Rescue victims usually have one thing in common – they want to be found. If able, they will be doing everything they can to signal searchers on the ground and in the air. Occasional exceptions to this are children. They sometimes think they’re going to be in trouble when they’re found, so they hide. If that behavior is suspected it might be more effective to use suspect search techniques, rather than victim search techniques. Let’s evaluate the differences.

A victim’s actions, as rudimentary as they may be, will sharply contrast with that of suspects, who will be doing everything they can to avoid being found. Most airborne law enforcement units in the United States receive extensive training in suspect searches, and they routinely perform those missions. They have technology aboard their aircraft that is very well suited for suspect searches (FLIR, Night Vision Goggles, searchlights, Public Address systems, etc.), but that technology is also effective for victim searches.

Many U.S. airborne law enforcement units have extensive Search and Rescue programs and in some cases SAR missions are prioritized over patrol support. They are usually well trained and equipped to perform SAR missions from beginning to end. Other units often limit their role to searching. Their missions might more accurately be described as Missing Person missions, because the rescue is performed by someone else. The distinction between a Search and Rescue program, and a program that limits its crewmembers to searching, is usually defined by what is done after victims are found. Do we, as a practice, rescue the victims ourselves or do we direct other resources to them? Those are policy decisions that each agency needs to address, but if agencies authorize their crewmembers to perform rescues, it’s crucial that they are properly trained and equipped.

In the last 15 years, I’ve seen the world of nighttime operations change dramatically. Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) revolutionized our ability to search in dark environments, but FLIR wasn’t an answer to the risks associated with flying in dark environments. In fact, glare from the FLIR’s display made the pilot’s job even more difficult. Some of those flights were just downright scary.

The San Diego Police Air Support Unit started using Night Vision Goggles (NVGs) several years ago. There was no particular incident that moved us in that direction, the opportunity to acquire them just presented itself. We originally didn’t think they’d be of much use. Someone even thought that they were nothing more than a poor man’s FLIR, only to be used by the Tactical Flight Officer. We knew nothing about incompatible lighting, NVG limitations, training, etc.

Like FLIR, NVGs are military trickle-down technology. Originally designed for military applications, they have clear parallel benefits for airborne law enforcement operators. Most of the lessons learned about NVG operations were learned by Army aviators decades ago. Early generation NVGs (Generation 0 and 1) were contributing factors in several nighttime accidents. Their performance was relatively low, and their displays distorted the image, sometimes significantly.