Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Moving INLAND SAR into the 21st Century
by Dan OrsquoConnor NEWSAR
Presented at the 2014 Syrotuck Symposium
Woodcliff Lake NJ
bull What did ISAR amp MSAR learn along the way
bull A rough Timeline ndash Getting to MLPI 2nd ed
bull Thanks Jack Chapter 15 ldquoPODrdquo the Key
bull Timing is Everything
Outline
Inevitability
ldquoThe Present seems Inevitable only
when you get thererdquo
(Me)
Some Working Definitions
bull MSAR ndash Maritime SAR or as done over water
bull ISAR ndash Inland SAR or as done over land
bull POC ndash Probability of Containment (MSAR)
bull POA ndash Probability of Area (ISAR)
bull ROW ndash Rest Of the World (ISAR)
1997 1st Ed MLPI
bull POD based on Wartes formula
bull No Detection Function
bull Spacing determined POD for a Mouse or an Elephant
bull Best estimate we had at the time
NOTE The Year 1996 is for any development dated PRIOR to publication of MLPI text 1st Ed
By 2007 MLPI 2nd Edition New Concepts In ISAR Mgmnt Course
bull Effective Sweep Width
bull Coverage as a function of ESW
bull The Exponential Detection Function
bull POD as a function of Coverage
By 2007 MLPI 2nd Edition 3- Ways for ISAR to get ESW
bull Eco Table ESW from Detection Experiments
bull AMDR sampling and conversion to ESW
bull Critical Separation (CS) and conversion to ESW
bull See also 3-Chart handout for CS amp AMDR
0102030405060708090
100110
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
110
120
130
140
150
Est
Effe
ctiv
e Sw
eep
Wid
th
Critical Separation Value
CHART 1 Estimating ESW from CS
07CS06CS05CS
Determining Grid Spacing from Critical Separation
Chart 1 Convert CS to est ESW Chart 2 Select Desired Coverage Chart 3 Obtain Spacing Example For a CS of 80 06 est ESW=48 for 86 POD Coverage=2 amp Spacing = 24 (Note for AMDR skip Chart 1 multiply AMDR by 15 to calculate est ESW then use Charts 2 amp 3)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
POD
Coverage
CHART2 Exponential Detection Function POD from Coverage
86
63
05
101520253035404550556065707580859095
100105110
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Sear
cher
Spa
cing
est Effective Sweep Width (ESW)
CHART 3 Searcher Spacing from est ESW amp Coverage
SPC Cov=10SPC Cov=20
Version 12 Source danonewsarorg
By 2014
bull No More Detection Experiments for ISAR
bull AMDR sampling and conversion to ESW
bull Critical Separation (CS) and conversion to ESW
bull ldquoBecause of the complexities of the Land environment search planners need a way to estimate the value of W (ESW) without conducting formal experimentsrdquo (Koester Twardy Chiacchia Cooper Frost amp Robe)
4L 3L 2L 1L 0 1R 2R 3R 4R
Asymmetric ISAR Terrain amp Vegetation
= Hit
= Miss
Mt Greylock base trail Berkshires MA ndash Various Seasons Source Rick Toman (2006)
The Complexity of the Ever-Changing LandSAR Environment
ldquoThose damn fernsrdquo
Was it worth it
bull YES
bull Detection Experiments allowed calibration of the Visual Range estimates of ESW
X
Maximum Detection Range (MDR)
Average of Many = Avg Max Detection Range (AMDR)
X
75 of 2 x MDR
Estimating ESW with 15 AMDR
New AMDR to ESW Conversion factors 18x 16x 11x NOTE 1 AMDR is equivalent to 50 CS
X
Estimating ESW with CS
70 to 50 of 1 Critical Separation
K9 POD scaled to Coverage
bull Hatch Graham POD charts went up to 99
bull Tempered in MLPI 2nd Ed PODmax = 86
bull For SAR Managers POD scaled to Coverage for conservative estimates
bull Some Push Back from Handlers because K9 POD not empirically derived from EDF curve
Factor POOR FAIR GOOD
Sun Angle High Medium LowNo
Wind
Less Than
4 mph
4 to 10 mph
11 to 20
mph Cloud Cover
Clear
50 Low Clouds
Overcast or Night
K9 Track Spacing
Estimated Coverage
Estimated Coverage
Estimated Coverage
100m 01 03 05 50m 02 06 10 25m 04 12 20
Adapted From NASAR MLPI Text 2nd Edition (2007)
The ldquoExpandedrdquo EDF
Exponential Detection Function POD v Coverage
0102030405060708090
100
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Coverage
POD
Too Efficient Not Thorough
Too Thorough Not Efficient
Optimal region
63
86
