akhalteke Posted December 6, 2012 Posted December 6, 2012 It's important to remember that SAR folks are trained to put their own safety above those of they rescue, for obvious reasons. Actually, it is quite the opposite. It is gospel that you are MORE important than your victim. The premise is that you cannot save the patient/victim if you are dead and creating another casualty will complicate the incident and risk the lives of more SAR techs. Now, if this practice is treally applied as it should is up for grabs but this is the doctrine of EVERY SAR group I have worked with and the new National Course taught by the Parks Service. Quote
rob Posted December 6, 2012 Posted December 6, 2012 It's important to remember that SAR folks are trained to put their own safety above those of they rescue, for obvious reasons. Actually, it is quite the opposite. It is gospel that you are MORE important than your victim. Don't look now, but you two are agreeing with each other. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted December 6, 2012 Posted December 6, 2012 (edited) I know I'm confused. For some, the need to disagree is strong. Edited December 6, 2012 by tvashtarkatena Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted December 6, 2012 Posted December 6, 2012 If you "save" 1 in 20, yes that "sounds good" but how many of those people really need saving if they are unable to orient themselves in the same weather that you are sending rescuers up in? How many SAR *volunteers* "need" to save. If volunteers are willing to help out folks who get in trouble, then what basis are you using to complain about their risking their lives? It's their business, not yours. Quote
akhalteke Posted December 6, 2012 Posted December 6, 2012 If you "save" 1 in 20, yes that "sounds good" but how many of those people really need saving if they are unable to orient themselves in the same weather that you are sending rescuers up in? How many SAR *volunteers* "need" to save. If volunteers are willing to help out folks who get in trouble, then what basis are you using to complain about their risking their lives? It's their business, not yours. Since I am a SAR tech, I suppose it IS my business. SAR techs are told where to go by Incident Commanders; especially in this type of rescue. There are very few SAR techs that are even really true 'volunteers' anymore. True, on a large non-technical rescue, you have volunteers to cover large areas, but in most cases, the rescuers are Parks Service Employees, DOI employees, contracted air assets or military service members; particularly National Guard. Think of it this way. Would you, as an Incident Commander really want a whole bunch of people who you did not know the capabilities of running around on a hill during a rescue who could become an incident within an incident by becoming injured or lost or incorrectly rigging a patient on a litter? No way. Last guy I know that died on a SAR was Nick Hall. Park Service employee and I remember at least 6 off the top of my head and none of them were volunteers. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted December 6, 2012 Posted December 6, 2012 Most SAR missions involve Alzheimer patients who've wondered off and the ever present "lost hiker on Tiger Mt". Spicing it up a bit once in a while isn't necessarily a bad thing for many SAR folks. They're also not necessarily in short supply these days, either. 150 folks showed up for the Green River body recovery (a car went into the drink). I'm not being cavalier here, but SAR exists to help folks in trouble, and most of those folks are going to be in trouble due to inexperience and resultant mistakes. It's, you know, kind of why SAR exists. Quote
akhalteke Posted December 6, 2012 Posted December 6, 2012 Most SAR missions involve Alzheimer patients who've wondered off and the ever present "lost hiker on Tiger Mt". Spicing it up a bit once in a while isn't necessarily a bad thing for many SAR folks. They're also not necessarily in short supply these days, either. 150 folks showed up for the Green River body recovery (a car went into the drink). I'm not being cavalier here, but SAR exists to help folks in trouble, and most of those folks are going to be in trouble due to inexperience and resultant mistakes. It's, you know, kind of why SAR exists. No shit. This doesn't mean that this man's actions are not horrendously dangerous both to himself and the potential rescuers. Only one person here said that he should be left to die. GKK. I have gotten dumber people; one who used their S.P.O.T. to get rescuers to come because their water tasted "funny." Had to hike out to a person on a peak 1.2k away who I could see with my naked eyes on the summit while I was talking to him on the phone (and I was in a 100ftx40ft paved parking lot. I am not saying to let him die, but merely that their actions should be borderline criminal (or at least costly) in their negligence and their potential for harm to others. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted December 6, 2012 Posted December 6, 2012 Most SAR missions involve Alzheimer patients who've wondered off and the ever present "lost hiker on Tiger Mt". Spicing it up a bit once in a while isn't necessarily a bad thing for many SAR folks. They're also not necessarily in short supply these days, either. 150 folks showed up for the Green River body recovery (a car went into the drink). I'm not being cavalier here, but SAR exists to help folks in trouble, and most of those folks are going to be in trouble due to inexperience and resultant mistakes. It's, you know, kind of why SAR exists. No shit. This doesn't mean that this man's actions are not horrendously dangerous both to himself and the potential rescuers. Only one person here said that he should be left to die. GKK. I have gotten dumber people; one who used their S.P.O.T. to get rescuers to come because their water tasted "funny." Had to hike out to a person on a peak 1.2k away who I could see with my naked eyes on the summit while I was talking to him on the phone (and I was in a 100ftx40ft paved parking lot. I am not saying to let him die, but merely that their actions should be borderline criminal (or at least costly) in their negligence and their potential for harm to others. Actually, GGK favors finding them, kicking them in the nuts, ... then leaving them to die. Quote
Crux Posted December 6, 2012 Posted December 6, 2012 I understand Kevbone alleges the plan includes throwing him under a bus. Just sayin. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted December 6, 2012 Posted December 6, 2012 (edited) I'll drive. Just show me how to put it in reverse, first. Edited December 6, 2012 by tvashtarkatena Quote
glassgowkiss Posted December 6, 2012 Posted December 6, 2012 I understand Kevbone alleges the plan includes throwing him under a bus. Just sayin. I don't know if a bus is a right thing to do, but a good kick to the balls or a shoe up the ass would be a quite appropriate remedy. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.