Study looks at effectiveness of youth searchers in GSAR

[manfredvonrichthofen]

That would be nice to have aircrew have GT training, at least the observers. That would come in very handy, however I can understand some pilots and observers not wanting to cross train. Some times cross training can mud up your primary training with similar terms and such what not getting crossed. I do GT but would love to have observer training so that I can have a better understanding as to what the aircrew is talking about and what they are seeing. The only problem with that is there aren't very many observers around here that I know of, so I fear being put into a flight crew instead of on the ground because of necessity.

[cap235629]

That would be nice to have aircrew have GT training, at least the observers. That would come in very handy, however I can understand some pilots and observers not wanting to cross train. Some times cross training can mud up your primary training with similar terms and such what not getting crossed. I do GT but would love to have observer training so that I can have a better understanding as to what the aircrew is talking about and what they are seeing. The only problem with that is there aren't very many observers around here that I know of, so I fear being put into a flight crew instead of on the ground because of necessity.

I wouldn't let that stop you because the odds of a non-pilot observer actually flying are slim and you will probably be bumped by a bubblehead and wind up on the ground anyway.....

[NIN]

That would be nice to have aircrew have GT training, at least the observers. That would come in very handy, however I can understand some pilots and observers not wanting to cross train. Some times cross training can mud up your primary training with similar terms and such what not getting crossed. I do GT but would love to have observer training so that I can have a better understanding as to what the aircrew is talking about and what they are seeing. The only problem with that is there aren't very many observers around here that I know of, so I fear being put into a flight crew instead of on the ground because of necessity.

So, let me get this straight: you'd like to have the training to help you out on the ground (which, BTW, is a good call) but if you're a qualified aircrew member, you don't want to actually use the skill if the mission is short bodies?

I was a flight engineer in the Army.  Which meant not only was I an aircrew member, but I was an aircraft mechanic (an FE is sort of a super crewchief).  Did that mean that if the maintenance guys needed a hand with something in the hangar I turned my nose up and said "I don't swing a wrench"?   No.  If we were in the field and I wasn't on the flight schedule, did that mean I couldn't pull guard duty?  No.

If you're trained, you should exercise that training in all your specialties.  Maybe you show up to a training mission base and they need a Ground Branch Director, and you're qualified to fill that position in a training capacity. All your field gear is packed, you were expecting to go out on ground team, but there is a GTM who is training for GTL who can do that.  Do you look the IC in the eye and say "Yeah, no, I'm a field guy..." 

It behooves you and "the mission" (the overall mission, not that specific mission) to use your training in whatever capacity you can .   I preferred to fly, but I was a pretty darn good GTL, so I did that mostly (in a wing with next to no ground team mission need... Talk about boring!).  If someone said "Hey, you wanna fly today?" I didn't turn it down, mostly because our wing was very air-ops centric, ES-wise, and if my team had someone to lead them, then sure, I'll fly.  (didn't hurt that I lived about 600m from Wing HQ, so I could run home and get my flying pajamas pretty quickly..)






.  Having been both a GTL and an Observer, I can't begin to tell you what a pain it is to have a GTL who had no clue what goes on in the plane working with you on the radio.  And the converse is true: pilots & observers who have not spent any time with a GT tend to, in my experience, be a little impatient with the speed of a GT on the ground.)

[EMT-83]

+ ∞

I started out on aircrew, and worked up to Mission Observer. The opportunity came along to take Ground Team training, and I jumped on it. I'm now just shy of GTL, and should have that right after the first of the year.

I can easily say that being an MO makes me better at GT, and GT makes me a better MO. I'd rather fly, but would never say no to being on the ground if that's where I'm needed.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

I don't by any means mean to imply that I am above working aircrew or anything of the sort. I just know that I will probably not ever get to work on the ground. There are just no observers around here and I love to work on the ground its when I can think the clearest about the mission at hand.

[Spaceman3750]

I've been considering getting MS/MO qualified, but my thinking right now is, as a GTL(T) I need to work on honing those skills first for a couple of years and then expand out later...

[tsrup]

I've been considering getting MS/MO qualified, but my thinking right now is, as a GTL(T) I need to work on honing those skills first for a couple of years and then expand out later...

Your best bet then, is to just talk to some aircrew.  It's nice to have insight into what it is they do, or what it is they expect. 

At the very least both parties will gain a basic understanding of each other's limitations.

[ZigZag911]

That would be nice to have aircrew have GT training, at least the observers. That would come in very handy, however I can understand some pilots and observers not wanting to cross train.

