M_a_x; If it goes well and they want to learn more, I'll get into things like briefing sheets, interviewing the family, etc. I know people who are involved in CASARA (the closest Canadian equivalent to CAP) and I'm sure at least one of them will be happy to come out as a guest speaker - or maybe we could even visit their offices at the airport.

But for now, since it's supposed to be a fun evening, I didn't want to fall into the trap of doing 5 nights of boring theory and one practical exercise. I basically have them for about an hour; I want them to leave with a feeling of "That was <img src="images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />; I could do this for real if I had to" rather than "That was really <img src="images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> (or worse, boring); I'm glad I don't have to do it in real life."

Comanche: I'll be more than happy to post progress reports as we go along. <img src="images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

I should have mentioned that I have other material for the cadets - I just posted the bare scenario. I also have a hand-drawn map (very crude, just shows the campsite, road, trails, and lake - 6 mile x 6 mile, centred on the campground); two weather reports (one predicting fairly mild weather for the next two days, the other predicting snow and freezing temperatures) plus a couple of pages on basic terminology and types of searches.

The idea behind the two different weather forecasts: I'll give them the "mild weather" forecast and get them to come up with a plan of action. If time permits, I'll then give them the "harsh weather" forecast and get them to think about what changes, if any, this would force them to make to their plan.

aardwolfe, it´s good that you make an exercise of this. But your scenario seems pretty vague to me. To my experience kids discover that they want certain info for their decisions. When you have an idea where they should find the boy (after all it´s your scenario), you could point them to that direction when they ask. That´s considerably easier for kids than making their own assumptions. If you just make up something when you´re asked, the info might be inconsistent. This could make it more difficult than you intended.

Well, I guess the point of this exercise isn't so much to actually "find" the lost child, but rather to simulate a realistic SAR scenario. I could make up a location for the child (e.g. he's 1.7 miles northeast of the campsite) but what would that prove? S&R is statistical in nature, so there isn't really a "right" answer, only some that are better than others. If they come up with a realistic plan that happens to miss the "book" solution, is that really a valuable learning experience?

Right now, this is a way to teach the basic theory without "teaching" or making it an extension of their normal school day. My intent is to give more complex scenarios and introduce some more tools. Perhaps we'll make it an extension of the current scenario: e.g. "After searching three of the four grids around the camp, searchers found a child's footprints in a patch of mud 1.7 miles NE of the PLS; he appeared to be heading east or southeast at the time." Bear in mind, I have no S&R training, so I'm pretty much reading the books and making the training plan up as I go along.

Probably in the spring or early summer, we'll go out to a camping lodge that we use for our Wilderness Survival training and perform a real S&R exercise "in the wild". (There's a fairly large wooded area, about a mile by a mile and a half, bounded by a fence on three sides and a clearly defined cut-line on the fourth, so there's almost no chance of it turning into a real S&R :-)

aardwolfe, I agree in most points with you. What I had in mind wasn´t giving a really detailed complex scenario to the cadets (maybe I didn´t make this too clear). In order to make a scenario realistic, it helps to have a plausible story for the lost child (e.g. just wandered around a lost orientation vs. tried to find that lake). You could use that story to tailor the scenario to your needs (and preempt unwanted questions).

Max: I don't believe in unwanted questions. Questions are good <img src="images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Actually, as simple as the scenario seemed to me, it was still almost too complicated. I split the cadets up into teams of two and handed each team a copy of the scenario. (It didn't help that my car battery died and I had to get a jumpstart and arrived twenty minutes late.) Basically I wanted them to ask questions - one pair asked was it his real family or was it foster or step-parents? They were wondering whether it was just a missing kid, or a possible abduction. That was a very good question.

I figure if they ask a lot of questions it means they're interested.

It's pretty late right now, I have to go to bed. But I'll post a summary in a couple of days.

Thanks very much for the feedback. We'll be doing more along these lines in the future - nice to know I have friends here I can ask for advice <img src="images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Actually your scenario is very realistic as compared to the searches I have been on(over 200). Many times we have little or no information or conflicting stories at best. I have had state of the art maps available down to no maps available to us.

Realistically investigation and questioning starts at callout and does not finish untill call off or a find. One search I recall we had over 100 possible scenarios to contend with.

Another type of search that may be of interest to you is the evidence search, where we layout a rectagular grid on the ground, we then search each grid square for evidence and note its location by using x y coordinates or polar coordinates. We have used this type of search at two plane crashes where parts of the aircraft are cataloged and then later reconstructed in another location for investigation.

In any event, the possibilities for using search and rescue in education is enormous, and I commend you for making education interesting for your students.

Ted Fisher
VCSAR Coordinator

I would be interested in what types of solutions your students came up with if you would be so kind as to post it or email me

tedf@vercomis.org

Thanks

Ted Fisher
VCSAR Coordinator

Well, it was interesting. The results weren't what I expected (what ever is?:)) - in some ways I was disappointed and in others pleasantly surprised.

We had 8 members show up (that's close to our normal turnout, only one member couldn't make it), ranging in age from 11 to 18, with one adult member.