Conclusions
bull MSAR-like experiments abandoned for ISAR
bull ISAR gets a Detection Function
bull Everybody is Happy (no email flurries)
Wilderness Environ Med 2014 Jun25(2)132-42 doi 101016jwem201309016 Epub 2014 Jan 22 Use of the visual range of detection to estimate effective sweep width for land search and rescue based on 10 detection experiments in north america Koester RJ1 Chiacchia KB2 Twardy CR3 Cooper DC4 Frost JR5 Robe RQ6
Abstract OBJECTIVE Standard-of-practice search management requires that the probability of detection (POD) be determined for each search resource after a task To calculate the POD a detection index (W) is obtained by field experiments Because of the complexities of the land environment search planners need a way to estimate the value of W without conducting formal experiments We demonstrate a robust empirical correlation between detection range (Rd) and W and argue that Rd may reliably be used as a quick field estimate for W
References
bull What did ISAR amp MSAR learn along the way
bull A rough Timeline ndash Getting to MLPI 2nd ed
bull Thanks Jack Chapter 15 ldquoPODrdquo the Key
bull Timing is Everything
Outline
Inevitability
ldquoThe Present seems Inevitable only
when you get thererdquo
(Me)
Some Working Definitions
bull MSAR ndash Maritime SAR or as done over water
bull ISAR ndash Inland SAR or as done over land
bull POC ndash Probability of Containment (MSAR)
bull POA ndash Probability of Area (ISAR)
bull ROW ndash Rest Of the World (ISAR)
1997 1st Ed MLPI
bull POD based on Wartes formula
bull No Detection Function
bull Spacing determined POD for a Mouse or an Elephant
bull Best estimate we had at the time
NOTE The Year 1996 is for any development dated PRIOR to publication of MLPI text 1st Ed
By 2007 MLPI 2nd Edition New Concepts In ISAR Mgmnt Course
bull Effective Sweep Width
bull Coverage as a function of ESW
bull The Exponential Detection Function
bull POD as a function of Coverage
By 2007 MLPI 2nd Edition 3- Ways for ISAR to get ESW
bull Eco Table ESW from Detection Experiments
bull AMDR sampling and conversion to ESW
bull Critical Separation (CS) and conversion to ESW
bull See also 3-Chart handout for CS amp AMDR
0102030405060708090
100110
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
110
120
130
140
150
Est
Effe
ctiv
e Sw
eep
Wid
th
Critical Separation Value
CHART 1 Estimating ESW from CS
07CS06CS05CS
Determining Grid Spacing from Critical Separation
Chart 1 Convert CS to est ESW Chart 2 Select Desired Coverage Chart 3 Obtain Spacing Example For a CS of 80 06 est ESW=48 for 86 POD Coverage=2 amp Spacing = 24 (Note for AMDR skip Chart 1 multiply AMDR by 15 to calculate est ESW then use Charts 2 amp 3)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
POD
Coverage
CHART2 Exponential Detection Function POD from Coverage
86
63
05
101520253035404550556065707580859095
100105110
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Sear
cher
Spa
cing
est Effective Sweep Width (ESW)
CHART 3 Searcher Spacing from est ESW amp Coverage
SPC Cov=10SPC Cov=20
Version 12 Source danonewsarorg
By 2014
bull No More Detection Experiments for ISAR
bull AMDR sampling and conversion to ESW
bull Critical Separation (CS) and conversion to ESW
bull ldquoBecause of the complexities of the Land environment search planners need a way to estimate the value of W (ESW) without conducting formal experimentsrdquo (Koester Twardy Chiacchia Cooper Frost amp Robe)
4L 3L 2L 1L 0 1R 2R 3R 4R
Asymmetric ISAR Terrain amp Vegetation
= Hit
= Miss
Mt Greylock base trail Berkshires MA ndash Various Seasons Source Rick Toman (2006)
The Complexity of the Ever-Changing LandSAR Environment
ldquoThose damn fernsrdquo
Was it worth it
bull YES
bull Detection Experiments allowed calibration of the Visual Range estimates of ESW
X
Maximum Detection Range (MDR)
Average of Many = Avg Max Detection Range (AMDR)
X
75 of 2 x MDR
Estimating ESW with 15 AMDR
New AMDR to ESW Conversion factors 18x 16x 11x NOTE 1 AMDR is equivalent to 50 CS
X
Estimating ESW with CS
70 to 50 of 1 Critical Separation
K9 POD scaled to Coverage
