Handheld GPS

[JROB]

The other day I was asked by my Group commander to do some research on what alot of people are using in the way of handheld GPS systems. As our ground team does not have one and is looking to purchase one. Does anyone use a system that stands out?

Thanks

[HGjunkie]

Garmin. The maps get outdated pretty quick though, at least where I live.

[Eclipse]

Garmin makes the best hand-held, purpose-built devices, however most decent smartphones have integrated GPS these days and
the need for a separate device is pretty small.

My Garmin III+'s are still ticking away quite nicely after years of abuse - sips batteries, takes fire hose rain, and easy to read.
Couple that with either Garmin Mapsource or Google Maps and it is a pretty solid system.

You don't need to spend an arm and a leg on a GPS, but IMHO, the typical $50-70 full-color, car units are not good for the field as the screens can be hard to read in bright sun, and sometimes they don't have the stuff we need like long/lat, because they are focused on moms who use addresses.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

If you can find a PLGR they are the best in the world, very hard to come by since they are primarily a military item, but you can get them from the company (can't remember what that is). Not to mention very pricey. Other than that, stick with Garmin. They are tough accurate and reliable. Not much in the way of buttons, and the interface can get confusing if you aren't very used to it, but all around one of the best companies on the market. Be sure you get one that is updateable, otherwise you will be needing a new one every few years. Some have a USB port that you can plug into the computer and update. Most of the new ones are that way, just the older styles have the updatability problems.

[IceNine]

I use the E-Trex Color as a handheld device.  It's really nice for flagging finds, and other significant data.  It's not very effective at navigation however.  It does play well with robo geo and a decent camera

My Droid has Google maps now so I typically use it for road navigation.  But during a mission it can be distracting as it will interrupt you call to tell you directions. So my setup is an older Garmin with coordinate ability.  E-trex in the pocket, and phone as a backup.

The black and white units are very reasonably priced and are generally indestructible.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

I wouldn't really rely on my phone for my in the field GPS, running the GPS program tends to run a battery low pretty fast. While they can be a major help in the car and city, I would stick with an independent GPS for in the field.

[Eclipse]

I wouldn't really rely on my phone for my in the field GPS, running the GPS program tends to run a battery low pretty fast. While they can be a major help in the car and city, I would stick with an independent GPS for in the field.

Anything deserving the "smartphone" label allows for the changing of batteries.

I can't even imagine a modern manufacturer of a phone that wouldn't have that most basic feature, could you?  I mean who would be silly enough to drop money on something like that?

[jimmydeanno]

I can't even imagine a modern manufacturer of a phone that wouldn't have that most basic feature, could you?  I mean who would be silly enough to drop money on something like that?

Anyone with an iPhone 

My blackberry storm2 has about 16 hours of battery life with the GPS running.  It works great.  If I'm in a real bind, I can change the battery.

[HGjunkie]

I can't even imagine a modern manufacturer of a phone that wouldn't have that most basic feature, could you?  I mean who would be silly enough to drop money on something like that?

Anyone with an iPhone 

Change that to anyone with an iDevice. 

[Persona non grata]

The batteries in my compass last for a long time   I have yet had to replace them.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

The batteries in my compass last for a long time   I have yet had to replace them.

But my batteries in my chemlight don't last forever.

[N Harmon]

I have a DeLorme PN-30.



The convincing feature was the topographical maps it comes with. The only draw back is it loves to eat batteries.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

I know it's a bit off subject, but for base ops, I would highly recommend using USAmaps. It is a USGS program that allows you to download and store permanently topo and aerial photo maps of the whole world. You do have to download each map individually but it allows for plotting points routes and teams. It uses both UTM and LAT/LONG. It is the closest thing to BFT that we can get without shelling out huge massive stacks of cash.

[abdsp51]

the PLGR is obsolete and has been replaced by the DAGR. Much easier to use.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Yes, the PLGR has been replaced, that is why I only mentioned the PLGR, because as far as I have been able to search I can only find one DAGR on the civilian market. So it wouldn't do much good to tell someone to find it. Plus the one for sale is on Ebay, i wouldn't try buying it because I think it would probably belong to the Army and someone is trying to sell it illegally.

[JC004]

I have a DeLorme PN-30.
...

The convincing feature was the topographical maps it comes with. The only draw back is it loves to eat batteries.

I have a DeLorme PN-60 (without SPOT).  It's nice.  Good for geocaching too.

[Rescue826]

I have a compass... what do I need a GPS for?

[DakRadz]

I have a compass... what do I need a GPS for?

I am C/2d Lt Radz, and I approve this message.

Orienteering was a great sport while I was in it.

[JC004]

I have a compass... what do I need a GPS for?

GPS receivers come with new features like global positioning.  All your maps - USGS quads or satellite if you so please in a handheld box.  Not a bad deal.  How much bulk would you have to carry and how much money would you have to spend on printed USGS quads and satellite imagery for a large search area?  It's also easy and fast to mark waymarks like the precise location of a search subject's shirt.  I have a fancy compass but it doesn't instantly tell me exactly where I am so that I can relay (or even automatically transmit if using a PN-60w) exact coordinates to base.

[Thrashed]

I have a compass... what do I need a GPS for?

...to join the 21st Century!?  Why even use a compass?  If you go back far enough, people didn't use them to navigate either.

[Thrashed]

I wouldn't really rely on my phone for my in the field GPS, running the GPS program tends to run a battery low pretty fast. While they can be a major help in the car and city, I would stick with an independent GPS for in the field.

Anything deserving the "smartphone" label allows for the changing of batteries.

I can't even imagine a modern manufacturer of a phone that wouldn't have that most basic feature, could you?  I mean who would be silly enough to drop money on something like that?

Over 50 million people are silly enough to drop money on the iPhone alone.  Add all the other smart phones to that. The iPhone has plenty of ways to add power.  I use the battery case which doubles the battery life.  You can even get solar chargers. I've also used it for SAR.  I have Motion X GPS, Accuterra Unlimited, and other terrain map apps. Add the phone, camera, internet, etc. then you have everything you need in the field. I also carry a compass, and a spare tire in my car. 

[abdsp51]

I'd go with a Garmin or Magellen unit oh wait i think they are the same now if you can't get a DAGR.

[cap235629]

A smartphone is NOT a true GPS receiver. They rely on the prinicple of triangulation to operate. The phone uses the known coordinates of at least 2 cell towers to compute the location. In other words, no cell signal, no GPS...

[davidsinn]

A smartphone is NOT a true GPS receiver. They rely on the prinicple of triangulation to operate. The phone uses the known coordinates of at least 2 cell towers to compute the location. In other words, no cell signal, no GPS...

Not true in most cases. My phone has a gps receiver. Most smartphones do these days. I used mine in a CAP aircraft with the phone in airplane mode that turned the radios off to record my track. It worked out great.

[jimmydeanno]

A smartphone is NOT a true GPS receiver. They rely on the prinicple of triangulation to operate. The phone uses the known coordinates of at least 2 cell towers to compute the location. In other words, no cell signal, no GPS...

My smartphone certainly does have a "true GPS receiver."  One of the weird things about it was that the GPS chip came shut off, so the phone would use Google Maps, etc using the triangulation method (it was only accurate to like 1200 meters).  Once I turned the chip on it started pulling from the satellites and I got accuracy to <3 meters.

[Eclipse]

I wouldn't really rely on my phone for my in the field GPS, running the GPS program tends to run a battery low pretty fast. While they can be a major help in the car and city, I would stick with an independent GPS for in the field.

Anything deserving the "smartphone" label allows for the changing of batteries.

I can't even imagine a modern manufacturer of a phone that wouldn't have that most basic feature, could you?  I mean who would be silly enough to drop money on something like that?

Over 50 million people are silly enough to drop money on the iPhone alone.  Add all the other smart phones to that. The iPhone has plenty of ways to add power.  I use the battery case which doubles the battery life.  You can even get solar chargers. I've also used it for SAR.  I have Motion X GPS, Accuterra Unlimited, and other terrain map apps. Add the phone, camera, internet, etc. then you have everything you need in the field. I also carry a compass, and a spare tire in my car.

Of course, or you can just plug it into a car or the wall, but all those options miss the point of the iPhone, which is user experience.  Doubling the weight and increasing the thickness of any phone to give it more battery life basically breaks that, just as any of the
cases required to actually make a call ruin the one thing that is compelling about the iPhone, the physical design.

For the life of me I can't figure out why Apple continues to ship battery-hog products with integrated power cells that can't be swapped.
I realize that it makes it "easier" to squish lithium in the corners, etc., but their competitors such as HTC and Samsung now have form factors just as compelling and "pretty" as the iPhone's and they somehow manage to incorporate easily swappable batteries.

I have a total of 4 batteries for my phone (they are cheap), usually needing a swap on heavy days after dinner.  I carry one in the change pocket of my pants and never worry about getting stuck with a dead phone.

My smartphone certainly does have a "true GPS receiver."  One of the weird things about it was that the GPS chip came shut off, so the phone would use Google Maps, etc using the triangulation method (it was only accurate to like 1200 meters).  Once I turned the chip on it started pulling from the satellites and I got accuracy to <3 meters.

Most phone GPS receivers are disabled out of the box for personal security reasons and to save battery.  Location based on triangulation is amazingly accurate and usually enough for the average navigation by car since many times they combine a data feed and mapping program to "guess" your location.

Most Android, WinMob, and I believe even the iPhone GPS receivers work independent of a cell phone signal or data connection, so as long as you have something to read the receiver (free app, map program, etc.) they continue to work.  Post-hotfix, my Vibrant, and the G1 before it were as accurate as my GIII+.

[HGjunkie]

Yeah, I just got an andriod-based phone and it came with a GPS chip in it. Never use it though...

[Eclipse]

Yeah, I just got an andriod-based phone and it came with a GPS chip in it. Never use it though...

GPS + Google maps is a major feature you are missing out on, plus many of the location-aware services like weather, etc., work better with GPS enabled.  Not to mention Skymap.

Also, anyone paying for Telenavigator?  I have a bridge to sell you!

[JC004]

My phone uses BOTH methods.  Its settings make that clear and it certainly has a real receiver in it.

[SABRE17]

i know why we still learn how to use compass, that makes sense, but when will national put some sort of GPS use qualification into the ES manual? or will it remain something taught at the unit level?

[jimmydeanno]

i know why we still learn how to use compass, that makes sense, but when will national put some sort of GPS use qualification into the ES manual? or will it remain something taught at the unit level?

Compasses don't change based on model, manufacturer, production year, version of map used, etc.  Each unit may have a different GPS.  I can use my phone GPS without issue, as well as the one in my wife's car.  Programming the different ones in the aircraft is a pain.

[Spaceman3750]

i know why we still learn how to use compass, that makes sense, but when will national put some sort of GPS use qualification into the ES manual? or will it remain something taught at the unit level?

Why? If you can navigate on paper you can probably navigate with a GPS. Adding GPS tasks would only serve to put an additional burden on small squadrons (like mine) to either buy a GPS, convince a member to buy a GPS to share, or jump through hoops to borrow a proper GPS.

[SABRE17]

what about suggested tasks for those using a GPS, like be able to do
this
this and
that

??

[DakRadz]

As a suggestion, it could work, but is really unnecessary. If squadrons/members have one, they will know and teach others how to work it.

Compasses are easy to use, have an unlimited battery life, and point the way north rather simply. Reading a map is taught to 9th graders in JROTC orienteering (who win medals against 4-year studs who sinfully compete in the easier levels)- it's very doable.

If a cadet is serious or even semi-interested in ground team, they will and can learn these skills.

[HGjunkie]

As a suggestion, it could work, but is really unnecessary. If squadrons/members have one, they will know and teach others how to work it.

Compasses are easy to use, have an unlimited battery life, and point the way north rather simply. Reading a map is taught to 9th graders in JROTC orienteering (who win medals against 4-year studs who sinfully compete in the easier levels)- it's very doable.

If a cadet is serious or even semi-interested in ground team, they will and can learn these skills.

Heck, I learned how to do that in the Boy Scouts. It ain't rocket science... 

[Major Lord]

The value of a GPS in SAR goes far beyond simply knowing where you are. The retroactive trail allows calculation of the probability of detection to a higher order. Also, the ability to mark waypoints to aid assistance from air units or additional ground units can be tremendously valuable. Now I don't say this to disparage the good old fashioned map and compass skills, but the GPS makes land and sea Nav a lot faster.....(plus, unlike paper maps, they don't fall apart when they get wet or have some senior member burn cigarette holes or spill coffee on it. )

Personally, I like the GPS 60 from Garmin. You can buy them for less than $100.00 at Wally-World, and they will navigate well enough for you to find your way home in the dark without falling off a cliff. (its also APRS compatible) It has no maps, but if you lose it you won't freak out.

Major Lord

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Keep the GPS out of the task guide. Learning to use a compass is more important than learning to use a GPS. If you learn the GPS and it goes down, you can still get around because you spent so much time learning the compass and map.

[Eclipse]

A GPS is the functional equivalent of an electronic calculator, neither are worth much unless you understand the basic concepts behind their operation.

And just like an electronic calculator, there's not much point in going back to paper when the electronic version is available, because the
electronic version extends the capabilities of the user far beyond what can be done with paper.

The singular advantage of a GPS over paper and a compass is that the GPS will tell you where you are, which means anything you do from there is more accurate.

Most Android phones also have a real electronic compass which is autonomous from the GPS.  We recently found that they are, at a minimum, accurate enough for most CAP use considering the +/- 5° factor, but they would not be preferable over a real compass for orienteering.

[Major Lord]

I am sure that all of this anachronistic nay-saying of GPS technology has been tremendously valuable to the original poster who asked for a recommendation for a hand held GPS that really stands out.....At least one or two people actually addressed the question. For whats its worth, I like Garmin products, and their manuals are in actual English!

Major Lord

[Senty7]

+1

Since 1993, I possess/have possessed the following:  Garmin models 40, 45, 175, 45XL, 12, 12XL, 76, 76CSX, 60, and 62S.  The last four on the list are currently scattered among my various go-packs, while the others are trainers or have faded into the historical mist.  All have contributed significantly to ease suffering and reduce hardship. ("Saving lives" is a grossly overused phrase, but I digress.)  I, along with all the members of my unit, train and practice several times a year with map and compass as well. 

I've also had the opportunity to spend considerable time with a number of different Eagle, Lowrance, Magellen, and Delorme units.  Sold on Garmin for two main reasons:  Very intuitive to learn, and when you learn one Garmin menu architecture, you've essentially learned them all.  YMMV.  While I love my new 62S, my 76CSX, though a discontinued model, is still my favorite. 

(Too lazy to use the quote machine) A couple of observations:

Somebody expressed concern that requiring embedded GPS skill would place a burden on the unit to purchase or borrow a GPS.  Observation/Opinion:  Uhhh, yeah.  That's correct.  That's not a burden; it's an operational necessity.  If you have a ground team that actually moves outside the Base Camp, you need to have a GPS in hand and the skills to use it.  The use of GPS in SAR is the defacto industry standard.  Map and Compass capability is still vital and useful, but GPS has revolutionized the way SAR is performed.  I have not found borrowing units to meet the needs of a class to be a problem, but again, YMMV. 

Somebody else suggested that if ground team folks are interested or serious, they'll get GPS skills on their own.  Observation/Opinion:  Wait a minute.  You have regs that specify eight ways to Sunday the proper wear of the uniform (frequently in conflict with other regs), which are in turn debated eleventy-seven times ad nauseum on this board, but a critical skill to a critical part of your mission is essentially greeted with, "Meh, get it on your own.  Not our area..." Also, refer to above O/O.  GPS is everywhere in SAR, not to mention in Gramma Kabundy's Cadillac.  It NEEDS to get "officially" into CAP.

Finally, Major Lord (calling you out, friend) pointed to the improvement in PoD calculations due to tracking sorties with GPS.     Yes, yes, yes!  However, one caveat needs to be stated:  Said PoD calculations must be performed post-sortie in the CP by the Ops or Plans sections using a four-step process that combines time-on-station, speed, the Effective Sweep Width of the sensor, and some sort of detection function to remove random error.  Field-estimated PoD numbers have been shown to be scientifically flawed (and hopelessly inaccurate) with or without a GPS, and that flawed method has been absent from the Air Force curriculum for decades.

Best regards,

--Senty

[Rescue826]

gotta love Sarcasm!  haha

I have seen many people in CAP and other SAR agencies not carry a compass because they had a GPS....bad idea!

[Major Lord]

Sentry7,

As far as Calculating POD, it has been said, that 87.4 % of statistics are made up on the spot....... Many SAR agencies use APRS (GPS telemetry) and even remote imaging technologies to visually verify that feet and eyeballs have been (or are) in an area in real time, and their value is more than just post facto. I suppose its possible that the same people who think that using moss on trees, sundials, and map and compass exclusively might be major  factors in helping us keep it caveman style! ( You can spot the anachronistic folks  by the radio shack CB's with channel ten crystals installed backwards in their go bags) I most strongly concur that GPS is the industry standard for professional SAR. CAP is somewhat schizophrenic on the idea of our actually being a SAR or disaster relief organization. Like VCR's or I-Phones, it may be futile trying to bring anyone above the age of 35 kicking and screaming into the modern age, but we can at least make sure the next generation of GTM's have the tools they need and the training to make use of them. That being said, I have nothing against map and compass and basic landnav skills ( God help me if I ever have to go through another field training though!) One of my deceased friends, a famous Dutch mathematician, told me that there is no human problem that cannot be solved by brute force and ignorance!

Major Lord

[manfredvonrichthofen]

When your GPS fails and you have no compass and map, what are you going to do? There is a massive need to stay "in the stone age" so that you can operate no matter the situation. Yes, technology is very helpful when you are working. Use technology every chance you get, but you need to have a backup. The military uses scopes, combat optics and all sorts of other equipment to help them do the job better, but they also know there is the chance that their advanced technology could fail, so they keep their iron sights available. We need to do the same, keep that old technology that works without batteries.

[Senty7]

^ MVR, what you describe are not mutually exclusive conditions.  Every ground team has at least one GPS on board (with spare batteries ), as well as a map and a quality compass.  All of these items get used extensively on every sortie. 

Moreover, I don't consider a mil-spec lensatic compass a stone tool.  It's a fine precision instrument, and an effective ground team uses theirs often, frequently to supplement what their GPS is telling them.

[Rescue826]

POD has nothing to go with GPS.  POD gets calculated BEFORE the sortie!  its based primarily on the terrain!

POD = What is the chance i will spot the target in this terrain.  Has nothing to do with actual search coverage!

It amazes me of all the OPS Chiefs, and IC's who dont know anything about search theory!

[Rescue826]

A smartphone is NOT a true GPS receiver. They rely on the prinicple of triangulation to operate. The phone uses the known coordinates of at least 2 cell towers to compute the location. In other words, no cell signal, no GPS...

FALSE.  EVERY phone manufactured after 2001 has a GPS receiver!

[davidsinn]

A smartphone is NOT a true GPS receiver. They rely on the prinicple of triangulation to operate. The phone uses the known coordinates of at least 2 cell towers to compute the location. In other words, no cell signal, no GPS...

FALSE.  EVERY phone manufactured after 2001 has a GPS receiver!

Not all of them allow the user to access the output of the chip though.

[Major Lord]

POD has nothing to go with GPS.  POD gets calculated BEFORE the sortie!  its based primarily on the terrain!

POD = What is the chance i will spot the target in this terrain.  Has nothing to do with actual search coverage!

It amazes me of all the OPS Chiefs, and IC's who dont know anything about search theory!

I would love to see how you are calculating the POD without factoring the presence of people and aircraft actually searching the area. Using my primitive mathematical skill set, I would estimate the POD of any given target to be near zero when no actual searchers enter the operational area......  Factors such as aircraft height, etc. directly impact the probability of detection.

Major Lord

[Major Lord]

An excellent primer on the basics of POD: http://www.cibolasar.org/newsletter/2-9.html   Part two is in the following volume.

Major Lord

[Eclipse]

Probably the single biggest failing in CAP is this idea that everyone is single-thread / single-resource.
We are all part of teams.  The odds of every person's toys breaking at the same time are so remote as to not
be worth the discussion.    Systematic failures of advanced technologies are a different matter entirely and
the cause of the failures, natural or man-made, likely raises the ORM to the point where we aren't getting there until
things are back up and working, anyway.

Cell phones worked in NOLA and MS, despite the widespread destruction, and major infrastructure was being rebuilt
within a week.  That was before the newer, self-healing cell towers with autonomous power backup that we have today.

The HAM guys say we should never use a cell phone on a mission because "what if the system is down?"

The Compass guys say "no GPS" because "what if the system is down?"

The stone tablet paper guys say "no computers" because "what if the system is down?"

The above presupposes that whatever the "lessor", more "robust", "basic" technology is will always work in a pinch, which we know
is not the case by a long shot.  Radios break and suffer from the same power needs as anything else with on switches, compasses break when you drop/sit-on (or lose) them.  Paper gets wet, lost, suffers from illegible handwriting, and is not easily "sharable" without reverting to technology.

We need to use the best tool in the box we have on scene.  Period.  Some days it will be the internet and location-aware smartphones, some days it will be handheld radios and a manual compass.

[Rescue826]

POD has nothing to go with GPS.  POD gets calculated BEFORE the sortie!  its based primarily on the terrain!

POD = What is the chance i will spot the target in this terrain.  Has nothing to do with actual search coverage!

It amazes me of all the OPS Chiefs, and IC's who dont know anything about search theory!

I would love to see how you are calculating the POD without factoring the presence of people and aircraft actually searching the area. Using my primitive mathematical skill set, I would estimate the POD of any given target to be near zero when no actual searchers enter the operational area......  Factors such as aircraft height, etc. directly impact the probability of detection.

Major Lord

yes, altitude, search speed....all play a role in POD.  NOT were you have searched as far as GPS track.  Only terrain.

You can calculate and SHOULD calculate the POD BEFORE you enter the area.   you would have to know the terrain and a few other factors AMDR, etc...
the searcher DOES NOT tell you what the POD is!  this is a function on the PLANNING SECTION!

POD is simply the probability that you will detect a target  in the area. 
POD does not tell you if your target is in that area or not.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Probably the single biggest failing in CAP is this idea that everyone is single-thread / single-resource.
We are all part of teams.  The odds of every person's toys breaking at the same time are so remote as to not
be worth the discussion.

So you think every one in CAP is rich enough to afford a GPS? If every member of your GT is expected to have a GPS, do you pay for them all or do you expect CAP to pay for them or for your cadets to pay for them? I know not everyone in my team can afford a GPS, Generally only one or two GT members have a GPS.

[davidsinn]

I know not everyone in my team can afford a GPS, Generally only one or two GT members have a GPS.

Why would you need more than two? One primary and one backup. My GT only has one and I'm the only one that uses it because I am not handing my smartphone to anyone else. Too much personal data on it to risk loss or damage. I still teach map and compass and still use them because sometimes having lines on paper allow you to see the big picture that you might miss on a small screen.

[Rescue826]

One more reason why outside SAR agencies dont want to have anything to do with us... We are all under equipped, and have no standardization!

[HGjunkie]

One more reason why outside SAR agencies dont want to have anything to do with us... We are all under equipped, and have no standardization!

And we argue about everthing. 

[Rescue826]

Yeah we do.  Because the guys who do this in the REAL world EVERY DAY are always told they are clueless, and the CAP 'Know It alls' continue to lead the way.   



The Troll

[manfredvonrichthofen]

One more reason why outside SAR agencies dont want to have anything to do with us... We are all under equipped, and have no standardization!

Around here our Emergency management teams want to work with us.

My comment about everyone having a GPS was for Eclipse, he acts like everyone on a GT should have a GPS.

[Rescue826]

I do agree with him about the Team Concept  vs individuals.  I have been preaching that for years....

The problem if you deploy as individuals, you dont know who has what equipment / capabilities.

A agree that 2 would be sufficient.




The Troll

[davidsinn]

I do agree with him about the Team Concept  vs individuals.  I have been preaching that for years....

The problem if you deploy as individuals, you dont know who has what equipment / capabilities.

A agree that 2 would be sufficient.

The Troll

That's why you're supposed to deploy as a team not as individuals.

[Rescue826]

I do agree with him about the Team Concept  vs individuals.  I have been preaching that for years....

The problem if you deploy as individuals, you dont know who has what equipment / capabilities.

A agree that 2 would be sufficient.

The Troll

That's why you're supposed to deploy as a team not as individuals.

I dont want to go off on a tangent....

Correct , but we dont train as a team, we train as individuals.  So when you get called out to go on a  mission with 4 others from your squadron, what happens if Know one has a GPS, or Radio , or DF.  each individual is qualified as a team member / leader, but we need to certify a Team.

[davidsinn]

[

Correct , but we dont train as a team, we train as individuals. 

Then you're doing it wrong.

what happens if Know one has a GPS, or Radio , or DF. 

DF and radio are on the team gear list. If you don't have them you don't have a team. Period. The GPS should be on the list because frankly if you don't have one you're not a very useful team.

[jimmydeanno]

I'm a bit confused about the, "We shouldn't use GPS because not everyone can afford one" idea.  If the carpenter is putting up a house with his hammer, would you not use your nail-gun because he doesn't have one?  GPS is a great thing to have, if you have one.  If you don't, then just continue to use a compass and a map.

I would want every team to have the best equipment they could.  Having every ground team with a GPS is a GOOD THING - assuming they know how to use it.

When I started learning about CAP ground team stuff WIWAC it was with a compass and map.  We even went through the process of how to grid our own maps.  I'm comfortable with a map and compass, and I teach my cadets how to use them.  That doesn't mean that I'm not going to continue to pursue obtaining the best equipment I can to get the job done more effectively.

[Eclipse]

Correct , but we dont train as a team, we train as individuals.  So when you get called out to go on a  mission with 4 others from your squadron, what happens if Know one has a GPS, or Radio , or DF.  each individual is qualified as a team member / leader, but we need to certify a Team.

The required equipment is the same for everyone, which means the baseline tools to perform the mission are a given for properly equipped individuals.

The extra tech is just that, extra, either it enhances the mission or it doesn't.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

"We shouldn't use GPS because not everyone can afford one"

No one said anything of the sort. It just wouldn't be smart to say, hey you don't have a GPS, you are a great asset but you don't have a GPS so you can't operate as a GT. That is just flat out stupid.

[Senty7]

Wow.  Spend a quiet afternoon watching football with the in-laws and see what I miss!

POD has nothing to go with GPS.  POD gets calculated BEFORE the sortie!  its based primarily on the terrain!

POD = What is the chance i will spot the target in this terrain.  Has nothing to do with actual search coverage!

It amazes me of all the OPS Chiefs, and IC's who dont know anything about search theory!

Nothing?  I beg to differ.  Mid-sortie GPS waypoints called in, as well as track logs downloaded post-sortie, will not only give me the linear distance traveled within the assigned sector, it will also tell me if you were in fact in your assigned sector when you said you were.  It will also support or call into question the assessment of your average speed inside your sector.  So:  "PoD has nothing to do with GPS" is quite clearly incorrect.  It is not vital; however, GPS is a useful adjunct. 

A planned or estimated PoD can indeed be calculated pre-sortie.  However, to quote Napolean, "No plan survives first contact with the enemy."  The forest or terrain type is found to be different.  The actual speed of the aircraft is different, or the time-on-station is different from plan.  Perhaps we added an observer, or had to leave one behind.  These will all affect the PoD of that sortie.  PoD is never based on plans, intentions, or fantasy.  It is calculated based on hard sortie numbers...real values that exist in time and space. 

Your definition needs just a wee bit of tweaking.  PoD is the probability of the target being detected, assuming it was present in the area searched.  This definition can be found in a number of scientifically valid texts, among them the National SAR School's, page 11-14.

Now, about Coverage... 

PoD has everything in the world to do with coverage.  PoD is calculated based on four equations, one of which determines Coverage:

1.  Effort (z) = Speed (v) multiplied by Time (t).  This is the linear distance traveled by the sensor vehicle.

2.  Area Searched (Z) = Effort (z) multiplied by Effective Sweep Width (ESW).  This is the area effectively searched by the sensor, which may be different from the area assigned, the area actually overflown, or a number of other less-than-accurate values.

3.  Coverage (C) = Area Searched (Z) divided by Area Assigned to Search (A).  This incorporates one of two absolutely vital density functions (the other being on the Containment side of the Search Equation), the result being a percentage or decimal.  Note that this number can be greater than 1.0. 

4.  PoD = f(C), with "f" being a detection function that accounts for random, unknown, and unknowable error. 

To say that Coverage has nothing to do with PoD is a grave error in planning and sortie management. 