I split them up into four groups of two: the two youngest (both boys); two girls who were classmates and close friends; one boy and one girl who were also classmates (the boy is a Ham Radio operator and has some experience of SAR exercises; the girl is our most experienced cadet); and the youngest girl was paired up with the adult member. I'll denote them, respectively, as BB, GG, BG, and AC (for Adult/Child).

I then handed them the written scenario, the hand-drawn map, and a couple of cheat sheets on how to perform a ground-based search.

In summary, none of them got into the math at all. They seemed to have a good time, although the youngest one said it was "boring". (He didn't act bored, and I suspect he really meant "I didn't come here to have to think".)

Only two groups (AC & BG) came up with anything like a plan of action. The AC group got fixated on the fact that there were 36 grid squares on the map, so they split the searchers up and assigned 5 searchers to each of the central grids; no consideration of how 5 people are going to search a square mile of boreal forest.

The BG group also had a plan, of sorts. They were going to keep 1/2 of the searchers in reserve and send the other half out to search. The reasoning behind this was that, after 12 hours, the searchers would be too exhausted to continue, so they would want to rotate them. I didn't think this was a good idea, and stated so as a fact. (I should have suggested it, rather than stating it, of course.) The boy in particular seemed obsessed with keeping something in reserve, as if it was a military operation. It made more sense to me, at least at the beginning of a search when there's a strong possibility of finding the subject alive, to have 100 searchers out for 12 hours and then have everyone stand down for 12 hours, than to have 50 searchers out there for 24 hours. (Obviously, having your searchers sitting around doing nothing for 12 hours at a stretch isn't optimal; I'm just pointing out that it would be better to have a strong effort at the beginning than to have a weaker effort that runs twice as long.)

But they had some good questions. The youngest team asked for a "strobe light"; when questioned, it turned out they really meant a spot light, that could be shone straight up in the hope of providing a signal to the lost boy. This is known as "passive searching" and I hadn't even mentioned it in the notes. So I was pleased they thought of it.

Two groups thought of cordoning off the main highway North and South, but only one of them also thought of cordoning off the pathways as well.

All of the groups either asked for additional resources, or simply assumed that the other resources were available. The BG group had a helicopter "on standby"; when asked why the helicopter wasn't being used in the search, the boy explained that a helicopter wouldn't be able to see anything from the air, and would only be used to evacuate the subject once the ground searchers had located him. I think his experience with ground-based SAR (his father is a trained SAR volunteer) has left him with a bias against other types of searches. I plan to ask a friend of mine, who is active in CASARA (Canadian Air Search And Rescue Assn) to come in and be a guest lecturer some night. Or if possible, we will make it a site visit to the airport.

They all expressed interest in actually going out and doing a search-and-rescue exercise in the field, so that's something I'm going to be looking at this summer, or possibly late spring.

Next step, I think, will be to come up with my own plan for the same scenario and present it, then let them try to pick holes in my plan. At least now, I think, they have an understanding of why there's more to SAR than simply grabbing a couple of hundred volunteers and sending them out into the woods. Although they didn't seem too keen on "doing the math", I think it's an essential component, so I'll probably come up with a couple of sample problems. (Yes, we have computer programs that do the calculations for you now, but I think you still need to understand the basic principles behind it in order to make an informed decision.)

All in all, it seemed like a success, though not a resounding one. Otoh, 5 of the 8 are teenagers, and you never know with teens - they could be having the time of their lives, but they're much too cool to give any sign of it <img src="images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Anyway, I'm having fun with it, and learning lots of cool stuff - and that's what counts, right? <img src="images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I would have to lean more to plesantly surprised, due to some creativity in the action plans. Here are my 2 cents worth.

"None of them got into the math at all"
Many searches are conducted without doing any planning or math at the onset they then find themselves after several operational periods researching areas at random because they had no method of tracking where they search and how much effort was deployed into those areas. This is when the search goes to $*&^, people start blaming each other and the operation disitigrates rapidly. Not only does the math assist SAR planning who, where and what to deploy, but it also illustrates to others what and why things were done. You may need it in court.

"no consideration of how 5 people are going to search a square mile"
This is another very common action, when your incident commander(IC) or your planners do not understand the capabilities and limitations of your teams.

"searchers in reserve"
Another topic of heated debate, I have tried this both ways and I can assure you that when the family members and the news media observes your seachers standing down for 12 hours, they will hang you out to dry. You must deploy your teams in such a way that a continued search effort is on going. Our teams are rotated in such a way that we search around the clock 24/7.

"In The Spot Light"

Excellant idea we as searchers often forget passive search techniques when in fact they do work and at a remarkably high degree in some cases.

"Confinement"
Excellant as well. I don't know how many searches could have been shortened if the initial responders would have confined the area so the search area did not grow.

"Helicopter and air support"
Another hot topic for debate, there are many variables involved with air support, the ability of the air crew, the weather, the terrain, the subject, the scenario, and on and on.
In my opinion if you have them use them but do not every bank on them totally.

"IN CONCLUSION"
It may be a difficult task to get your participants to focus on the math, because its a lot more fun to go in the field to find the subject than it is to crunch numbers.

It brings back memories of a search we had for a run-a-way where the subject was located 1500 miles away and we never deployed a search team to the field. Through investigation and SAR math and planning the subject was found.

Keep up the good work. you may want to join a team yourself!