bull Hatch Graham POD charts went up to 99
bull Tempered in MLPI 2nd Ed PODmax = 86
bull For SAR Managers POD scaled to Coverage for conservative estimates
bull Some Push Back from Handlers because K9 POD not empirically derived from EDF curve
Factor POOR FAIR GOOD
Sun Angle High Medium LowNo
Wind
Less Than
4 mph
4 to 10 mph
11 to 20
mph Cloud Cover
Clear
50 Low Clouds
Overcast or Night
K9 Track Spacing
Estimated Coverage
Estimated Coverage
Estimated Coverage
100m 01 03 05 50m 02 06 10 25m 04 12 20
Adapted From NASAR MLPI Text 2nd Edition (2007)
The ldquoExpandedrdquo EDF
Exponential Detection Function POD v Coverage
0102030405060708090
100
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Coverage
POD
Too Efficient Not Thorough
Too Thorough Not Efficient
Optimal region
63
86
Conclusions
bull MSAR-like experiments abandoned for ISAR
bull ISAR gets a Detection Function
bull Everybody is Happy (no email flurries)
Wilderness Environ Med 2014 Jun25(2)132-42 doi 101016jwem201309016 Epub 2014 Jan 22 Use of the visual range of detection to estimate effective sweep width for land search and rescue based on 10 detection experiments in north america Koester RJ1 Chiacchia KB2 Twardy CR3 Cooper DC4 Frost JR5 Robe RQ6
Abstract OBJECTIVE Standard-of-practice search management requires that the probability of detection (POD) be determined for each search resource after a task To calculate the POD a detection index (W) is obtained by field experiments Because of the complexities of the land environment search planners need a way to estimate the value of W without conducting formal experiments We demonstrate a robust empirical correlation between detection range (Rd) and W and argue that Rd may reliably be used as a quick field estimate for W
References
Inevitability
ldquoThe Present seems Inevitable only
when you get thererdquo
(Me)
Some Working Definitions
bull MSAR ndash Maritime SAR or as done over water
bull ISAR ndash Inland SAR or as done over land
bull POC ndash Probability of Containment (MSAR)
bull POA ndash Probability of Area (ISAR)
bull ROW ndash Rest Of the World (ISAR)
1997 1st Ed MLPI
bull POD based on Wartes formula
bull No Detection Function
bull Spacing determined POD for a Mouse or an Elephant
bull Best estimate we had at the time
NOTE The Year 1996 is for any development dated PRIOR to publication of MLPI text 1st Ed
By 2007 MLPI 2nd Edition New Concepts In ISAR Mgmnt Course
bull Effective Sweep Width
bull Coverage as a function of ESW
bull The Exponential Detection Function
bull POD as a function of Coverage
By 2007 MLPI 2nd Edition 3- Ways for ISAR to get ESW
bull Eco Table ESW from Detection Experiments
bull AMDR sampling and conversion to ESW
bull Critical Separation (CS) and conversion to ESW
bull See also 3-Chart handout for CS amp AMDR
0102030405060708090
100110
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
110
120
130
140
150
Est
Effe
ctiv
e Sw
eep
Wid
th
Critical Separation Value
CHART 1 Estimating ESW from CS
07CS06CS05CS
Determining Grid Spacing from Critical Separation
Chart 1 Convert CS to est ESW Chart 2 Select Desired Coverage Chart 3 Obtain Spacing Example For a CS of 80 06 est ESW=48 for 86 POD Coverage=2 amp Spacing = 24 (Note for AMDR skip Chart 1 multiply AMDR by 15 to calculate est ESW then use Charts 2 amp 3)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
POD
Coverage
CHART2 Exponential Detection Function POD from Coverage
86
63
05
101520253035404550556065707580859095
100105110
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Sear
cher
Spa
cing
est Effective Sweep Width (ESW)
CHART 3 Searcher Spacing from est ESW amp Coverage
SPC Cov=10SPC Cov=20
Version 12 Source danonewsarorg
By 2014
bull No More Detection Experiments for ISAR
bull AMDR sampling and conversion to ESW
bull Critical Separation (CS) and conversion to ESW
bull ldquoBecause of the complexities of the Land environment search planners need a way to estimate the value of W (ESW) without conducting formal experimentsrdquo (Koester Twardy Chiacchia Cooper Frost amp Robe)
4L 3L 2L 1L 0 1R 2R 3R 4R
