 100 yards from his home. (See Attachment #4.)
Martha, Somerset SAR: for the
recent Williamsport area downed aircraft search, she was asked by Mike Kindness
of CAP to call out all PSARC resources. This isn't really a PSARC role at
present; we are only supposed to provide the con- tact information for
individual teams. In this case she did do a PSARC callout for the CAP, acting
not as a PSARC official but as an assistant to the CAP.
Problem of teams
not coordinating together at missions was discussed.
Complaints from
two teams; at recent searches, some teams were kept from going into field until
Mifflin Co. SAR arrived "as per PEMA instructions." Norm Smith:
"we don't activate anyone, we don't call anyone, we just provide num-
bers. I'll check into this." Recent search in the Shippensburg where the
SAVES team out of Shippensburg was not called but the Mifflin County team was
dis- patched. Not clear why this happened, may have been local Responsible
Agency choice.
Roy: what if you
arrive and there is a non-PSARC Incident Command set up? Keith: you contribute
a Liaison Officer to the ICS as per standard ICS. Q: What if there are several
PSARC teams there, but the local Responsible Agency isn't following ICS? A:
According to PSARC policy, you have to set up a sepa- rate PSARC ICS Unified
Command and have the local Responsible Agency direct this rather than directing
individual PSARC teams.
[PSARC Unified Command Policy,
approved 6/92:
·
Whenever two or more Pennsylvania Search and Rescue Council member
teams are participating in an operation, they shall use the Incident Command
System.
·
Each operation shall have a single Incident Commander. For a
Unified Command Structure, the Incident Commander acts as the parliamentary
Chair of the assembled Agency Representatives.
·
The Incident Commander should be chosen based on competence and
ability to command the particular search and rescue operation. The Incident
Commander need not be a member or officer of an agency holding jurisdiction;
however, the Incident Commander shall be responsible to the governmental agency
or agencies holding jurisdiction (Responsible Agencies) through their Agency
Representatives.
·
If only a single Responsible Agency claims jurisdiction for a
search and rescue operation, that Responsible Agency's senior representative
present should appoint an Incident Commander.
·
If multiple agencies claim jurisdiction for a search and rescue
operation, representatives (one from each agency claiming jurisdiction) shall
meet and vote to select an Incident Commander. Each agency shall have one vote.
Voting shall follow the rules of a mass meeting as specified in<MI>
Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised<D>, current edition.]
Peter McCabe, President: what is
going on to incorporate PSARC standards into State Fire Academy courses? Ken:
FTM and FTL standards are all (except for a few inconsequential points) covered
in current Fire Academy curriculum out- lines, and Ken has prepared a
cross-reference. Now we need tests. Martha, Somerset SAR: she has developed and
validated a test for the standard Search Responder class, and now will develop
and validate tests for the various PSARC standard training levels. One can add
PSARC testing to Fire Academy courses without difficulty. Agreed that the tests
need to be validated by multiple uses and revisions. Consensus was that Martha would come up with tests for all levels
by Spring 1995. These PSARC tests could be administered by Fire Academy
instructors after Fire Academy SAR classes, or by instructors or training
officers with the individual PSARC member teams. Security is a prob- lem; no
consensus on whether to use central test grading and control, with all of its
problems, or let the test be used ad libitum by the Fire Academy or individual
PSARC member teams.
Peter asks all
Board members to write down suggestions for steps, require- ments, and
qualifications for Incident Staff and Incident Commander and send to him,
assuming that we would want to follow the ASRC's way of only granting a limited
number of IC qualifications, including political savvy and other items in the Council's
awarding such certification; there was not a consensus that this was the
appropriate way to manage IC certification, and the discus- sion was tabled for
now.
Recess at 1245
hours. At about 1300 hours, additional PEMA personnel joined the meeting: Don
Shaw, John Bahnweg. Several senior
officers of the Pennsyl- vania Win, Civil Air Patrol also attended: Mike Kindness, Allen Applebaum, Joseph O.
Prewitt, JP Habets, and Joseph A. (Skip) Guimond, Jr.
Joseph LaFleur,
Director of PEMA, spoke briefly on PEMA's role in SAR. Hopes that in the future
the state may be able to become more involved in SAR.
Norm Smith (PEMA)
addressed the assembled group. PSARC asked for this meeting; not to
"hotwash" any disasters; the best time is to review these right after-
wards. Instead, we are here to coordinate CAP and PSARC, to coordinate air and
ground portions of search and rescue in Pennsylvania. PEMA does not get
involved in SAR in the field. We are to talk about ICS and Unified Command and
communications between the field and PEMA, what the role of the county is. CAP
has recently signed MOU with the Pennsylvania State Police regarding a radio
navigation net.
Skip Guimond, CAP
Wing Commander: Secretary of Transportation quickly pushed this through. Four
CAP aircraft and several State Police will have uplink/downlink radio links
through this new system. Will allow real-time tracking of exact aircraft
position of CAP aircraft. Will have four ground- based stations in
Pennsylvania. May be able to get a portable unit to send to a mission base.
Operates on one of the VHF packet frequencies (148.995). Pro- vides close-up
detail of local weather and will help prevent aircraft from being trapped.
