SARINFO - Briefings! Editorial comments from the SAR community
SARINFO - Briefings!
Editorial comments from the SAR community
You are invited to email your comments on any SAR topic.
Articles are welcome on all aspect of SAR - training, liability, safety, funding, new
technology, risk assesment, response times, mutual aid ....
Murphy's Law Hits Kentucky Search!
By
Elbert C. Smith
This is a little long but I swear its all true !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Murphy's Law visits Kentucky: Myself (the VP) and the Training Officer of the Kentucky Search Dog Association
were to attend an emergency management class and conference at a state resort park. (paid
lodging, meals and mileage being paid by the state. This was to start at 6:30pm.
Mike the Training
Officer had an early morning doctors appointment to remove 3 stitches from his hand. This
was the beginning of the adventure. Mike sat in the Doctors office for 3 hours before
being taken to the exam room. Then a nurse tried to remove the stitches without cutting
them first. Then wiped it with alcohol for extra effect.
So mike was running 3 hours late to start with. So he returned home to find a fellow paramedic waiting at his home to see about running electric to his hot tub. Another hour. Then as he was getting in his truck a worker from the gas company pulled up to change the gas meter due to a leak, another 45 minutes. But finally he is on the road to my house.
About
45 miles from his home the vehicle in front of him leaves the interstate, crosses the
median and runs into a cliff. Luckily only minor injuries. another hour. He finally makes
the 90 miles to my house. We load my bags and begin the 3 hr. drive to the state park.
We have the route planned on an OFFICIAL Kentucky highway map. 3.5 hours later we still weren't on the road to the park. They had changed the road numbers. We finally get to the lodge. They had overbooked. No rooms. Reluctantly they give us a cabin. On the far side of the park. We find the cabin , a car is parked in the drive, we had to park on a steep hill. (two men spending the weekend in a rustic cabin alone, looks sweet to me). Anyway we carry our baggage in and leave to attend the class.
30 minutes till class. The truck will not start. The hill is so steep that the fuel is in the front of the tank. We are forced to allow the truck to roll forward into the lawn of the cabin to get it started. It works. 15 min. till class. We decide to get gas. We get back to the lodge 10 minutes before class.
5
minutes before class my beeper goes off. The number is one of our handlers and a team
leader followed with our emergency code, a search. I call his number, his wife answers, we
have a search and her husband is bow hunting and didn't take his pager. I got a contact
number for the command post and called them. It in a Lewis County where we had presented a
FUNSAR class 2 weeks earlier. An 82 year old female Altzheimers patient was missing from
her rural home. present temp was 50, low tonight in the mid 30's.
The search was about 5 hours away from the state park, they were presently doing hasty and making copies of the maps I tell them I would get them some help. I try to call the other team leader to start a call out no answer. Try two others same results. Called a dog handler and had her do a callout. Her first. She could only get 3 teams. The handler that normally pulls the team trailer called asking if they would need it for maps and and the copy machine, I told him no.
We decide to grab a quick meal then head out to Mike's to get his dog and gear. The lodge restaurant is slower than Christmas. We finally get on the road. About an hour from the park my pager goes off. The maps they were making copies of were county road maps they dont have topo maps of the area. We must stop and get the trailer.
We make it to
Mikes and get his gear and dog and head toward my house to get my gear (another handler
had taken my dog). We stop for gas and consume a high caffine soda and m&m's. Mike
learns he forget his pager when he changed at his house. We pull into my drive when mike
rembers he has the wrong size ball on his truck for the trailer. We struggle and finally
get the ball off my truck and mounted on Mikes. We leave to get the trailer. I notice the
truck sounds funny. Soon we are driving what sounds like a race truck. The pipe had broken
at the converter. We stop and hook up the trailer. The guys wife comes running out with
his wallet. He had forgotten it and was low on gas and had no money.
We finally start on the last
leg to the search 2 hours away. I'm driving up the interstate pulling the trailer with the
"race truck" when suddenly the trailer takes a right. I slow and pull on to the
shoulder. A smoke cloud floats up from the trailer. It was a blowout. I get the jack and
we have the tire changed in about 10 minutes. I let the jack down, the spare tire is flat.
Luckly Mike has an electric pump, unluckly it was in the front of the bed of his truck
requiring unloading equipment and the dog. Then the cord was too short to reach the
trailer. Had to unhook the trailer, back up the truck , inflate the tire and rehook the
trailer. Were back on the road.
We leave the interstate and for the final hour a tractor and trailer tries to push us on the 2 lane road. We arrive at the search.......... The IC is convinced the lady is dead.
Finally our luck changes. In 30 minutes we have the tent up, heater going lights and generator working plus the maps segmented and the teams deployed. The lady was located by a dog team early into the second shift. She was 4ft. 7in., 70 lbs, and in great shape! We placed her in a stokes, set up a basic low angle system and lowered her about 800 off the hill.
