SAR Planning Software

[KyCAP]

There is a lot of mention of software for various reasons on the board, like GIS and flight planning. 

However, I am looking for input from different folks on SAR Planning software....

Something like this... http://www.sarinfo.bc.ca/sartechnology/sartechnology.htm

I get spammed routinely from them..

Also, I found this DHS product today.. (training only) http://www.incidentcommander.net/ and the history behind it.. http://www.gcn.com/online/vol1_no1/43888-1.html

[Eclipse]

Nothing I've found commercially is in a cost ballpark that CAP could even remotely consider unless NHQ got involved.

As I recall IC Pro was in the neighborhood of $3-5000 per full installation.

[KyCAP]

They have a 501(c)(3) pricing...  $600/user

http://sartechnology.ca/sartechnology/ST_CharitableSales.htm

Still expensive, because you need a couple of copies for planning to be really effective.

[MikeD]

What would you want to see in it?  I strongly prefer to do hardware R&D but I'll work on software some for a good cause. 

[Smithsonia]

What is needed is a completely expandable, fully intergrated, mobile software suite. One that can check in crews like grocery scanning (sign ins can be a bottle neck). Then forward automatically crew and craft resources to a ICC from a mobile base... then be automatically uploaded to a intergrated incident command center. It must be robust. It must be secure... or at least very private. It should be web-based.

It must work on Macs and Micro-soft. It must be easy to update. It must be stable. It must give just enough information in a coherent form but make a "drill down" easy also. It must place Air and Ground assets in context with the incident operations of police, fire, National Guard, and County SAR teams. It must work Wing to Wing in big searches and down to the county or precinct level where searches may be conducted without CAP services. It must be a platform that works every time. It must be easy to use and easy to train. It must have a training protocol that is intuitive, so that if you don't use it for a few months... you'll pick it up again quickly. It must be something that FEMA/Homeland Sec. endorses and supports... then mandates. That would be true interoperability.

I think that is a vision and perhaps more than a dream right now. I've seen attempts but know of nothing that's up and working. If you know different... let me know. I was at a big FEMA and Homeland Sec. conference last week. They all liked the idea, but had nothing on the shelf.

The command and control systems of this size are likely inside the military right now. We need a version.
Shiny command centers aren't much without good intel and distribution nets. Analysis is tough to do without full context. Assets are great unless you can't figure where they are and what they do. Logistics, planning, intel, ops... one suite, compatible along any platform. If not now, when? Otherwise interoperability is just another over-used word.

[Eclipse]

It must work on Macs and Micro-soft. It must be easy to update. It must be stable. It must give just enough information in a coherent form but make a "drill down" easy also. It must place Air and Ground assets in context with the incident operations of police, fire, National Guard, and County SAR teams. It must work Wing to Wing in big searches and down to the county or precinct level where searches may be conducted without CAP services. It must be a platform that works every time. It must be easy to use and easy to train. It must have a training protocol that is intuitive, so that if you don't use it for a few months... you'll pick it up again quickly. It must be something that FEMA/Homeland Sec. endorses and supports... then mandates. That would be true interoperability.

You had me until you started talking about mandated interoperability with other agencies.

That is not our role or responsibility.  That would be a FEMA or HLS job.

All CAP needs is the ability to manage its own assets.

[Smithsonia]

Eclipse;
Precisely, That is my intention. One complete software suite good for everything, everybody, and every where. If you're on the ICS/NIMS protocol -- load it up and roll.
I believe it does exist in the military somewhere. I didn't suggest CAP should build it. It must be a HSD/FEMA project. I talked about it this weekend with a couple of their training gurus. I think they agreed but had no answers.

[Smithsonia]

The harder or more difficult to work with CAP is, the fewer jobs we'll get. If a Wild Land Fire IC can open up a software package that connects to the State Military Affairs Commander/Wing CC/ and Wing Ops Director --
then that Fire Commander will ask us to survey fuel/structures/evac routes/or resources ahead of the fire. This automated system with prompts and connectivity is much more than just CAP handling our own resources Group to group or Wing to Wing. We need a software platform that pushes and directs the requests from the customer to the right CAP commander in a timely fashion. I know the military isn't looking up phone numbers and individual commanders home addresses when they want artillery, air support, UAVs, infantry, mortars, supplies, and tanks, etc. In their case it's right on one computer screen with position reports, and asset grades (standing by for weather, ready for launch, 2 hrs to target, etc,) The SAR/CAP/FEMA/Homeland Security needs exactly the same thing... but for all civilian applications.

Right now -- with the exception of AF calling a RedCap -- the system is not user friendly. If we want the good missions we need to be on everybody's speed dial, in everybody's plan, and reminded by everybody's computer. We need to all be on one (and the same) page, so to speak.  For instance just last weekend, in Colorado, we were waiting at a CAP Mission Base for weather to clear 1-2 hours after the wreckage of a plane had already been discovered by the county sheriff. Ground teams had confirmed the wreckage. We didn't get the word. I don't know where the delay occurred. But, we might have launched into less than good weather -- for no good purpose. If the County Sheriff's IC had a stand by or stand down alert for all assets -- that would have been good or better.