I've seen this addressed by offering 'cross-specialty familiarization' training. You're not trying to actually qualify in the other field, but simply get a good grasp of what they're doing, why, and what their limitations can be.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

I've seen this addressed by offering 'cross-specialty familiarization' training. You're not trying to actually qualify in the other field, but simply get a good grasp of what they're doing, why, and what their limitations can be.

That would be nice I haven't seen that around here yet, but I will bring it up. I think having my GT somewhat versed in what the pilot can see and can't see and what it takes for the aircrew to be able to see us and to understand what were seeing and what we need to see.

[Al Sayre]

In our wing the policy is that you must complete UDF before you complete any aircrew qual's.  The reason is two-fold. 

First is so you can land and do a ramp search & secure an ELT if needed. 

The second came from a realization we had during/after an actual search mission for a missing aircraft back in Jan'09. 

The aircraft (a crop duster) disappeared at the beginning of about 5 days of pretty nasty weather.  Low ceilings, fog and thunderstorms pretty much prevented us from launching search aircraft (we got about 2 sorties out IIRC).  Had about 40-50 pilots, observers and scanners calling in from their home bases telling us they were sitting there ready to go, waiting for the weather to clear.  In the meantime, we managed to field about 3 GT's with Cadets making up the majority of the members.  They did what they could, including ramp checks at around 20 small unattended airfields and duster strips. 

Meantime at mission base we are fielding dozens of phone calls from potential witnesses that need to be checked etc., and just didn't have the teams/people to do it.  We realized that if those 40-odd people were UDF qualified then we could send them out in 2 man teams in COV's and POV's to run the roads, conduct ramp checks, and do interviews. 

The aircraft was finally located by one of the witnesses who had called in on day 1 of the search.  We had sent one of the teams to his location, but by the time they arrived to interview him, he had left. We couldn't re-establish contact for 2 days.

Unfortunately, the pilot was lost in the crash, and the timing wouldn't have made any difference, but it did drive home the fact that aircrew that are only aircrew qualified are useless if the weather prohibits an air search. 

By getting them all at least UDF qualified, they can be a big asset to the search when you can't fly.  If we had been able to use those aircrew as 20 or so 2-man UDF teams out on the road, doing the ramp checks, talking to witnesses and just talking to people in the area, there is a good chance that we would have found the aircraft the first day.

How's that for a good reason to get ground qualified?

[jpizzo127]

You do not need a study to find out some teenagers are easily distracted.

Here's a news flash:

Some cadets stink and should not be on any ES mission and some are better than any senior I've ever worked with.

The best GT man I ever knew was a cadet who is now a senior and the assistant group ES officer.

Though you may generalize, and say teenagers in general, are less effective, if you select the right one's and train them properly, and supervise them properly, they are as good or better than a senior.

As long as the person can physically do the job, it all comes down to choosing the right person and training regardless of age.

[JeffDG]

In our wing the policy is that you must complete UDF before you complete any aircrew qual's.  The reason is two-fold. 

There is one qual...PSC, that requires you to cross train.  If you go to PSC as a GBD, you need to have had MS (need not be current, but must have been qualified at one time).  If you go from AOBD, you need UDF or GTL (same caveat about currency).  I think it's an excellent requirement, and maybe should actually bump down a level to the GBD/AOBD level...these two need to talk to each other and coordinate activities, maybe having them have some exposure to the other side would be a good thing.

[RiverAux]

Here is the abstract of the actual research article:

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although lost-person search managers try to direct search efforts quantitatively, it has historically been difficult to quantify the efficacy of search efforts accurately. The effective-sweep-width (ESW) methodology represents an avenue for accomplishing this goal but has not yet been widely disseminated among practitioners.

METHODS: We obtained ESW values in the summer and winter in a typical disturbed-forest environment in southwest Pennsylvania. We used nonparametric statistics to compare individual ESW values for two types of search objects detected by 18 summer and 20 winter searchers, cumulating the P values for similar comparisons and correcting for false discovery via a stepped method.

RESULTS: We detected robust differences (all at P <.001) associated with search object color, season, and vegetation thickness. In contrast with earlier studies, we found a significant correlation between individual searchers' ESWs for different search objects and different types of vegetation (P <.001). We also found that adolescent searchers had significantly lower ESW values than adults (P = .002). Apparently significant positive correlations between time spent on the course or field search experience and ESW disappeared when teens were excluded from the comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS: These results (the first comparison of seasonal ESW effects in identical terrain) represent the first statistical demonstration that the ESW methodology provides more than enough resolution to answer fundamental questions about the efficacy of visual search for lost persons by human searchers. They also add support to the imperative of operationally disseminating these methods among search-and-rescue practitioners, and offer some initial operational lessons for search managers.

From Wilderness and Environmental Medicine Sept. 2010 Volume 21 pages 188-201