Non-Traditional Coast Guard Aviation Aid: Authority and Decision-Making Framework 

U.S. Code (14 U.S.C. §88, Saving life and property) provides the Coast Guard with broad authority to render aid to distressed persons, vessels, and aircraft on or under the high seas, as well as on or under waters within U.S. jurisdiction. It also authorizes assistance to persons and property imperiled by flood. Importantly, the statute further states: 

(b)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the Coast Guard may RENDER AID to persons and protect and save property at ANY TIME and at ANY PLACE at which Coast Guard facilities and personnel are available and can be effectively utilized. 

This language permits consideration of “inland” helicopter rescues as well as other non-traditional missions and is exceptionally empowering for Coast Guard operators and operational managers. Because the U.S. government has afforded the Coast Guard broad power to serve the public good, the inherent expectation when exercising such power is that the Coast Guard operates from a position of integrity, assuming the responsibility of employing resources judiciously and managing risk effectively. 

Even though Coast Guard policy outlines the levels of risk warranted to save a life, relieve severe pain or suffering, or preserve property, requests for aid often fall outside these parameters, overlapping with risk guidelines normally reserved for law enforcement, logistics, or other missions. A few examples of such requests that I have experienced include: 

• Determining whether a mountain lion was on the backside of a large monolith near a popular beach. 

• Assisting law enforcement in locating fugitives in hiding. 

• Rescuing dogs stranded on inaccessible beaches after falling from seaside cliffs. 

I managed two dog rescue cases in a single year along the Oregon coast, and in both cases, the dogs were saved. The missions generated widespread public attention in which hundreds of thousands praised the outcomes, however, some questioned whether such efforts were an appropriate use of Coast Guard resources. 

The dog rescue scenario provides an excellent illustration of a decision-making framework for “non-traditional” missions, the purpose of which is to address concerns regarding mission necessity and proper allocation of resources.

Decision-Making Framework 

• Are resources (crew and aircraft) available? 

• Would committing to this mission reduce readiness for potential life-saving cases? If so, to what degree, and is the tradeoff acceptable? 

• What alternatives exist? 

• How does the risk compare to that of a standard training mission? 

• Does the mission provide training value or broaden operational experience for the crew and unit? 

Risk Management  

Both operations were conducted during daylight, in visual meteorological conditions. The dogs were stranded at the base of cliffs, and the only alternatives were high-angle rope rescues or helicopter hoists. The helicopter hoists involved beach hoists, not cliff hoists, and posed no greater risk than a routine training mission. In addition, the dogs were calm and cooperative, fuel was readily available, and the missions were relatively brief. Compared to the alternative, a prolonged rope rescue that could extend into darkness, increase risk, and reduce the dogs’ chances of survival, the helicopter response was safer, faster, and more effective. Moreover, because the missions closely mirrored human rescues in the same geographic area, they provided the added benefit of valuable training for the crews. 

As for the other missions: we did confirm the presence of a mountain lion on the monolith, which led to a section of beach being closed until the animal returned to the forest. Regarding the search for fugitives, our participation varied. In some cases, sensor capabilities gave us an advantage in the search while keeping the crew outside the effective range of a known weapon. In those cases where those conditions were not met, we declined involvement. Finally, there were other cases in which the best use of the helicopter was moving SWAT teams to search remote locations from the ground.  

Applicable Policy 

The Coast Guard Air Operations Manual -COMDTINST 3701.1(series) paragraph 1.B.1: Primary Authority. The Commandant has primary authority for the operation of aircraft in the Coast Guard under 14 U.S.C 88 and 93 (88 is the big “dog” in this one). We must be cognizant of precedent, but 14 U.S.C 88 grants considerable latitude to rescue lives and save property: 

§88. Saving life and property 

(a) In order to render aid to distressed persons, vessels, and aircraft on and under the high seas and on and under the waters over which the United States has jurisdiction and in order to render aid to persons and property imperiled by flood, the Coast Guard may: 

(1) perform any and all acts necessary to rescue and aid persons and protect and save property; 

(2) take charge of and protect all property saved from marine or aircraft disasters, or floods, at which the Coast Guard is present, until such property is claimed by persons legally authorized to receive it or until otherwise disposed of in accordance with law or applicable regulations, and care for bodies of those who may have perished in such catastrophes; 

(3) furnish clothing, food, lodging, medicines, and other necessary supplies and services to persons succored by the Coast Guard; and 

(4) destroy or tow into port sunken or floating dangers to navigation. 

(b)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the Coast Guard may render aid to persons and protect and save property at any time and at any place at which Coast Guard facilities and personnel are available and can be effectively utilized.