This was the first live find for this dog team (they have been operational for over 5 years) and had responded to hundreds of searches but this was the support persons first search.
From: Cletus Smith Kentucky Search Dog Association
Search and rescue
managers are taught many methods to gather information on the subject of their searches;
interviews, trip itineraries, similar search records, evaluation of terrain etc., but very
little time is spent teaching search intelligence. Now before anyone gets offended, I
don't mean the intelligence of the search manager, or the searchers, or even the subject,
I'm talking about quality, evaluated and verified information regarding the circumstances
surrounding the search as well as a comprehensive subject profile.
As we base our determinations of search urgency, probability of area etc. on the information we have at the time of the search, the acquisition of information is critical, or is it? Isn't it possible that what we are really seeking is a method to acquire, compile, verify, analyze and disseminate information about the subject, the events surrounding the search and the natural factors present in the search area. This goes beyond just information and brings us to the area of "search intelligence". As an example, I'll use a recent search in Illinois. The names and the location have been changed as the event is still involved in litigation.
On a hot summer morning, a group of developmentally disabled students were involved in a field trip to a local pool. At approximately 11:00 am, one of the students was found to be missing. After a quick search of the pool area, the County was notified. County officials requested a Search Master from the State be assigned to assist in the County in search management. The Search Master arrived on-scene at 11:45 am. While en route, the Search Master dispatched a State helicopter with search crew and activated one of the SAR dog teams routinely used in that portion of Illinois.
A meeting was conducted at 12:00 noon to bring all SAR management personnel up to speed with the progress of the search to date. Information available from interviews conducted with developmental center staff indicated that the subject was behaviorally, and not mentally disabled. He was 16 years old, in good health, but not overly active. He was verbally aggressive and abusive but "not stupid-a pretty smart kid". He was also characterized as a "hider". On several instances in the past months, the subject had separated himself from his group, and hidden from the staff for periods of several hours before being found. The subject had no real understanding of the consequences of these actions, and found them to be "fun".
An interview was conducted by the Search Master with the subject's care giver in order to flesh out the subject profile. Information on routine daily activities, attitudes and past "disappearances" was compiled as well as a detailed itinerary of the day's activities up until the time subject went missing. One of the key questions was whether anyone had an argument or disagreement with the subject which might give us insight into why he disappeared, or where he may have "gone to ground". The interview indicated that throughout the morning the subject was characterized as happy and swimming in the pool. The care giver stated that there had been no arguments of incidents to prompt the disappearance, but anyway, "he always hides, he does it because it's a game to him".
During the next 12 hours a search base was established, the area was segmented and searched by ground teams, dog teams, a mounted team and two State helicopters, one with and one without FLIR (a chin mounted infrared). Containment was established and perimeter patrols were conducted by vehicle, ATV and horse mounted patrols. The pool was checked four times before closing in case he had slipped back into the area. Sound Sweeps were conducted in the wooded areas, media pleas went out for local residents to search their properties and out buildings for signs of the subject, all with negative results. The operations were suspended at midnight by the County following a staff meeting reviewing the day's activities. Over that period, 157 searchers and 7 flight hours were utilized in the search.
Overnight, additional Police patrols were added for subject containment, and special attention was directed towards the vicinity of the recreation center, on the assumption that the subject might return when he was tired of hiding, or when he saw activity lessening in the area. The search was renewed at 6 am the following morning with a new POA consensus, and a repeat of the first day's level of activity.
During both days, numerous siting reports were received by the Search Master, none matching the description of the subject exactly. Each of these reports was evaluated by the search staff, and each generated tremendous pressure from developmental center staff to abandon the search strategy, and commit 100% of the resources to chasing each lead. The problem was handled by allowing the developmental center administrator to form his own "chase team" from his center staff to follow up the less well documented reports.
At 1100 on the second day, a report was received from a developmental center staff member that she had seen the subject on the bank of a creek approximately 5 miles from the PLS. The subject was reported to be unable to work his way through the brush and was lying on the bank of the stream, partly in the water. When questioned as to whether it was the subject, the staff member replied: "It's definitely him, and I should know, I have worked with him every day for two years". River rescue, an ambulance and the helicopter were immediately dispatched to the site, but were unable to locate the subject, or any sign of his ever having been there.
As the search staff were evaluating the situation, the pool reported a drowning, which eventually turned out to be the subject. Follow up investigation by law enforcement officials into the death revealed the following information: 1) The subject could not swim! 2) 10 minutes before he disappeared, he had an argument with his care giver - he wanted to go off the diving board and swim in the deep end! 3) The subject's mental age was approximately 6 years old! 4) While conducting a hasty search of the area, the developmental center staff had received a report that a subject closely matching the description of the subject had been seen one block away, in the empty high school, by some workers. The center staff had never passed this information on to the Search Master as they had immediately "searched" the high school with two people and hadn't found the subject. (The high school was three stories, and occupied almost a block). The high school was locked by the time the Search Master arrived on site, and was reported as having been thoroughly searched prior to his arrival.