Asymmetric ISAR Terrain amp Vegetation
= Hit
= Miss
Mt Greylock base trail Berkshires MA ndash Various Seasons Source Rick Toman (2006)
The Complexity of the Ever-Changing LandSAR Environment
ldquoThose damn fernsrdquo
Was it worth it
bull YES
bull Detection Experiments allowed calibration of the Visual Range estimates of ESW
X
Maximum Detection Range (MDR)
Average of Many = Avg Max Detection Range (AMDR)
X
75 of 2 x MDR
Estimating ESW with 15 AMDR
New AMDR to ESW Conversion factors 18x 16x 11x NOTE 1 AMDR is equivalent to 50 CS
X
Estimating ESW with CS
70 to 50 of 1 Critical Separation
K9 POD scaled to Coverage
bull Hatch Graham POD charts went up to 99
bull Tempered in MLPI 2nd Ed PODmax = 86
bull For SAR Managers POD scaled to Coverage for conservative estimates
bull Some Push Back from Handlers because K9 POD not empirically derived from EDF curve
Factor POOR FAIR GOOD
Sun Angle High Medium LowNo
Wind
Less Than
4 mph
4 to 10 mph
11 to 20
mph Cloud Cover
Clear
50 Low Clouds
Overcast or Night
K9 Track Spacing
Estimated Coverage
Estimated Coverage
Estimated Coverage
100m 01 03 05 50m 02 06 10 25m 04 12 20
Adapted From NASAR MLPI Text 2nd Edition (2007)
The ldquoExpandedrdquo EDF
Exponential Detection Function POD v Coverage
0102030405060708090
100
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Coverage
POD
Too Efficient Not Thorough
Too Thorough Not Efficient
Optimal region
63
86
Conclusions
bull MSAR-like experiments abandoned for ISAR
bull ISAR gets a Detection Function
bull Everybody is Happy (no email flurries)
Wilderness Environ Med 2014 Jun25(2)132-42 doi 101016jwem201309016 Epub 2014 Jan 22 Use of the visual range of detection to estimate effective sweep width for land search and rescue based on 10 detection experiments in north america Koester RJ1 Chiacchia KB2 Twardy CR3 Cooper DC4 Frost JR5 Robe RQ6
Abstract OBJECTIVE Standard-of-practice search management requires that the probability of detection (POD) be determined for each search resource after a task To calculate the POD a detection index (W) is obtained by field experiments Because of the complexities of the land environment search planners need a way to estimate the value of W without conducting formal experiments We demonstrate a robust empirical correlation between detection range (Rd) and W and argue that Rd may reliably be used as a quick field estimate for W
References
Some Working Definitions
bull MSAR ndash Maritime SAR or as done over water
bull ISAR ndash Inland SAR or as done over land
bull POC ndash Probability of Containment (MSAR)
bull POA ndash Probability of Area (ISAR)
bull ROW ndash Rest Of the World (ISAR)
1997 1st Ed MLPI
bull POD based on Wartes formula
bull No Detection Function
bull Spacing determined POD for a Mouse or an Elephant
bull Best estimate we had at the time
NOTE The Year 1996 is for any development dated PRIOR to publication of MLPI text 1st Ed
By 2007 MLPI 2nd Edition New Concepts In ISAR Mgmnt Course
bull Effective Sweep Width
bull Coverage as a function of ESW
bull The Exponential Detection Function
bull POD as a function of Coverage
By 2007 MLPI 2nd Edition 3- Ways for ISAR to get ESW
bull Eco Table ESW from Detection Experiments
bull AMDR sampling and conversion to ESW
bull Critical Separation (CS) and conversion to ESW
bull See also 3-Chart handout for CS amp AMDR
0102030405060708090
100110
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
110
120
130
140
150
Est
Effe
ctiv
e Sw
eep
Wid
th
Critical Separation Value
CHART 1 Estimating ESW from CS
07CS06CS05CS
Determining Grid Spacing from Critical Separation
Chart 1 Convert CS to est ESW Chart 2 Select Desired Coverage Chart 3 Obtain Spacing Example For a CS of 80 06 est ESW=48 for 86 POD Coverage=2 amp Spacing = 24 (Note for AMDR skip Chart 1 multiply AMDR by 15 to calculate est ESW then use Charts 2 amp 3)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
POD
Coverage
CHART2 Exponential Detection Function POD from Coverage
86
63
05
101520253035404550556065707580859095
100105110
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Sear
