Cellphones And SAR

Before joining SAR, I was pretty much a fuddy-duddy about cell phones in the backcountry. To me, that was a place to be free from all electronic gadgets (yes, I even had a "thing" about GPS's, believe it or not) ... but especially phones. Besides, I figured they wouldn't work out there most of the time anyway.

Well, since becoming a SAR volunteer, I admit I've changed my mind--not that I condone yacking on the phone while walking a trail--and learned a thing or two about the value cell phones can have, both to the backcountry user who gets into a jam and to Search & Rescue. I've now been involved with a number of missions where cell phones have literally saved lives and/or made it much easier for our team to narrow the search area or even pinpoint a subject's location.

Speaking of pinpointing one's location, I recently read a brief article entitled, "Cell Phone Users Beware: 911 Operators May Not Be Able To Locate You." Till then, I'd been under the impression that all cell phones that have a GPS chip built into them--meaning all phones made within the past two years--would enable 9-1-1 to obtain a caller's exact coordinates (or at least determine the location to within a small area), just by the person dialing in to the call center. As the article points out, however, this is the case only in areas that have "enhanced 9-1-1 systems."

The Federal Communication Commission's website states:

"The FCC's wireless Enhanced 9-1-1 (E9-1-1) rules seek to improve the effectiveness and reliability of wireless 9-1-1 services by providing 9-1-1 dispatchers with additional information on wireless 9-1-1 calls."

This additional information includes the phone number of the wireless caller, the location of the cell site or base station transmitting the call, and the latitude and longitude of the caller to within 30 to 300 feet. This is accomplished by using either some form of radiolocation from the cellular network, or by using a Global Positioning System receiver built into the phone. How a 9-1-1 caller would be located depends on which service provider and the type of phone being used. Though the federal government requires wireless companies to comply with Enhanced 9-1-1 rules, cellphone users do need to check with their service providers or phone manufacturers to get details about their phone.

Here's an interesting article, discussing how a cell phone signal was used to locate the family of James Kim, who disappeared in Oregon during a Thanksgiving road trip. In "Turning Cell Phones Into Lifelines," writer Marguerite Reardon explains:

"Mobile devices, when they are within range, constantly let cell towers and the mobile switching center, which is connected to multiple towers, know of their location. The mobile switching center uses the location information to ensure that incoming calls and messages are routed to the tower nearest to the user.

If a subscriber is unable to get service, this location information is usually purged from the mobile switching center. But some location information may remain in call detail records. Some mobile operators may store the most recent communication between a device and a mobile switching center for a certain period of time, usually 24 hours.

When someone is missing, even this small bit of information can prove useful in determining the approximate location of a device using the updates from the mobile switching center."

There are some interesting comments following the article as well as links to related stories. Read more....

In The News: $500 Rides For Lazy Pike's Peak Hikers

I can't relate. People actually hike to the top of a mountain, then call 9-1-1 because they're too tuckered--or too lazy--to hike back down? Apparently, they do.

Located near the city of Colorado Springs, Pike's Peak is the second most visited mountain in the world next to Japan's Mt. Fuji, so says the article in the Denver Post, entitled, "$500 Rides for Lazy Pike's Peak Hikers Pondered." The summit, at 14,115 feet, can be accessed either on foot on 12.6-mile Barr Trail with a 7,500-foot elevation gain or by vehicle on the 19-mile toll road operated by the city. More than half a million people visit the summit by one means or another each year.

And some of those who walk aren't up for the return trip. El Paso County's all-volunteer Search & Rescue team has had its fill of running two-and-a-half hour "taxi missions" to retrieve these pooped hikers and have stopped doing so, so Pike's Peak Highway officials are now considering a plan to charge uninjured callers for the service. According to the proposal, hikers who request a ride before highway rangers have gone home would be charged $100, while the fee would rise to $500 after hours and even higher if plowing is necessary.

A sign warning of the fees would be placed halfway up the Barr Trail.

The Denver Post article generated quite a few comments, with the vast majority of respondents (if not all?) in favor of the new fines.

One hiker was already fined $500 last December, when he arrived at the summit after dark and broke into the restaurant and gift shop to avoid freezing. (He was also charged for the broken window.)

So what do you think about this? Do you think the fine (and trail sign) will deter people from calling and, thefore, put them at risk? Or do you think it's the way to go?

The Mattson Consensus

At the start of a recent search, our SAR Coordinator handed each of us at the staging area a piece of paper, and on that paper was written the following:

ROW=                        A-I

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

I stared at him blankly, knowing only that ROW stands for "Rest of the World," and then he explained:

The numbers one through ten corresponded with the ten numbered segments he'd drawn on the map laid out on the hood of his vehicle. First, with each of us working independently without discussing the values, we'd give a percentage to the ROW. In other words, what's the probability the missing subject is not in the search area--segments 1-10--at all? And, regardless of what some of us believed, we could not assign the ROW a probability of 100%. We had to leave some room for the search area. So I estimated generously low and wrote 70% on my paper.

