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="" />