Miscellaneous desk
< September 27	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 29 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 28

What's this man doing?

What is this man shucking? Dismas|^(talk) 05:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A coconut. HiLo48 (talk) 06:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Dismas|^(talk) 10:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Lifesaving medal

Hello all, I'm an action-adventure/disaster novelist, and in my first novel there's the following scenario (WARNING: SPOILER ALERT!!!): An American husband-and-wife rescue team (the husband is a field surgeon in the US Army, whereas the wife is a pilot in the US Civil Air Patrol) is dispatched to save the life of a bear-mauling victim on an island in Hudson Bay, the surgeon having to parachute to the island because there's no place to land the plane (they are forced to use a light twin because of the extreme distance to the island, and because of the urgency of the mission). Unfortunately, the wind shifts while the surgeon is in midair, and he lands in the water, where he promptly gets tangled in his own parachute; but the pilot, seeing this, makes a low-level pass over him (at an altitude of 100 feet and an airspeed just above stall) and drops him a life preserver, saving him from drowning (and barely avoiding a radio tower on the island during the pull-out). My question is: Does this make her eligible for the Lifesaving Medal, and if so, is she eligible for the gold or the silver medal? Thanks in advance! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article says you need to make "extraordinary effort" to earn the awards. That is, of course, purely at the descretion of the Coast Guard Commandant who awards the medals, but from your description I don't think it qualifies. If the surgeon makes it to the island and saves the bear victim, he would be the more likely recipient unless he was on active duty at the time, in which case he would probably get an Army award instead (from my reading of the article anyway). RudolfRed (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(sorry, ec. Adding anyways because has slightly more info) The Silver Lifesaving Medal is awarded by the commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard to any person who rescues or endeavors to rescue any other person from drowning, shipwreck or other perils of the water. If the rescue or attempted rescue evidences such extraordinary effort as to merit recognition, the medal shall be silver. [1]

The Gold Lifesaving Medal is awarded by the Commandant of the Coast Guard to any person who rescues, or endeavors to rescue, any other person from drowning, shipwreck, or other peril of the water. To merit the award of the Gold Lifesaving Medal, the rescue must be made at the risk to one’s own life and show extreme heroic daring. [2]

If still in doubt (for example whether a rescue in waters outside the US is eligible), you could always ask the coast guard directly. 184.147.120.88 (talk) 23:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it looks like two contradictory opinions here. Let's see if I can apply the criteria...

American victims and/or rescuers and/or rescue in American waters: The rescue takes place in foreign waters, but both the rescuer and the victim (who is himself a rescue worker) are Americans -- so no problems on that count;
Rescue from drowning, shipwreck or other perils of the water: Hell yes!
Extraordinary effort, risk to own life and/or extreme heroic daring: I'd say that slow flight at extremely low altitude is a pretty dangerous thing to do, especially if you're also flying toward an obstruction that you might not clear in time, and if you must leave the cockpit while doing this in order to throw the lifesaver (as is the case here). I definitely wouldn't call it "extreme heroic daring", but as far as whether it poses sufficient risk to the pilot's life and/or sufficiently extraordinary effort on her part to qualify her for the medal -- I don't know.

24.23.196.85 (talk) 06:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm understanding your synopsis wrong, but you'll need to explain why Americans would intervene in a rescue on Canadian territory thousands of miles from the nearest U.S. base. Also, your rescuer will die from hypothermia before a life saver can do him any good... Then again, if Canadian rescuers had been called, they probably would have had the proper equipment on hand to effect the rescue, hence no story. --Xuxl (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The bear-mauling victim is an American citizen. And the Canadians cannot help because of severe weather conditions, because doing so would violate ALPA regulations. As far as hypothermia is concerned, this is not always the case. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) In addition to the problems noted before about this being Canadian territory there are a few more. The Beechcraft Queen Air is not noted as an aircraft people jump out of but it can be done. You would need to find out how easy the door, File:Kunikaze at GSI.JPG, would be to open on one that isn't set up for skydiving. It's not clear that the CAP have any Queen Air. It would be more logical to use a float equipped de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter that could fly the victim out. Oh, just remembered the Queen is a piston not a turbo and Avgas is not that easy to get in the remote places these days. There is also a good possibility that a Canadian Coast Guard ship may be in the area. Finally, given the time of year this is taking place, summer because of the open water, they will probably be quite a few ships belonging to Nunavut Eastern Arctic Shipping in the area as well. It's not a very likely scenario. Why not consider moving the action to somewhere else that the US would be operating in like the Alaskan part of the Beaufort Sea. If the weather conditions are that bad then the US aircraft is not going to be going any place either. If the Air Line Pilots Association, International would ground the Canadian pilots then it would ground the US pilots as well. What sort of weather conditions in the middle of summer were you thinking of? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised that ALPA is a bargaining unit and would not necessarily have regulations that govern this. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, one point at a time:

