Search and Rescue in the Arctic

156 Pages·2017·5.82 MB·English

Dissertation
Search and Rescue in the
Arctic
Is the U.S. Prepared?
Timothy William James Smith
This document was submitted as a dissertation in September 2016 in
partial fulfillment of the requirements of the doctoral degree in public
policy analysis at the Pardee RAND Graduate School. The faculty
committee that supervised and approved the dissertation consisted
of Abbie Tingstad (Chair), Brien Alkire, and Scott Stephenson.
PARDEE RAND GRADUATE SCHOOL
For more information on this publication, visit http://www.rand.org/pubs/rgs_dissertations/RGSD382.html

Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif.
© Copyright 2017 RAND Corporation
R® is a registered trademark

Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND
intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is
prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and
complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research
documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit
www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.html.
The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help
make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is
nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest.
RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.
Support RAND
Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at
www.rand.org/giving/contribute
www.rand.org
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................... v
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... vii
Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
Motivation and Background ..................................................................................................................... 1
Research Questions .................................................................................................................................. 4
Initial Hypotheses ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Methodology............................................................................................................................................. 5
Chapter Two: Foundational Knowledge for Arctic Search and Rescue ......................................... 9
The Search and Rescue Mission Set ......................................................................................................... 9
Search and Rescue Policy ....................................................................................................................... 11
The COSPAS-SARSAT System ............................................................................................................ 15
Unique Challenges of the Arctic ............................................................................................................ 17
SAR in the Arctic ................................................................................................................................... 21
Chapter Three: What is the current demand for Arctic SAR, and what factors affect its future
trajectory? ............................................................................................................................... 23
Current Demand from Historical Arctic SAR Cases .............................................................................. 23
Maritime Arctic Activity ........................................................................................................................ 24
Arctic Aeronautical Activity .................................................................................................................. 32
Military Activity and Catastrophic Incident SAR .................................................................................. 34
Longer-Term Arctic Future Uncertain ................................................................................................... 36
Arctic Risk Factors ................................................................................................................................. 38
Role of Technology and Policy in Mitigating Risk ................................................................................ 38
Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 46
Chapter Four: What is the current U.S. capability for supplying SAR in the Arctic, and how is it
changing? ................................................................................................................................ 47
Air Force SAR Capabilities .................................................................................................................... 47
USCG SAR Capabilities ......................................................................................................................... 52
Additional Partners for Arctic SAR ........................................................................................................ 59
Role of Satellite Technology in Improving SAR Supply ....................................................................... 67
Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 71
Chapter Five: Arctic SAR Scenario Analysis ............................................................................... 72
Scenario Selection and Development ..................................................................................................... 72
Military SAR Scenario Analysis ............................................................................................................ 74
Aeronautical SAR Scenario Analysis ..................................................................................................... 78
Maritime SAR Scenario Analysis ........................................................................................................... 82
Key Challenges for Arctic SAR ............................................................................................................. 86
Chapter Six: Findings and Recommendations .............................................................................. 90
iii
Research Findings .................................................................................................................................. 90
Policy Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 92
Appendix A: Interviews with Subject Matter Experts .................................................................. 96
Appendix B: Arctic SAR Model ................................................................................................... 98
Appendix C: Military SAR Scenario Analysis ........................................................................... 104
Appendix D: Aeronautical SAR Scenario Analysis ................................................................... 112
Appendix E: Maritime SAR Scenario Analysis .......................................................................... 130
Abbreviations .............................................................................................................................. 142
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 145

iv
Acknowledgments
Dissertations are hard, but writing a dissertation on Arctic Search and Rescue made a
mockery of my own struggles. My research path inevitably led me to stories of Arctic and
Antarctic survival that I could hardly believe. Stories like that of Frank Worsley and the ill-fated
1915 Trans-Antarctic Expedition. He was the captain of the ship, the Endurance, when the
Antarctic sea ice crushed and swallowed their ship leaving the 28-man crew alone on the ice with
dwindling resources. They survived for 500 days until, finally, the churning sea ice spit them out
to the open ocean. They launched three lifeboats amidst 30-foot ocean swells and sailed
desperately for Elephant Island, an inhospitable and uninhabited fragment of land jutting out of
the Antarctic Ocean. They landed ashore, but were still far from safety.
The survival of all 28 members of their crew hinged on them reaching a whaling station on
South Georgia Island, 800 miles to the north. A select few would have to embark once more in
an exposed lifeboat, navigating by the stars, battling the southern ocean, and hoping desperately
to hit the island and organizing a rescue party. Six men went, but the responsibility for
navigating the lifeboat—and thus withstanding the worst of the punishing ocean—lay squarely
on Worsley’s shoulders. For 15 days and nights, he fought the swells, the storms, and the voice
inside his head telling him he had nothing left to give, until miraculously a dark shadow of cliffs
punctured the gray canvas of cloudy sky. They had made it to South Georgia Island. The crew
would live.
In 100 years, we have come a long way, and today’s Frank Worlsey could communicate his
distress via satellite, request assistance from an icebreaking ship, and be rescued long before
requiring such an audacious voyage. Nevertheless, for me, his story demonstrates something
truly profound. It demonstrates that buried, hidden and obscured, within the fabric of our own
humanity are threads of steely strength that do not just hold firm, but in fact toughen, when
confronted with the most impossible challenges. The SAR system has changed considerably in
the past 100 years, but the human condition has not: these threads exist in equal measure today.
To me, Frank Worsley’s story provides the most striking example that we are far more capable
than we realize, if only we can suspend our disbelief, quell our doubt, and place faith in the
tenacity of those elemental threads. I would like to dedicate this dissertation to Frank Worsley
for helping me do just that—for teaching me that the voice, the one that casts doubt on our
abilities and tries to define our limits, is generally lying.

