SAR! Google Earth 5.0 test drive

[Smithsonia]

The new Google Earth 5.0 is out. Test Drive here:
http://earth.google.com/tour.html#v

This has got to have great applications for Search and Rescue. It's got a very interactive
and potent 3-D component. You can even record your mission laid over the Google Earth Map.

I can imagine an IC literally flying along with us on missions.

For mountain searches this should be invaluable. Make the scanner the Google map crewman,
and tell the pilot where the nooks and crannies go -- this should help with many navigation and resolution issues... let alone communicating exact positions,safety, scouting, debriefing, briefing the next crew etc.

Check it out. See what you think!

[Short Field]

Google Earth is a great planning/briefing/debriefing tool.  IMU users can directly interface with GE and see the grids and route searches automatically displayed on GE.  GE can really help make sense out of a photo mission.  It should be a MUST HAVE for PSCs and AOBDs.

[JoeTomasone]

I always plot AFRCC merges with GE.   Helps to get a good idea of the search area.   Once you plot them, then search for "airports" and your usual suspects are mapped out as well. 

Here's a pic of GE's partial view of the mission I did I few days ago, along with the .KMZ file for those of you with GE installed.

[gistek]

Keep in mind, the google images may be years old. The only reason they could ask the public to use google earth to help with the Fossett search was because google diverted it's scheduled imaging to the search area.

It's nice to be able to give a coordinate pair and have the IC be able to see the terrain from the pilot's point of view, but base personnel won't be able to see what's actually there.

Thot:

Could we use google earth to look for downed craft that were never found? Might be a nice way for mission scanners and observers to keep their skills sharp. Possible finds could be added to a database and training missions could then go out and verify them. Maybe we could even get an overlay available only to mission pilots, scanners, and observers.

[RiverAux]

Didn't that Satellite Tool Kit supposedly have the ability to "fly through" terrain?  It never really got used anywhere around me. 

[gistek]

I haven't tried the Sat Tool Kit, but when google earth first came out I used to "fly" all over the place.

Still won't help if the pics aren't "live" or at least more current than the loss of contact time.

[JoeTomasone]

Keep in mind, the google images may be years old.

The copyright date on each image is usually at the bottom of the screen.  The new beta actually lets you view an area over time - so you can see exactly what year you're talking about.  Nice for seeing changes to an area over time.

[openmind]

Keep in mind, the google images may be years old. The only reason they could ask the public to use google earth to help with the Fossett search was because google diverted it's scheduled imaging to the search area.

Thought:

Could we use google earth to look for downed craft that were never found? Might be a nice way for mission scanners and observers to keep their skills sharp. Possible finds could be added to a database and training missions could then go out and verify them. Maybe we could even get an overlay available only to mission pilots, scanners, and observers.

This is already in place, with an organization that has participated in several online searches:

http://internetsar.org/

Unfortunately, you will find that most of the imagery available for Google Earth/Google Maps/etc. is not of sufficient resolution to find anything other than a whole, intact, fuselage.  Especially in more Rural areas, the existing satellite imaging was done at much reduced resolution vs. the coverage in Urban areas.

The new coverage they obtained during the Fossett search was intentionally done at a very high resolution.  We won't have that kind of very high quality data for 90% of the US.

It's a nice idea, but it will probably need to wait for the next generation of space-based commercial imaging to provide detailed enough imaging over a significant part of the US.

But, feel free to look around in the meantime.

I do see some value in bookmarking known locations to give to Observers and Scanners as 'practice'.  Kind of like Geocaching, but without the chiggers.

openmind

[cnitas]

Has anyone used Google Latitude?  Supposedly real time GPS location based on cell phone coverage.

Seems like a GBD dream if all the leaders were signed up.

[maverik]

I think my squadron commander does and it is a dream to use when contacting base assuming you have signal. (We need towers in rural Indiana  )

[MikeD]

Has anyone used Google Latitude?  Supposedly real time GPS location based on cell phone coverage.

Seems like a GBD dream if all the leaders were signed up.

Heard about it.  The difficulty is cell phone coverage, otherwise it'd be awesome.   

[InternetSAR.org]

Keep in mind, the google images may be years old. The only reason they could ask the public to use google earth to help with the Fossett search was because google diverted it's scheduled imaging to the search area.

Thought:

Could we use google earth to look for downed craft that were never found? Might be a nice way for mission scanners and observers to keep their skills sharp. Possible finds could be added to a database and training missions could then go out and verify them. Maybe we could even get an overlay available only to mission pilots, scanners, and observers.

This is already in place, with an organization that has participated in several online searches:

http://internetsar.org/

Unfortunately, you will find that most of the imagery available for Google Earth/Google Maps/etc. is not of sufficient resolution to find anything other than a whole, intact, fuselage.  Especially in more Rural areas, the existing satellite imaging was done at much reduced resolution vs. the coverage in Urban areas.

What we have found with our search missions is that so far, aerial imagery works best as it is at a much higher resolution than what is commercially available through satellites and can be captured much quicker than satellite imagery.  With a satellite you have to wait until the rotation of the earth and the orbit of the satellite line up just right at the right time of day to get the desired imagery.  This can take months to happen.  Especially if the needed imagery is in a high demand area of the world and there are higher bidders.

On a search mission we are currently conducting our aerial imagery was actually captured by the planes that were conducting aerial observer missions.  For the CAP this could be a great way of capturing imagery as it wouldn't tremendously increase operating costs, yet it could get more eyes on to the areas being searched.  There are small spar mounted camera pods that I believe are certified for the type of aircraft the CAP uses the most for their search missions.

One draw back to using aerial imagery to conduct search missions is that it is slow and really needs several passes of imagery for any specific location as trees can get in the way of seeing what is on the ground.  We have been working on developing ways to reduce the turn around time between capturing imagery, processing it and getting it online,  but even at that the imagery has to be reviewed and reports evaluated.  The imagery review and report evaluation process takes a lot of work especially if there is a large quantity of imagery.

Probably the ideal way to use aerial imagery right now is to capture it as part of the aerial observation process. The imagery can then be made available to computer based observers, with the realization that the time lag makes it more of a search and recovery tool than a search and rescue tool.  I imagine that at least in the short run this technology will be used mostly on "hard luck" cases where traditional methods have failed.