Next, we'd assign each numbered segment a lettered value, A through I, as follows:

A - very likely in this segment
B
C - likely in this segment
D
E - even chance
F
G - unlikely in this segment
H
I - very unlikely in this segment

I looked from the map to my paper and back time and time again and kept changing my mind, second-guessing my assumptions. I kept having to remind myself that the presumption was supposed to be a "despondent subject" as opposed to, let's say, "stranded subject trying to get home."

After I and the rest of the group of searchers, deputies and detectives filled out our papers, we handed them to the Coordinator, who then turned to his laptop and started punching in numbers as he went through each page.

I had no idea at the time that what he was doing was using what's called the "Mattson Consensus," with an experimental lettering method developed by Dan O'Connor, a former contract helicopter pilot for flight operations at Grand Canyon National Park.

Typically, the Mattson Consensus employs the use of percentages for each search segment. In the end, the sum of each "expert's" percentages, including that of the ROW and all designated search segments, must total 100%, with no segment being assigned 0%. (A zero would mean that the expert knew for a fact that the subject was not in a particular area.)

According to Mattson, it's best to perform this exercise privately, "because it will ensure that even meeker individuals will be able to express their opinion without being intimidated by the more vocal members of the group." (See: Search & Rescue and The Wisdom of Crowds)

With Dan O'Connor's method, the letters A through I are used for each search segment instead of percentages, and then a numeric value is assigned to each letter. This is what our SAR Coordinator was doing when he was entering all of our results into his CASIE computer program, resulting in a plan to first search the segments with the highest probability of area (POA) as suggested by our group's consensus. The computer figures out the segment percentages, rather than the members of the group having to do so.

The following explanation of the numeric values assigned to each letter is quoted from the "CASIE Help: Planning" section of the math.arizona.edu website:

Each letter that the expert has used is assigned a numerical value according to the scheme:

A = 9, B = 8, ..., I = 1, if the lowest letter used by that expert is an I.
A = 8, B = 7, ..., H = 1, if the lowest letter used by that expert is an H.
A = 7, B = 6, ..., G = 1, if the lowest letter used by that expert is an G.
A = 6, B = 5, ..., F = 1, if the lowest letter used by that expert is an F.
A = 5, B = 4, ..., E = 1, if the lowest letter used by that expert is an E.
A = 4, B = 3, ..., D = 1, if the lowest letter used by that expert is an D.
A = 3, B = 2, C = 1, if the lowest letter used by that expert is an C.
A = 2, B = 1, if the lowest letter used by that expert is an B.
A = 1, if the lowest letter used by that expert is an A.

Now the expert's total is obtained, and the ratio of the expert's numerically assigned value to the expert's total is that expert's POA for that segment.

An example may clear up any confusion. Imagine that an expert assigns a G to segment 1, an A to segment 2, and a G to the R.O.W. The lowest letter is a G, so we use the third line of the above table. The expert's total will be 9 (7 for the A, and 1 for each G). This expert's POA for segment 1 is 1/9, for segment 2 is 7/9, and for the R.O.W. is 1/9.

For our team's search, the resulting average percentage for the ROW was 54%, with segments 2, 3 and 9 having the highest POA. I don't yet have an answer as to the accuracy of this exercise in this particular search, because it is still ongoing, but one example of a real-life mission that used the Mattson Consensus is that involving Ranger Randy Morgenson, who went missing while on a solo backcountry patrol in the Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park, California. While searchers did fail to find Ranger Morgenson's body during the mission period (eventually determined to be due to the high amount of runoff that summer), he was ultimately found 5 years later "within an area of high probability of discovery in the original search." Read the story here.

Featured Team: Idaho Mountain Search & Rescue

An article was recently posted to one of the Search & Rescue discussion groups I belong to, about the Idaho Mountain Search & Rescue Team, an independent group not affiliated with a law enforcement agency. Formed half a century ago, the team of volunteers is now 60 members strong, including a 10-member technical team and a four person/dog K-9 unit made up of two German Shepherds, a Golden Retriever and one Giant Schnauzer named Watson. This year, "IMSARU" is adding a mountain bike team and mobile command center, which is being built in a utility trailer constructed by team members.

Read "Idaho Mountain Search and Rescue: 50 Years of Saving Lives" from the Idaho Statesman.

The team has a great newsletter on their website, including stories and photos from actual missions and training sessions. Check out their January/February 2009 issue in which they describe the search for two missing boys, 14 and 15 years of age, who'd gone looking for a steeper hill to sled without telling their parents and then, cold and wet from crossing a creek, got stuck. Read about what happened when their fathers went looking for them on their own and the batteries in their borrowed flashlights died along the way.