I received tremendous assistance throughout this dissertation process and need to thank a
great many people. I would like to first thank my dissertation committee, Abbie Tingstad, Brien
Alkire, and Scott Stephenson. You each provided very critical feedback to help evolve my
research, and make me a more critical thinker.
v
To RAND’s Project AIR FORCE and National Security Research Divisions, thank you for
believing in this work and funding my research efforts.
To the numerous and anonymous individuals within the Department of Defense, the Coast
Guard, the State of Alaska, commercial organizations, and academic institutions: Thank you for
generously giving me you time and perspective. Arctic SAR is far more complicated that I
originally conceived it, and I appreciate the piece of the puzzle I received from each of you.
To my RAND comrades, Mick Powell and Steve Trochlil, thanks for putting up with me. The
pattern of Mick posing a ridiculous idea, me agreeing to it nonchalantly, Mick recanting and
Steve rolling his eyes was a constant source of entertainment during these last three years.
Lastly, to my friends and family who are reading this—likely out of curiosity to what exactly
I’ve been doing these last three years while “working hard” in Santa Monica and “taking
research trips” to Alaska—well, this is it. Enjoy! Your support and encouragement means the
world.

vi
Abstract
In 2011, the U.S. signed the Arctic Search and Rescue (SAR) Agreement, a landmark treaty
that gives the U.S. responsibility for conducting SAR in a slice of territory that surrounds Alaska
and stretches to the North Pole. This agreement coincides with rapid economic, environmental,
and military changes that have the potential to bring more people into the Arctic region.
Increased human activity in the extremely remote and inherently risky region raises the question:
is the U.S. prepared to handle its SAR responsibilities in the Arctic?
To address U.S. preparedness for the Arctic SAR mission set, this dissertation examines three
research questions.
1. What is the current demand for Arctic SAR, and what factors affect its future trajectory?
2. What is the current U.S. capability for supplying SAR in the Arctic, and how is it
changing?
3. Is the U.S. able to respond effectively to a challenging set of potential future Arctic SAR
cases?
This dissertation finds that present demand for Arctic SAR is very low, and future demand is
highly uncertain. In the past 10 years, the Air Force and the Coast Guard have collectively
averaged less than two Arctic SAR case per year. Looking to the future, demand for Arctic SAR
is a function of human activity and level of risk. Human activity is currently on a slightly
increasing trajectory, but from a very low baseline and with a highly uncertain future. Level or
risk is moving in the opposite direction, with decreasing accident rates in aeronautical and
maritime environments. Focusing specifically on Alaska, both Rescue Coordination Centers
(RCCs) have witnessed decreasing caseloads in the last 10 years. At the same time, satellite
technology continues to improve the access to information by Arctic operators, which improves
decision making and further mitigates risk. That being said, accidents will continue to happen in
the Arctic, and the unique challenges of the region present formidable obstacles to SAR
responders.
This dissertation finds that the supply of Arctic SAR from any one organization is
insufficient, but taken as a whole, the combined capabilities of all the potential participating
organization is substantial. Both the Alaska Air National Guard and Coast Guard have made
Arctic SAR preparations to be able to provide some capability in the Arctic, including forward
deployed seasonal helicopters, and air droppable support resources. In addition, the high
prevalence of DoD assets based in Alaska, notably the Army CH-47s and UH-60s based in
Fairbanks, provide a considerable boost in capability and capacity. The North Slope Borough
SAR organization can also provide a year-round quick response capability which can be
requested. Improvements in satellite technology have also solved a number of Arctic SAR
vii
information challenges, which improves the supply of SAR making the application of these
resources more efficient. Technology solutions are largely solving the “search” problem.
From the scenario analysis, this dissertation finds that the U.S. has the technical capacity to
respond to stressing Arctic SAR scenarios, but numerous potential failure points could prevent
successful operational execution. Looking across the three scenarios analyzed, this dissertation
condenses the identified failure points into five key challenges: (1) overcoming Arctic weather
conditions, (2) relying on non-organic assets, (3) supporting survivors, (4) overcoming the lack
of medical services on the North Slope, and (5) coordinating the response between multiple
organizations.
All in all, Arctic SAR is a low-probability-high-impact mission set for which the Air Force
and the Coast Guard are fairly well postured. Large-scale investment is not required, but
marginal policy changes can improve the overall preparedness of the Arctic SAR system. Along
these lines, the five key challenges are used as the basis for formulating policy recommendations
for the Air Force and Coast Guard. For the Air Force, this dissertation recommends creating a
formal requirement for the Arctic Sustainment Package, and developing a forward-deployed
medical capability. For the Coast Guard, this dissertation recommendations continuing to fund
Arctic Shield while exploring alternative basing arrangements, and developing a package to
quickly set up receiving facilities to support survivors on the North Slope as they await rescue by
chartered aircraft. For both organizations, this dissertation recommends conducting joint
exercises with non-SAR organizations that would be likely to be called for larger Arctic SAR
events, and monitoring “signposts” to determine if changes to the Arctic necessitate strategic
reassessment.