This doesn't seem to be a far fetched system. This isn't Star Wars stuff. It just needs the right FEMA/HSD person to identify the issues, call the right military suppliers, (Raytheon, Lockheed, and Boeing all have systems similar to my description, although I don't have specific information on each)  and get a civilian software systems application rolling. Police, fire, and the 9-1-1 system do it now. CAP should get on this parade float before we come up against another 9-11 attack or multi-state Steve Fosset type search. As my old college professor used to say... "this ain't rocket surgery."

[MikeD]

Interoptability... ugh.   Unless someone has a really awesome solution in place that's so good that people will adopt it, it'd have to come from FEMA. 

Also, for OS I'd be inclined to vote for runs in Linux, or better yet something like .NET/Mono or Java that'd run on multiple platforms. 

[c172drv]

Pete Anderson's IMU software does pretty much all of this interms of managing a mission. It can be used at multiple sites, you can operate with multiple wing and it will upload to WMIRS for us if allowed.  We have started to use it here in VA Wing and have had some good success and some setbacks.  I don't know how it plays with Mac's but most Mac folks I know have the window operating system or simulation loaded on the computers.

Since this is a "Home Grown" package it could use some better support that NHQ could provide.  Unfortunately I think there is still a bit of a turf war going on since Pete's website was/is competing with NHQ E-Services and I feel it does/did a better job.

The big issue with much of this is that these type of database programs are resource intensive in the computer sense.  Older computers and networks can bog down and it doesn't tolerate a slow internet connection.  CAP needs to move forward and setup its IT structure to support any such system and possibly come up with a packet replacement that is more similar to WIMAX, wireless on steriods, to give us a secure IT backbone.

John Jester

[KyCAP]

John,

Technically speaking database applications if architected correctly and designed using the correct techniques at the presentation layer (desktop) can be designed quite efficiently.  In other words, the overhead is generally not from the database engine but from the user interface and tools that the interface is built with.

Also, WiMAX while in theoretical applications is capable of up to 75 mbit/sec will not realistically deliver that load.   Sprint's "plan" for delivery is actually just about double what the current EVDO Revision A is delivering today.  WiMAX is slated for 2 mbit from everything I hear from Sprint (my company is a reseller).

http://www.wimax.com/education/faq/faq38

The only real necessity for that kind of throughput is also for voice/video and large files (SDIS).   Elegantly designed interfaces and applications survive quite well with speeds 384K and down.

We're scoping out the IMU2 in Ky Wing as well... revisiting it after a 4 year hiatus.

[c172drv]

Hmm-     My neighbor is running a company using what I thought was Wimax and his data rates were on about 25mbs on a good connection.  I don't know if it is as mobile as what Sprint is trying to do but he is utilizing fixed directional attennae for the link and for his backbones.

     As for the IMU2 I hope that it will get more support and that at some point some documentation will surface.  I like the program but the new version runs very slow in compared with the MMU.

John

[Smithsonia]

I've been to 3 SAREXs in which my information, or information of my crew has vanished. My CAP116 qual gone from IMU/WMU, fellow crewman's 116-117 gone from WMU, 101 cards correct but not trusted by the IC. In one case the Air Force Officer running an Air Force guided exercise "stood-down" a crew-member. Fortunately that crewman brought all of his certificates with him... and they "relogged" him. That took some time to do. In time critical situations this system is not trustworthy. Our ES officer has had to re-log me 2 or 3 times to make sure my quals are current and in the system.

E-services swallowed all of our squadron's pilot's quals. Instead of 21 qualified pilots we had Zero, nada, nothing, a few days ago. No Mission pilots, CD pilots, Cadet O-Flight pilots, Transport-pilots. The scanner list has been eaten all of our squadron twice, in the past few weeks. Then, it reappeared. Yesterday the same thing happened to our Observer-list. I've never seen the "sign in" software work smoothly. If this is the best that can be done, then we all need to carry every certificate for every qual at every Mission/SAREX location. Instability in the software is obvious. I trust that this problem is being addressed. In a large mission (another Katrina let's say) quals vanishing, puts assets in stand-down mode. Why? Why let this situation persist?

[heliodoc]

^^^^^^Whatever happened to the good ol keeping PAPER files going

CAP needs some REAL help if they continue this way with some high priced technology that can not be trusted.. After reading this and being closely related to PAID ES / EM I would really start to question the reliability of the current CAP tech system

I'l start carrying a flex file around after reading this.................................

[Eclipse]

You can't keep paper records for 50 states worth of responders on file in every possible mission base location.

With that said, the above is unacceptable.

To start, an IC should not be involved in vetting individual 101 cards, and a cornerstone of our current system is that members who walk in the door with an ID card, 101 card, and a uniform should be able to perform the mission tasks the 101 card says they are qualified to do.

While I have no doubt the above happened, and we have plenty of people in CAP who need a rules refresher, my personal experience has been that when things like the above happen there is more to the story, and red flags were going up about a member's quals or abilities.