Lets categorize the information the search staff were working with during the search:
- Information -
there was a 16 year old male subject missing, he was wearing a green and black swimming
suit, he was behaviorally disabled and tended to hide as a game, and he was last seen at
the pool at approximately 1045.
- Misinformation
- the several reports of sitings which did not match the subject, including the
developmental center employee's eye witness report, that the subject had been swimming,
failure to pass on a siting report (withholding information is also misinformation), and
that the high school had been thoroughly searched.
- Disinformation
- that he was not developmentally disabled and had a mental age equal to his chronological
age, that there had been no argument leading to the disappearance, and the failure to pass
information that he had wanted to go off of the diving board and swim in the deep end. It
is now apparent that he did, tragically, return to the pool during the stand down, scale
the fence (chain link with no barbed wire on the top), go off of the diving board, the
enter deep end and drown. I guess you can see the litigation written all over this search.
What lesson can we learn from this search? Verify information, or weigh the information critically? During the search, the Search Master made the assumption that the developmental center staff was attempting to assist in locating the subject. In general, they were, however, some of the staff had "reason" not to tell all. When evaluating sources of information, we should use a jaundiced eye - does the source have anything to gain in passing misinformation, or could the source have a personal reason to actively pass disinformation. With the benefit of hind sight, verification of the information from the care giver would have been advisable, however, who to ask? None of the other care givers had witnessed the argument and access to the other students for interviews was denied on the basis of the effect the incident was already having on them.
This search was conducted on the basis of available information. Misinformation was generally weeded out in the search management process, except for the "swimming". Disinformation was not identified until after the conclusion of the search, and even then it was not uncovered until two days into the formal investigation of the death.
What conclusions can we draw from this search? Evaluate your sources, as well as your information, and when both of these are combined, hopefully you will base your search on "search intelligence" and not just information.
From: Martin Colwell
When land Search & Rescue started out in the pre-war years SAR teams were pretty much an outgrowth of the local hiking, climbing and military training groups. If we look back on our growth we may ask what is it that makes us different from, say, a local hiking club, when we go out on a mission.
The answer is generally, skill and training, built upon a fund of knowledge accumulated over the decades. We respond with planning and tactics that have been proven to be effective in search situations, with each incident helping us to refine our techniques towards a successful conclusion.
In the sixties and early seventies our field rescue skills were improved. In the mid to late seventies researchers like Jon Wartes and William Syrotuck added hard field data, derived from POD tests and Missing Person Behavioural analysis, to the Search Managers arsenal.
In the eighties the important concept of Probability of Area was introduced by Blake, Baynes, Dougher and Bounds, and so the stage was set for what we now call modern search theory. Mathematics became firmly entrenched into the theory, if not necessarily the practice, of search planning. In the late eighties Shea demistified shifting Probability of Area while Perkins and Roberts proposed a good theoretical model for a searcher's Probability of Detection.
In the nineties Dr Ken Hill proposed a simple procedure for evaluating multiple search scenarios, while my own work linked new POD data to many field variables that may now be resolved in order to effectively plan a large search. Kevin Sweere is also attempting to link the many variables of SAR into a single, unified system.
With the introduction of the new principle of Search Priority it is now possible to integrate a great many of the variables of a search into a single, cohesive plan. Many of the search variables can be either be calculated or pre-determined, giving us the opportunity exists to conduct a search in an integrated, highly efficient and organised way.
New search software is beginning to capitalize on this opportunity and before long I believe that we will be using integrated search mathematics within planning software with the ease that we currently use the basic calculator - we know what it is telling us without necessarily understanding how the calcualtions are performed.
The next step, I suspect, will be the integration of these routines into a unified graphical software package. The Search Manager will 'draw' on the software map and the program will calculate, time direction, searchable area, manpower requirements, Search Priority, expected POD etcetera. The program may even draw probability areas on the map, based on statistics and local area information entered by the user. The teams locations will be constantly updated via GPS, enabling more precise route and grid searching and much more accurate debriefings.
The much more difficult 'Holy Grail' of SAR planning - accurate prediction of the lost person's movements - will probably be based on a much more detailed analysis of missing person behaviour. The searchers will have to supply far more detailed information on many aspects of the search - perhaps fifty to one hundred factors - before the researchers can begin to accumulative a database from which new Rules of Behaviour can be established. It is our responsibility to the lost person to see that we begin to collect this information. If we do this then we will have 'closed the loop' on the many variables of search planning.
By following this path we may transformed the art of SAR into a genuine science. When the potent combination of science and knowledge is blended with effective, quantifiable field skills we will have produced a powerful new technology that will significantly improve our capability to find the subject, and therefore, to save lives.
Martin Colwell Lions Bay Search & Rescue
SARINFO Briefings 
