*** SAR Post Mission Reviews ***

Overview:
SAR Post Mission Reviews (previously called Critiques) are often employed
to review any SAR mission that is believed would benefit from a review of
the incident. Their goal is to attempt to improve the quality of the
response to future SAR operations.

the concept of Post Mission Reviews was born of a recognition that some
of our responses to serious SAR incidents were less effective than we
would have liked. It was recognized that we are only human and that
mistakes will be made, opportunities missed and that there was always
room for improvement.

Review Committee & Attendees:
The review committee usually contains the following 'permanent'
representatives:

- Chair of the SAR Advisory Commitee - acts as the chairperson for the
  review.
- Senior Police Emergency Management Representative.
- SAR Training Representative for the jurisdiction (State/Province).
- Emergency Managment official(s) responsible for the region
  (State/Province).
- Recording Secretary.

Please note that none of these people should have been directly involved,
at the local level, in the response to the incident under review.

The review is open to any persons directly involved or simply interested
in the incident. Those that are usually present include the incident's
Search Manager(s), SAR team leader and any searchers or support persons
directly involved in the incident. These reviews are more frequently held
for larger searches involving mutual aid and so representatives of the
responding mutual-aid SAR teams, and any assisting support agencies,
will also usually be present.

Review Process:
The review is, literally, set up as a round-table discussion. The
chairperson only permits comments relating to the actions taken by an
individual in their designated role during the incident, and never accepts
comments made directly of an individual's action. in other words "the
Search Manager called for mutual aid much later than I would have liked"
would be accepted but "Joe Smith called for mutual aid much later than I
would have liked" would not.

The usual process consists of first documenting a reasonably accurate
chronology of events. This chronology is written on flipchart paper which
is taped to the wall. Lots of space is left space between each entry for
further inclusions. Once the chronology is displayed the groups members
are asked to 'walk through' the event and insert their comments and
suggestions for improvement. The suggested improvements are recorded on
a second set of flipchart papers. These improvments can relate to any
aspect of the mission - SAR management, field team skills, agency
response times, bueurocratic delays, whatever is deemed to be important.


The recording secretary records all of this information and designated
individuals are then given specific, listed, action-items for improvement
within their organization. The person responsible for SAR training will
also record highlights of the review, noting areas where improvements or
additions to the SAR training curriculum can be made.

After the completion of the review the minutes are published and
circulated to all members involved in the review. A couple of months
later a written follow-up is undertaken by the chair of the committee,
to ensure that all of the individuals have attended to the action-items
they were given.

Retrospective Experience:
When this review process was initially set up the 'requests for review'
were usually placed by senior members of the SAR community, the SAR
Advisory Council or by the police. This caused some discomfort for the
locally-responding SAR team, who were often anxious about how they would
be 'judged' during these reviews. After a number of these reviews had
been held their anxiety level dropped, when it was realized that no
'authorative board' would 'pass judgment' on their actions, Instead it
was found that the group, as a collective, would suggest improvments
that would cover all aspects, and all organizations, that were involved
in the incident.

Once it was realized that the Post Mission Review could actually be a
positive learning experience their acceptance increased markedly.
Any SAR team that felt that they had undertaken a significant mission
would quite often ask for the review themselves - simply to find out
how well they had done and what they could do better.

The implementation and acceptance of SAR Mission Reviews has led to an
observable improvement in SAR response. Some of the benefits observed
include:

-SAR Team's less frequently 'go it alone' on a mission, beyond the first
 operational period.

- Increased use of mutual aid, and usually now with larger numbers of
  searchers.

- Reduced delays between police receiving the information and the SAR
  teams request to respond.

- General acceptance of the 'Overhead Team' concept and the advantages
  it brings.

- Better pre-planning for incidents, including helicopter support,
  avalanche SOP's etc.

- Improved training curriculum, as field experience becomes written
  into the training manuals.

- More 'on the job' professionalism, as responders realize their
  actions may later be reviewed.

Summary:
In summary, the implementation of SAR Mission Reviews has generated a
climate of increased professionalism and improved response to SAR
incidents. Over time these reviews have proven their worth and have
been found to be an excellent vehicle for positive change.
It is recommended that jursidictions everywhere include SAR Mission
Reviews as a standard part of their SAR organization and response
structure.

Martin Colwell.

Search Manager
Lions Bay Search & Rescue
sarinfo@sfu.ca