The same goes for CAPRAPS getting involved in operations, anything is possible, but generally when they do the flags are large and brightly colored.

As to systems that lose data, etc., that's unacceptable on any level, especially in the year 2008 where redundancy is cheap, but we operate locally with the assumption that the paper in your pocket will be accepted wherever you go.

Two other sides to this are members who come in from other states without a shred of paper and it magically appears after a short time in their vehicle with a notebook and portable printer, or the people who showed up to Katrina with empty pockets and just said "I'm in the system...".  well there was no "system" and they went home.

[heliodoc]

That's fine, Eclipse, and I understand that

This is my second time around in CAP and I have been around this biz for a number of years

There were PLENTY paper records  for a number of response agencies for years and that was / were typed on to cards just like the old 101 card typred on a $%^& typewriter

Wildland firefighters cards were tracked on paper for years before ALLL that great technology came along

Are you saying mine is unacceptable??

CAP's crashing system is unacceptable and I see everyone signing in at SAREX's... does that mean when the system goes down on those activities, that we magically no longer exist??


Again I would say CAP has ALOT to prove to other ES/ EM agencies when this type of thing happens and likewise agencies have alot to prove also


That's why I say paper and if that's not acceptable, to each his/ her own

Again how was this alll done before the dawn of the computer???  It seemed to have worked before with the old 101 card system so what all the fuss keeping paperwork?? 

Like the Army taught me, keep copies 'cuz you just never know and I sure know I haven't trusted a computer , yet

[Smithsonia]

If your basic ES qual isn't in the system... a prompt comes up on WMU. Meaning, even if your 101 card is correct, the system won't let the sign-in team log you in. TO move forward the prompt wants the date of the qual... which by the way is NOT on the 101 card (it just says GES no expire). I think to re-log the system requires that the sign-in team put a certificate number in. The IC is not to blame. It is the system. Personally I've relogged myself twice and a sign-in team relogged me twice. I carry my 101 card, my GES< 116-117 Certificates, my ICS 100-200-700-800 certificates too. I've got my ID card. I've got my B-Cut card. It's in my field and flight kit. It's on my checklist. BUT, it still slows down my sign in. It takes my crew off the 1st sortie or assignment. It makes me wait for the system to catch-up.

In this I am not complaining. I am reporting a problem. There are more stable systems out there. There's likely a fix to our systems. I'm not qualified (and don't have a certificate) in IT. Other members in my crew have had the same problem. We talked about it last night at our squadron meeting. It is happening to others too.

[heliodoc]

By the way , Eclipse

With all this great modern technology we should be able to look up a person and see their quals on line thereby eliminating a reason for carrying the 101 card and we should just look at their membership card

Is not that the reason for all this great technology??  I carried my Army Green  and Pink card all the time and nowhere did it state that I was a 68B, 67V, 67N, TI, or ALSE on those cards....

Those training quals were back at the shop in a PAPER file to be looked up if any questions arose

So the dependence on thses sytems is rather silly. and again if the computer goes down at a SAREX or REDCAP are we all nonexistent and not covered....debatable.

[Smithsonia]

I was at a FEMA/Forest Service/Wildland Fire training exercise and another one that was a real wildland fire.
Crews came in and ran a plastic or metal credit-card-like "redCard." It was on a chain around their necks like a dog tags. Wildland Fire ICs check in crews like scanning groceries. 20 team members got off a bus, logged in and took about 2 minutes. They left to brief before I could get any information. I was on the IO team. I asked the IO/IC -- "Where they were from?" He looked at his computer and said (now I'm making up the names because I don't actually recall the places.) anyway the IO said... "Huskem New Mexico, before that Sun Valley Idaho, but their Base is Heavenly Valley CA. Man these guys have been in the field for a month. Lot's of experience, look at those quals... they'll get a front line assignment... nope, they haven't eaten this morning. Ted! Make sure those guys who just left make it to logistics to gear up and the field kitchen too... let's get some hot food in them. Planning, you on this? They'll be ready in a couple of hours" That entire sign-in, set up, and discussion between the IO, IC, me, planning, and fire ICP took about 5 minutes, maybe 7minutes at the most.

I'm not qualified to say anything more than -- That looks like a good system. Let's do that.

[heliodoc]

Ed

I haven't seen or heard of that system, I am still completing taskbooks reqs for the wildland biz

If that system is around, right, let's see whothe contractor or is USFS/ DOI specific??  It could be the ICQS that is out of Boise, ID at NIFC

If that can be determined, then  maybe if CAP wants to join the rest of the ICS world and stop trying to be an island of its own OR get to get some real AF computer support that does not require such extensive security to breach their systems, then those could be some options..

I do not pretend to have the answers but there are systems out there, that if CAP really got off its fourth point of contact and stop reinventing the wheel every time it wanted to be MORE specialized in something or felt it had to exceed FAA PTS standards, or was always wanting to be included in  more missions at the DHS / FEMA level or always screaming MORE MISSIONS....

Then its time to find a system that CAP can integrate INTO to attain all these thing they want to achieve
because there are sysytems out there to tie into