viii
Chapter One: Introduction
Motivation and Background
The mission of search and rescue (SAR), at its very core, is about promoting human dignity.
It is about ensuring that should misfortune arise, there are men and women ready to respond and
provide the necessary support to stave off loss of life or limb. It is a service provided by the
government for its people, by the military for its service members, and it is a very difficult
service to provide. Accidents often occur in the least accessible terrain, and with the worst
weather conditions. Precarious situations necessitate rapid response times and often the delivery
of emergency medical care. To overcome these formidable challenges, the SAR system requires
an information system that can swiftly notify SAR responders of distress, highly trained
individuals standing alert nearby ready to respond, and response assets that can operate in any
environmental condition. These features of the SAR system can be found in almost any location
in the U.S. with one notable exception: the Arctic.
Figure 1.1. The U.S. Arctic

In the Arctic, the SAR system is far from robust. Traditional information systems are less
effective because satellite coverage of the high northern latitudes is limited and ground-based
infrastructure is lacking. There is no permanent United States Air Force (USAF) or United States
Coast Guard (USCG) SAR presence north of the Arctic Circle, and response assets face some of
1
the most unforgiving environmental conditions that exist on earth. Historically, the lack of robust
SAR services in the Arctic has not been problematic because human activity in the region has
been equally lacking. The two mains sources of human activity in the Arctic—Alaskan Natives
and oil companies—are self-sustaining and provide SAR support for their own populous.
However, recent environmental, economic and military changes to the region threaten to alter the
balance.
Climate change has greatly reduced sea ice coverage in the region, which has enabled
expanded human activity in the maritime environment. The current reductions, and projected
future reductions, make the high concentration of natural resources in the region much more
accessible for extraction. Shipping lanes, both the Northwest Passage atop the U.S. and Canada
and the Northern Sea Route atop Russia, are becoming viable for brief but expanding windows
of time each summer. Cruise tourism to the region is on the rise, with large cruise ship expanding
operations in the high north. In the aeronautical environment, the lack of roads, ports, and other
infrastructure makes the region heavily reliant on aviation for commerce and recreation.
Commercial airline traffic on transpolar routes has also risen steadily since the early 2000s,
posing another potential source of demand for the SAR system.
Militarily, the resurgence of Russia as a strategic concern, paired with decreasing physical
barriers to access the northern approach to Alaska, has led some to question whether the military
is suitably prepared for Arctic operations. In the last two years, Russia has established an Arctic
command, refurbished cold war infrastructure, and been carrying out flights probing U.S.
airspace. These flights force U.S. fighter aircraft to scramble and intercept these aircraft, often
bringing Air Force pilots into the Arctic region far from SAR responders. U.S. Arctic military
exercises have also been on the rise to develop capabilities in preparation for potential future
Arctic requirements.
Greater access to the region could bring more opportunities for Arctic activity, but the region
remains a largely unforgiving environment. In this sense, the environment is changing just
enough to encourage a low-level increase of maritime activity in the region, but not enough to
make SAR easy, or to increase the ship traffic enough so crews can assist each other in the event
of an emergency. In the aeronautical environment, the extreme climate and remoteness makes
any plane crash a serious challenge for SAR responders.
These concerns led all eight nations of the Arctic Council1, including the U.S., to sign the
2011 Arctic SAR Agreement, a landmark international agreement that assigns regions of
responsibility for providing Arctic SAR, and establishes a framework for international

1
The Arctic Council is an inter-governmental forum created in 1996 to Arctic issues in a cooperative manner.
Participants include: Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States, as well as
six organizations representing Arctic indigenous peoples.
2