Peter: reviewed
his letter to PEMA Director LaFleur (included as attachment to minutes of 3/94
PSARC meeting). Noted that the first goal (operational manage- ment of lost person
search and rescue by PEMA) is difficult at present due to lack of a clear
legislative mandate. The second goal, of managing SAR so appropriately
competent personnel are available for downed aircraft and lost person search
and rescue, is what we are actively pursing with this meeting.
Skip Guimond, CAP:
noted that CAP has liability protection; as an instrumentality of the U.S.
government, the government must defend the CAP and the CAP personnel involved.
A recent Air Force
evaluation of Pennsylvania Wing recommended that they bring more outside
agencies into their training activities. Joe Thrash had mentioned the
possibility of PSARC personnel going to Hawk Mountain for training
opportunities, and this is in fact now being worked on.
Norm Smith: PEMA's
Training Section can offer coordination for such joint training: publication in
PEMA Newsletter. But, it needs considerable lead time: at the very least three
months.
Skip Guimond:
designate some PSARC people to attend CAP monthly staff meet- ings: Second
Thursday of every month at North Philadelphia airport. Wing SAR training
schedule usually fixed by January.
Norm Smith led a
discussion of the normal sequence of events in an overdue aircraft search.
Assume two ELT passes with good signal. Local CAP Group will be told to
dispatch ground teams and aircraft and set up operations base. When is county,
state or PSARC informed? Theoretically state is always called first, then calls
CAP, but in practice often CAP is called first and PEMA only hears of it later.
Mission Coordinator gets briefing from AFRCC at Langley, and at that point
makes decision whether to send air resources, ground resources, or both. Mike Kindness:
most ELTs at beginning of missions are not related to the target aircraft.
Usually contacts PEMA, not the individual con- tact, because (among other
reasons) may involve many different counties; standard procedure is to run all
contact with state/county through PEMA watch officer. What does CAP do to get
additional resources? CAP is supposed to go back to AFRCC at Langley for
additional resources. Or, MCs have their own information on available
resources. Or, can call back to the PEMA duty officer. Mike Kindness: on a
mission, a CAP MC can't call seventy different numbers to get resources; wants
to call PSARC secretary to call out PSARC resources in general. Can PEMA watch
officer do this? No. PEMA can provide information and guidance but won't call and
dispatch the resources. Norm Smith, PEMA: who should be calling ground teams,
including those that don't want to join PSARC? CAP requirement: all CAP air
resources must call to Base (the MC) before responding to Base.
Because phones are
limited at Base, at least initially, what CAP wants is to make a single call to
get whatever SAR resources they need. Need some inter- mediary who can screen
the call and call out appropriate resources.
Keith Conover: if
a CAP MC called PEMA, could he ask for availability of 100 FTMs and 20 FTLs,
could PEMA then call for availability, and get back to the MC with
availability? No, don't have resources for this.
Can PEMA keep a
roster of PSARC MCs and then call the PSARC MC whenever it gets a call for
PSARC assistance from CAP or other requesters? Yes, if they're volunteers.
Consensus of PSARC Board in favor of implementing the previously proposed PSARC
MC system, but using only volunteers rather than state employ- ees.
At the end, the five voting members
briefly considered the following issues:
1. Bruce Barton
has been nominated for the Board of Directors, but all certified mail sent to
him by the Secretary has been returned unclaimed (see attached), including mail
sent to him care of the official address of North- East SAR in the Secretary's
log, and the personal address on the letterhead of his biographical sketch for
nomination to the Board of Directors. Conover raised the question of
qualifications for candidacy for office in PSARC. He was unable to find
specific guidance on this issue in either the PSARC Arti- cles of Incorporation
or Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, but suspected that failure to answer
official correspondence should be a bar to becoming an officer of PSARC. Until
the membership could discuss this at the next business meeting, he asked for
the guidance of the Board of Directors. Therefore, Moved by Conover and
Seconded by Hirchak: Resolved, that since Mr. Barton does not answer official
mail sent to him by the Secretary of the Council, he cannot be considered a
legitimate candidate for office in the Council. Discussion: the Executive
Officer noted that she had been unable to reach Mr. Barton by telephone despite
multiple attempts. All agreed that repeated failure to answer official mail
from the Secretary at registered addresses should be grounds to bar a person
from becoming a candidate for PSARC office. Chair was nonvoting, vote was four
in favor, none against, no abstentions.
2. Irv
Lichtenstein had proposed amendments to the Articles of Incorporation by letter
to the Secretary back in April. Mr. Lichtenstein's letter indicated he thought
that any Delegate could propose amendments by letter to the Secre- tary and
that this required the Secretary to ballot these amendments by mail. However, after
reviewing the amendment provisions of the Articles, it was the considered
opinion of the President and Secretary that the Articles specify that
amendments must be sent for mail ballot only by vote of the Board of Directors
or assembled Delegates at a general membership meeting. Therefore, these
proposed amendments were referred to the Bylaws Committee (Jim Hill, Mifflin
SAR, Chair, 1-717-248-5595) for recommendations. Mr. Lichtenstein did not
propose these amendments from the floor at the last general meeting, but the
Secretary was directed to contact Mr. Hill and ask him to bring these proposals
up for a vote at the next general meeting, along with the com- mittee's
recommendations.
Adjourned at about
1545 hours.
Respectfully submitted, Keith
Conover, M.D., Secretary.