cher
Spa
cing
est Effective Sweep Width (ESW)
CHART 3 Searcher Spacing from est ESW amp Coverage
SPC Cov=10SPC Cov=20
Version 12 Source danonewsarorg
By 2014
bull No More Detection Experiments for ISAR
bull AMDR sampling and conversion to ESW
bull Critical Separation (CS) and conversion to ESW
bull ldquoBecause of the complexities of the Land environment search planners need a way to estimate the value of W (ESW) without conducting formal experimentsrdquo (Koester Twardy Chiacchia Cooper Frost amp Robe)
4L 3L 2L 1L 0 1R 2R 3R 4R
Asymmetric ISAR Terrain amp Vegetation
= Hit
= Miss
Mt Greylock base trail Berkshires MA ndash Various Seasons Source Rick Toman (2006)
The Complexity of the Ever-Changing LandSAR Environment
ldquoThose damn fernsrdquo
Was it worth it
bull YES
bull Detection Experiments allowed calibration of the Visual Range estimates of ESW
X
Maximum Detection Range (MDR)
Average of Many = Avg Max Detection Range (AMDR)
X
75 of 2 x MDR
Estimating ESW with 15 AMDR
New AMDR to ESW Conversion factors 18x 16x 11x NOTE 1 AMDR is equivalent to 50 CS
X
Estimating ESW with CS
70 to 50 of 1 Critical Separation
K9 POD scaled to Coverage
bull Hatch Graham POD charts went up to 99
bull Tempered in MLPI 2nd Ed PODmax = 86
bull For SAR Managers POD scaled to Coverage for conservative estimates
bull Some Push Back from Handlers because K9 POD not empirically derived from EDF curve
Factor POOR FAIR GOOD
Sun Angle High Medium LowNo
Wind
Less Than
4 mph
4 to 10 mph
11 to 20
mph Cloud Cover
Clear
50 Low Clouds
Overcast or Night
K9 Track Spacing
Estimated Coverage
Estimated Coverage
Estimated Coverage
100m 01 03 05 50m 02 06 10 25m 04 12 20
Adapted From NASAR MLPI Text 2nd Edition (2007)
The ldquoExpandedrdquo EDF
Exponential Detection Function POD v Coverage
0102030405060708090
100
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Coverage
POD
Too Efficient Not Thorough
Too Thorough Not Efficient
Optimal region
63
86
Conclusions
bull MSAR-like experiments abandoned for ISAR
bull ISAR gets a Detection Function
bull Everybody is Happy (no email flurries)
Wilderness Environ Med 2014 Jun25(2)132-42 doi 101016jwem201309016 Epub 2014 Jan 22 Use of the visual range of detection to estimate effective sweep width for land search and rescue based on 10 detection experiments in north america Koester RJ1 Chiacchia KB2 Twardy CR3 Cooper DC4 Frost JR5 Robe RQ6
Abstract OBJECTIVE Standard-of-practice search management requires that the probability of detection (POD) be determined for each search resource after a task To calculate the POD a detection index (W) is obtained by field experiments Because of the complexities of the land environment search planners need a way to estimate the value of W without conducting formal experiments We demonstrate a robust empirical correlation between detection range (Rd) and W and argue that Rd may reliably be used as a quick field estimate for W
References
1997 1st Ed MLPI
bull POD based on Wartes formula
bull No Detection Function
bull Spacing determined POD for a Mouse or an Elephant
bull Best estimate we had at the time
NOTE The Year 1996 is for any development dated PRIOR to publication of MLPI text 1st Ed
By 2007 MLPI 2nd Edition New Concepts In ISAR Mgmnt Course
bull Effective Sweep Width
bull Coverage as a function of ESW
bull The Exponential Detection Function
bull POD as a function of Coverage
By 2007 MLPI 2nd Edition 3- Ways for ISAR to get ESW
bull Eco Table ESW from Detection Experiments
bull AMDR sampling and conversion to ESW
bull Critical Separation (CS) and conversion to ESW
bull See also 3-Chart handout for CS amp AMDR
0102030405060708090
100110
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
110
120
130
140
150
Est
Effe
ctiv
e Sw
eep
Wid
th
Critical Separation Value
CHART 1 Estimating ESW from CS
07CS06CS05CS
Determining Grid Spacing from Critical Separation
Chart 1 Convert CS to est ESW Chart 2 Select Desired Coverage Chart 3 Obtain Spacing Example For a CS of 80 06 est ESW=48 for 86 POD Coverage=2 amp Spacing = 24 (Note for AMDR skip Chart 1 multiply AMDR by 15 to calculate est ESW then use Charts 2 amp 3)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