In the News: Video of Failed Rescue Prompts Investigation

If you follow current events in the realm of Search & Rescue, you may have already heard about the unsuccessful attempt to rescue an Argentine climbing guide from 22,841-foot Aconcagua peak during a blinding snowstorm. Footage of the rescue mission--about three minutes of it--was aired on Argentinian national television and is now circulating on the internet, prompting an investigation by prosecutors. Family of the victim are claiming that the six-member rescue crew allowed the man to die.

Here are several links regarding this story that you may find interesting:

Article from FOXNews.com: "Footage of Failed Mountain Rescue Prompts Probe"

Watch the actual video on YouTube: "Rescate Federico Campanini Aconcagua Glaciar de los Polacos"



Read a discussion and opinions about this incident on Backpacker.com's forum.

And here's a very informative blog post by SAR volunteer Brian Smith on Team140.com

Book Review: Heart of the Storm

I've been on a helicopter rescue reading binge lately. In fact, I've always been fascinated by those flying machines, though I never realized just how difficult they are to fly, even in ideal conditions, until reading Heart of the Storm: My Adventures as a Helicopter Rescue Pilot and Commander by Colonel Edward Fleming. Needless to say, most of the author's missions were in anything but ideal conditions.

During his 30-year career, the author participated in and led countless rescue operations, including the 1991 Halloween mission detailed in the book The Perfect Stormand movie of the same name. He also orchestrated the successful rescue of Dr. Jerri Nielsen from Antarctica. Remember that one? She was the woman diagnosed with breast cancer, whose health was rapidly deteriorating during the long Antarctic winter, necessitating a ground-breaking, daring mission to save her life.

"Heart of the Storm" also recounts dramatic jungle rescues, the longest helicopter rescue mission in history to save crew members of a Ukrainian freighter 840 miles off the coast of Nova Scotia, desert operations in Iraq, and a nearly disastrous rescue of crew from a sinking schooner during an Atlantic winter storm.

I found this to be a well-written firsthand account and enjoyed the time I spent "flying" with Colonel Fleming.

Also, if you're interested in helicoputer rescue videos, there are a number of them on our website. Browse through our videos starting here.

Probability of Detection

After completing an assignment during a recent Search & Rescue mission, with the subject still missing, I was asked to fill out a report and assess Probability of Detection (or "POD") given certain perameters. Simple logic told me what POD basically meant--the likelihood that the search of an area using a certain technique would locate the object of that search--but how to assign actual percentages to what my four-person team had just carried out was another matter. As a first-time field team leader, I looked at one of my more experienced teammates standing next to me.

"Well," I said, "wouldn't it be 100% POD if the subject was responsive?"

"Oh, no," my teammate replied. "I'd say maybe 30%"

Thirty percent! But we'd been very thorough and had carried out our assignment to the best of our abilities. It wasn't like we'd been out bird-watching instead of searching for the missing man. And it was a bright, sunny day, too. No wind to speak of. No ongoing, loud noise. Tree cover relatively sparse in our area. We'd moved slowly and deliberately, looking carefully for potential clues as we went along.

Reluctantly, though, I wrote down 30% and the even lower percentage my teammate stated for an unresponsive subject. I went along with his superior knowledge but felt like I was giving a bad impression of our team's efforts that day. Would those in charge of the search think we hadn't tried hard enough or done what they'd asked of us?

What I didn't understand at the time, however--among other things--is that POD isn't a measure of a team's efforts or their skills. I've also learned that probabilities higher than 80% are usually dropped to 80%, perhaps for legal reasons. Still, had I known these things at the time of the search, 30% would have felt too low for a responsive subject, because there were yet other factors I was unaware of.

Basically, when asked to formulate POD, there are two main categories to consider--the responsive (or conscious, willing and able) subject and the unresponsive subject. Given the terrain, weather, number of searchers, rate of travel, density of the flora, and a host of other conditions, the field leader asked to determine POD must use his or her gut instinct, not to mention some wishful thinking, to make an estimate. And this is not an exact science, particularly when this guesstimate is asked of a human being as opposed to a computer model. I felt a bit better after the mission knowing this and realizing that the more experience I get in the field and the more practice I have at estimating POD, the more comfortable I'll get with the practice.

But rather than paraphrase any more of what I think is a very good, easily understood article on POD, I'll simply suggest that you take a look at "PROBABILITY OF DETECTION (POD) - PART 1" and "PROBABILITY OF DETECTION (POD) - PART 2" by John Mindock of the Cibola Search and Rescue Team, based in Alburquerque, NM. These and other articles were published in the team's Lost... and Found newsletter.