Posts Tagged ‘Bob Koester’

« Older Entries

Searching in the Dark

January 27th, 2010

You may remember a long while back me writing a short news article introducing a Specialist Night / Low Light Search Technician Certification Course from Gary Foo. Several comments were made at the time, with Jennie Webster making the valid point that;

Maybe explicit courses such as this would make it more obvious that ALSAR teams can and do search at night?

It’s a good idea in principle, although other courses e.g. UKLSI search techician and team leader have their main exercise at night anyway, and stress the importance of night search too.

The purpose of this piece then is to reiterate that ALSAR and other SAR organisations not only routinely search at night – but actually expect search to continue through the night. As I noted in my piece on do the police suspend vulnerable missing person search too quickly some advice from the ACPO guidance, which I think is worth repeating here…

As a general principle, searching should take place throughout the day and night. This will be determined by the circumstances but in all cases where a full managed search is undertaken, there must be valid reasons why it is not continued throughout the full 24 hours.
ACPO Guidance on the Managment, Recording and Investigation of Missing Persons, 2005

Here is also a quote from the book of the week – Greg Fuller, Ed Johnson and Robert J Koester’s book Man-Trackers and Dog Handlers in Search & Rescue – Basic Guidelines and Information.

…night itself should not be a concern to trained searchers. The possibility of walking off a drop-off and branches snapping back into searchers’ eyes are the chief concerns. All of these concerns exist during the daylight hours…

It is true that searchers will have a greatly reduced POD during night-time searches. However, it is important to remember that POD is NOT the aim of the search. The aim of search is to drive up POS as quickly as possible (FIND THE MISPER!). Waiting 6 -8 hours in order to get a higher POD means that the misper will not be found during those hours. The misper’s only chance of being found is if searchers are actually out searching!

ALSAR teams train at night, they search at night and they find mispers at NIGHT!

  • Share/Bookmark

10 comments »

Posted in Search Thoughts

Tags:

Calculating Probability Density Distribution for Missing Person Search

January 26th, 2010

The first of the four elements of the optimal search problem is having a probability density distribution (predicting the likelihood that an object is in any particular search area or region.)

To achieve this during a Maritime Search and Rescue Incident one takes into account the accuracy of the initial location report, the current, wind and so on. Computer models can then accurately map the likelihood of the boat (or whatever search object is being sought) being in any particular area.

However, the variables for a vulnerable missing person search are not yet known with any particular accuracy. They may choose any direction; may stay on paths or tracks, or depart from them; camp or find shelter; try to cross rivers; go uphill or down; and so on and so on.

Computer models of missing person behaviour then are not as useful or accurate as Maritime models. This does not, however, mean that we cannot come up with useful probability density distributions. Take a quick glance at Robert Koester’s, Lost Person Behavior book to see that the world SAR community has over 50,000 incidents’ data to draw upon.

From this we can predict the likelihood a given misper will travel a certain distance from their initial location and misper “type” or “category”. This is sufficient to draw a couple of circles on a map and calculate probability density’s for concentric regions on a map. It is a small step from this to calculate actual Probability of Areas (POAs) for specific search sectors.

Other potential methods for calculating probability density distributions include the consensus method – allowing for subjective calculation based upon search planners’ experience, the individual misper intelligence and the actual search terrain limitations.

  • Share/Bookmark

1 comment »

Posted in Search Thoughts

Tags:

Combining Tracking with Lowland Search Dogs

January 25th, 2010

As you may have noticed from my recent writing on the POD of a Search Dog is 100%, I have been reading Greg Fuller, Ed Johnson and Robert J Koester’s book Man-Trackers and Dog Handlers in Search & Rescue – Basic Guidelines and Information. One of the reasons I was keen to get hold and read this book was because of the simple, but great idea contained within it’s pages – the idea that it is possible to successfully combine the two SAR disciplines of Tracking and Search Dogs into one field team unit.

I had been toying with the idea for some time for Lowland Search Dogs. A Lowland Search Dog team working as a Team consists of a dog, a handler and at least one support person. I have had some concerns [although this is probably too strong a word] for a while about the under-utilisation of this extra body. In my mind this person is a potential foot searcher who is being restricted from searching fully by having to accompany a search dog and handler [before you comment I am aware they do have a specific role - just that this role takes away search effort!]

I had been toying with the idea of spreading handler and support out more to allow for a “better” [?] search by the support alongside their support role. However, if LSDog support personnel were all trained at a minimum in track awareness [and better still at tracking] this would add a whole new dimension to the search dog team.

Obviously the dynamics of the team would change – but having the support walk the path, with the handler off the track so as to avoid track and sign contamination is not perhaps the most difficult change.

I’d be interested in your thoughts on this one…

  • Share/Bookmark

3 comments »

Posted in Search Thoughts

Tags:

The POD of a Search Dog is 100%

January 18th, 2010

When writing a blog you have to always have something left to write about tomorrow. This means that when you think of something to write about you tend to note it down somewhere, to use another day. BUT, some days, you just have to jump on the computer and write something, NOW!

It might be a news item, it might be a thought or idea going through your head, or it might, like today, be something that you read.

I’ve just taken delivery of some books from dbs productions ready to sell in the SAR Bookshop. One of Bob Koester’s books that I hadn’t read was Man-Trackers and Dog Handlers in Search & Rescue – Basic Guidelines and Information - co-authored with Greg Fuller and Ed Johnson.

In the chapter Dog-Handling Misconceptions I came across the following, which I truly hope the authors don’t mind me copying here as it has some implications for the way lowland search dogs are used and viewed.

“Dogs never miss”

If the dog handler believes this, management has a problem. If the search manager believes this, the lost subject has a problem. If a dog team ever reports a POD higher than 75% and the area is not a paved parking lot, it’s likely they have over-reported their POD.

While a discussion of scent transport is well beyond the scope of this publication, it should be noted that a myriad of conditions contribute to the success or failure of each individual search task. Wind direction, spotty scent pools, contaminating scent sources, and handler fatigue can all contribute to missed detection/find by even a focused, well-trained dog. Dog teams are another “tool” for searching — they are not infallible. Many search coordinators can relate stories of ground teams finding a subject in an area “cleared” by a search dog team. In some cases a not completely trained dog actually found the subject but did not indicate this to the handler. Dogs are a great contributor and they can cover large areas effectively, but there’s never 100% POD with any one resource. In the long run, overstating a resource’s capability only decreases the value of that resource in the eyes of management. In some areas of the country overstating has resulted in resources no longer being requested.

(Man-Trackers & Dog Handlers in Search & Rescue, Fuller, Johnson & Koester, dbs Productions)

I’ll leave my thoughts on this important issue to another day – but I’m sure many of you have views on this…

  • Share/Bookmark

2 comments »

Posted in Search Books, Search Thoughts

Tags:

Should we be “Clearing” areas in vulnerable missing person search?

January 15th, 2010

Missing Person Behaviour Presentation to Berkshire Search and Rescue Dogs

Berkshire Search and Rescue Dogs kindly asked me along to give a presentation on missing person behaviour on Tuesday night.

As part of this presentation I briefly discussed how survivability data helps prove search is an emergency. And, of course, if you accept that time is a critical feature in your search plan, you have to consider the possibility that “clearing” search areas is not an effective use of search resources in many cases.

Here is the PowerPoint presentation -
Missing Person Behaviour Presentation For Lowland Search Dogs

I’d like to thank BSARD for both their invitation and their warm welcome. I’d also like to thank Jo Joslyn for the lovely letter of thanks.

  • Share/Bookmark

No comments »

Posted in Search Presentations, Search Thoughts

Tags: