Handheld GPS

[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.