In a subsequent posting, you stated that the searcher does not tell you what the PoD is.  On that point, we are in agreement. 

I, too, am amazed at how many Ops Chiefs and IC's know little to nothing about Search Theory. 

Best regards to all,

--Senty

[Senty7]

My apologies to the moderators for "further drift."  I greatly  appreciate your indulgence. (But there is GPS content here!)  :angel:

So you think every one in CAP is rich enough to afford a GPS? If every member of your GT is expected to have a GPS, do you pay for them all or do you expect CAP to pay for them or for your cadets to pay for them? I know not everyone in my team can afford a GPS, Generally only one or two GT members have a GPS.

Not every member, but as others have stated, two per team would be outstanding.

Speaking for my unit, I know not everybody in CAP can afford a GPS.  Heck, not everyone in any unit can afford a GPS.  We first fielded GPS in my unit (Sheriff's Office-based, all volunteer) in 1993.  For the first six years, every GPS on SAR missions was member-owned, and we maybe achieved one per team.  But we saved our shekels, and eventually made a 25-unit capital purchase of Garmin 76 receivers.  We could train the entire membership, outfit one on every team, and issue receivers to visiting mutual-aid units helping us on a search (like the CAP!). 

Since then, our 75 Garmin Model-76 receivers (purchased over three years) have given way to Garmin 60, and now, the 62S.    My unit is now fortunate enough that finances are in very good shape.  Every member is issued a Motorola HT-2000 radio, a military lensatic compass, and a Garmin 60.  Team leaders and a few selected members receive Garmin 62S.  We know that's tough for other units...we stood where you stand. 

Observation:  Garmin E-trex series, 99 dollars.  Calling on the classic economic principle of Opportunity Costs, what are you willing to give up to get it?  One training sortie's worth of av-fuel?  Defer the purchase of three uniform items from Vanguard?  Twenty individual meals at Burger King over the next six months?  Is there funding for a "look pretty" item that can be shifted to a "perform well" item?  Budget for it; make it important; you'll get there.  We did.

One more reason why outside SAR agencies dont want to have anything to do with us... We are all under equipped, and have no standardization!

Please understand I'm not waving the martyr flag here, but I for one, along with several members of my unit, are working our tails off because we want to work with our local squadron, and we are infinitely impressed with what we have seen in recent months from them.  They are a resource we can use, and we have the call load on which to use them.  They're going to train and practice with us, on GPS among other things, and when they show up for a mission, we can loan them the receivers.  There is no infrastructure issue that cannot be overcome. 

(Troll light on...deeply sorry.)

What we are virtually powerless to help the CAP overcome is a "We Can't" attitude.  Post an idea here, and no less than 52 percent of the posting members will tell you why you can't, shouldn't, how it's against regs, or why you will fail.  Now, I've been told three times that "Captalk is not CAP," as well as, "This is a discussion board, and we discuss things."  (Do you ever resolve things?)  But frankly, I have a hard time buying that.  You have over 60,000 in CAP, and over 3,000 members on this list (of which, admittedly, a small number post). Accounting for non-members like me and retired members of CAP, that is still a very, very impressive number.  But posters here range from brand new airmen to wing commanders to National staff.  If Captalk is not CAP, then who are you?  I'm not the first non-member to find this board.  What impression do they go away with?  I came here because I want to learn more about the CAP.  I stay here, at the pleasure of the moderators, despite the fact that some of the threads I read make my hair hurt. 

(Troll light extinguished)

One note on "standardization."  You can easily write the specification to negate the notion of GPS-brand.  I don't care if you're packin' a Garmin or a DeLorme.  Can you name and save a waypoint?  Can you manually load a waypoint?  Can you set the format and datum to our specs, and then communicate a set of coordinates in same?  Can you select a waypoint from the library, and navigate to it by map, compass, and GPS? 

"Given a GPS receiver of the candidate's and evaluator's mutual choice..." 

Thanks for letting an old SAR guy spin a yarn...

--Senty

[davidsinn]

Lot's of words.

--Senty

That's a good post. It is very refreshing to get an outsider's view of us. There is a lot there we can learn from.

[N Harmon]

It amazes me of all the OPS Chiefs, and IC's who dont know anything about search theory!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Should be required reading for anybody who thinks they are god's gift to SAR.