It's not clear that the CAP have any Queen Air. -- The a/c in question is actually owned by a private air-courier company and is on loan to the CAP for this mission -- so no problem there.
It would be more logical to use a float equipped de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter that could fly the victim out. -- The Twin Otter doesn't have the range for this mission; besides, on this mission, neither floats nor skis would help, because it actually takes place during the spring breakup, so there's no "open water" as such, but lots of leads and polynias (one of which almost claims the hapless parachutist's life) -- which also means no ships near the island because of the ice floes.
Oh, just remembered the Queen is a piston not a turbo and Avgas is not that easy to get in the remote places these days. -- I actually considered using a King Air for the mission, but rejected the idea because it has too much range -- a very important factor for creating suspense is the fact that the Queen Air has just enough range to get to the island, drop off the surgeon, and then land at a nearby airfield on the mainland. (Although Mackinac Lines, the air courier company, does have a few King Airs -- but at the time of the mission, all of them are busy elsewhere, and the nearest one had just taken off from Memphis with overnight mail). As far as avgas not being available in the boondocks: the Queen Air is staging directly out of Duluth and flying nonstop to the objective, so this is not a factor (in fact, this is an additional factor, besides the urgency of the mission, for my heroine deciding not to refuel at Fort Severn) -- and after arriving at the destination, the plane could wait for a while until enough fuel can be obtained to fly back out (this, of course, entails economic losses to the company, but it does not imperil the mission).
There is also a good possibility that a Canadian Coast Guard ship may be in the area. Finally, given the time of year this is taking place, summer because of the open water, they will probably be quite a few ships belonging to Nunavut Eastern Arctic Shipping in the area as well. -- See above re. the mission taking place during the spring breakup.
It's not a very likely scenario. -- The scenario was based in part on an actual rescue mission (although it took place in Russia, not Canada, and at a time when helicopters were not yet in common use -- hence the need for parachuting).
Why not consider moving the action to somewhere else that the US would be operating in like the Alaskan part of the Beaufort Sea. -- Same reason why I denied my characters the use of a King Air -- because I'm a cruel, sadistic monster like all action/suspense writers, so I wanted them running on fumes! (Besides, I'm not aware of any islands in the Alaskan part of the Beaufort Sea -- are you?)
If the Air Line Pilots Association, International would ground the Canadian pilots then it would ground the US pilots as well. -- Only if the US pilots were part of the trade union (which they're not, in this case). In general, trade unions have much more power over individual employees in Canada (and Europe) than they do in the USA -- so it may well be that the (union, closed-shop) Canadian pilots decide not to risk potential legal complications, whereas the (non-union) US pilots decide to go ahead regardless (what can the union do to them if they're not part of it, anyway???)
What sort of weather conditions in the middle of summer were you thinking of? -- Prevailing weather conditions for the mission: Polar cyclone, moderate to heavy rain and snow, strong gusty winds, moderate icing; Coral Harbour (destination airfield) reports 20-knot crosswinds gusting 27, vis. 1 mile in rain, cloud ceiling 300 feet; Ivujivik (alternate airfield) is completely socked in, 30-knot crosswinds gusting 40, vis. <1/2 mile in blowing snow, cloud ceiling 200 feet. (How's THAT for a dicey landing, especially when running out of gas as well?)

24.23.196.85 (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to this there are several US based airlines that belong to ALPA. Also the list of airlines on that page is small and the only ones that operate, List of airlines of Nunavut, in Nunavut (such as Canadian North and First Air) don't operate the required aircraft. There are plenty of airlines here that could provide the service, such as from Iqaluit Airport. It's Transport Canada that make the regulations and not the ALPA in this case. The weather at Coral Harbour Airport means it is not available to the Queen Air, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2009 August 1#Crosswind landing (finding that was weird). I actually meant the weather at the jump site. An aircraft from Deluth will require permission to enter Canadian airspace and probably be required to land at an airport of entry first. Don't know why I didn't think of it the other day but Canadian Forces Search and Rescue under the National Search and Rescue Program would actually be doing the rescue as they are trained for it. That includes jumping out of a Lockheed C-130 Hercules in the dark and landing on a small area. She will either need another person on the aircraft or an autopilot to hold the aircraft while the life preserver is thrown out. By the way in saying the scenario was unlikely I meant the the idea that the Canadian Government would allow foreign nationals to perform this attempted rescue. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(For the record, 98.234 is me) Coral Harbour is an uncontrolled airport, and given no other alternatives besides a crash-landing in the tundra with empty fuel tanks, my pilot would definitely take her chances by landing at a socked-in airport, even with these kinds of crosswinds. As for the weather at the jump site, the winds are variable, 10 knots gusting 25, and the visibility is 5 miles in blowing snow. Iqaluit is socked in, being at the heart of the polar cyclone, with winds reaching 60 knots and whiteout conditions. The Queen Air in question is equipped with an autopilot, as well as full blind-flying instruments (even a radio altimeter for low-level IMC flying and Cat-2 ILS landings). And I don't want to offend your country, but in this day and age, our pilots have shown themselves to be more willing to take risks and bend the rules to save another's life than those of any other country (including Canada). So yes, it can very well happen that an American pilot would be willing to land at an airport which a Canadian pilot would consider "below minimums", if there's no other choice. As far as Canada denying the Americans the right to save one of their own (after turning the mission down themselves), or insisting on legalistic folderol like landing at an airport of entry when every minute might be at stake -- are you kidding? Such actions could easily cause a diplomatic incident if the victim dies or becomes permanently disabled because of the delay! (If they really act like such ~~pompous assholes~~ legalistic types as you seem to describe -- which I don't want to believe for a moment -- then maybe my assessment of their ~~cowardly~~ risk-averse behavior (in terms of turning down the rescue mission because of adverse weather) wouldn't be so far off the mark...) 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that by the time she got to the island the C130 would already have arrived and dropped off the necessary people to save the wounded persons life. The rescue would have been performed before she could have got there and with a lot less danger to anybody. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True -- assuming that the union rules allow them to operate in the weather conditions described above. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]