During my SAR career, I have responded to well more than 400 incidents, many of which were reported in the media, primarily print. Occasionally, the reports resembled the incident to which I had responded. An exceptional few were quite accurate, and roughly an equal number were hopelessly garbled.

I don't advise reaching any conclusions based on immediate media accounts. It isn't that the media folks are incompetent or lazy (at least not most of them). Sometimes definitive information isn't available, and there is always that editor or producer with a deadline to meet - so accuracy suffers.

It is best to wait before reaching significant conclusions.

Well, up and over the south ridge at this time of year might be problematic for a 10 mile hike due south, but it was just an example. I am sure there are worse places to find. Picking one that would be of greater interest to the PJ shouldn't be too hard.

As for false distress, that would be extremely difficult to prove if I were out on location and claimed I was lost. You don't actually have to be in distress to make it appear enough like you might be.

But remember, this is a training mission, not an actual survival situation, so if they are looking for a challenge, I am certain it would be fairly easy to generate one. I mean, if they are going to respond to a call like this one in Cantwell, then the bar isn't that high. The ride home is just incidental.

Since the budget is being spent anyways, I may as well get my money's worth out of them too. It seem only fair, since I wouldn't otherwise be in need of their services.

Is it really such a dreadful machination to plan on using their services as part of my exploration, rather than simply wait until I might be forced to due to unfortunate event? If I include their participation in my plans, my chance for success should be much improved. What's wrong with that?

Long as it's part of an agreed on scenario before hand (i.e. an advanced game of hide & seek) I don't see why you couldn't. Just because it's a training mission for them doesn't mean you can't use it to check out an area new to you.

I'm easily confused. Are you saying it's okay to "pop smoke" as part of a plan to have SAR pull you out while still being capable of self extraction or that if you are part of a SAR training exercise it's okay to head into unexplored country?
-Blast

It's not all right and the SAR types know when they have been used. It will come back and bite one in their butts! The shrimpers in the GoM used to pull that trick and the USCG brought out some little known regs that allow them to charge for "intentional rescues".

Here is one such case:

Man Charged for Boat Sinking Hoax

(In my best Bugs Bunny impersonation voice)

"Myeh, whatever works for you, Doc."

By not having to plan for a round trip on my nickel, I can afford much more adventure that way. If all I gotta do is provision for a one way trip, then self-extraction would, by design, be atl least impractical, but more likely impossible, and popping smoke would be an imperative.

However, the idea that heading into an area not planned for as part of a SAR exercise would be preferable, or at least make it that much more interesting. Adding an element of the unknown to an exercise always makes it more sporting, don't you think?

Regardless of how you infer it, I am more than willing to do my part for the improvement of the program, whatever it is...

As part of my Denali adventure many moons ago, at the very end once we were back in the lowlands, we spent one final day on SAR training. As luck would have it, I got to be the victim, hoisted up through the hatch in the aircraft. There is a reason they call that aperture "The Hell Hole."

The deal there was about what we have described earlier in this thread - the military involvement was charged to training in support of NPS operations. I have seen the same general arrangement in other settings. As a taxpayer, I have always thought it a useful, sensible, and humane use of tax dollars

I have very nearly dirtied up my mess gear working around choppers on actual SAR operations. I suspect folks who mess around with helos routinely lead very eventful lives that are somewhat shorter than average.

NPS = NationalParkService

Hikermor,

It is bad to go through "the hole", but it is lots worse when the hoist quits and you have to ride the jungle penetrator for 10 min.

I don't know if their lives are shorter, but the events often make you think they will be.

Respectfully,

Jerry

Having lost a friend last year, who was piloting a helo on a SAR mission, I am unable to give you an objective opinion on that.