POD
Coverage
CHART2 Exponential Detection Function POD from Coverage
86
63
05
101520253035404550556065707580859095
100105110
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Sear
cher
Spa
cing
est Effective Sweep Width (ESW)
CHART 3 Searcher Spacing from est ESW amp Coverage
SPC Cov=10SPC Cov=20
Version 12 Source danonewsarorg
By 2014
bull No More Detection Experiments for ISAR
bull AMDR sampling and conversion to ESW
bull Critical Separation (CS) and conversion to ESW
bull ldquoBecause of the complexities of the Land environment search planners need a way to estimate the value of W (ESW) without conducting formal experimentsrdquo (Koester Twardy Chiacchia Cooper Frost amp Robe)
4L 3L 2L 1L 0 1R 2R 3R 4R
Asymmetric ISAR Terrain amp Vegetation
= Hit
= Miss
Mt Greylock base trail Berkshires MA ndash Various Seasons Source Rick Toman (2006)
The Complexity of the Ever-Changing LandSAR Environment
ldquoThose damn fernsrdquo
Was it worth it
bull YES
bull Detection Experiments allowed calibration of the Visual Range estimates of ESW
X
Maximum Detection Range (MDR)
Average of Many = Avg Max Detection Range (AMDR)
X
75 of 2 x MDR
Estimating ESW with 15 AMDR
New AMDR to ESW Conversion factors 18x 16x 11x NOTE 1 AMDR is equivalent to 50 CS
X
Estimating ESW with CS
70 to 50 of 1 Critical Separation
K9 POD scaled to Coverage
bull Hatch Graham POD charts went up to 99
bull Tempered in MLPI 2nd Ed PODmax = 86
bull For SAR Managers POD scaled to Coverage for conservative estimates
bull Some Push Back from Handlers because K9 POD not empirically derived from EDF curve
Factor POOR FAIR GOOD
Sun Angle High Medium LowNo
Wind
Less Than
4 mph
4 to 10 mph
11 to 20
mph Cloud Cover
Clear
50 Low Clouds
Overcast or Night
K9 Track Spacing
Estimated Coverage
Estimated Coverage
Estimated Coverage
100m 01 03 05 50m 02 06 10 25m 04 12 20
Adapted From NASAR MLPI Text 2nd Edition (2007)
The ldquoExpandedrdquo EDF
Exponential Detection Function POD v Coverage
0102030405060708090
100
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Coverage
POD
Too Efficient Not Thorough
Too Thorough Not Efficient
Optimal region
63
86
Conclusions
bull MSAR-like experiments abandoned for ISAR
bull ISAR gets a Detection Function
bull Everybody is Happy (no email flurries)
Wilderness Environ Med 2014 Jun25(2)132-42 doi 101016jwem201309016 Epub 2014 Jan 22 Use of the visual range of detection to estimate effective sweep width for land search and rescue based on 10 detection experiments in north america Koester RJ1 Chiacchia KB2 Twardy CR3 Cooper DC4 Frost JR5 Robe RQ6
Abstract OBJECTIVE Standard-of-practice search management requires that the probability of detection (POD) be determined for each search resource after a task To calculate the POD a detection index (W) is obtained by field experiments Because of the complexities of the land environment search planners need a way to estimate the value of W without conducting formal experiments We demonstrate a robust empirical correlation between detection range (Rd) and W and argue that Rd may reliably be used as a quick field estimate for W
References
NOTE The Year 1996 is for any development dated PRIOR to publication of MLPI text 1st Ed
By 2007 MLPI 2nd Edition New Concepts In ISAR Mgmnt Course
bull Effective Sweep Width
bull Coverage as a function of ESW
bull The Exponential Detection Function
bull POD as a function of Coverage
By 2007 MLPI 2nd Edition 3- Ways for ISAR to get ESW
bull Eco Table ESW from Detection Experiments
bull AMDR sampling and conversion to ESW
bull Critical Separation (CS) and conversion to ESW
bull See also 3-Chart handout for CS amp AMDR
0102030405060708090
100110
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
110
120
130
140
150
Est
Effe
ctiv
e Sw
eep
Wid
th
Critical Separation Value
CHART 1 Estimating ESW from CS
07CS06CS05CS
Determining Grid Spacing from Critical Separation
Chart 1 Convert CS to est ESW Chart 2 Select Desired Coverage Chart 3 Obtain Spacing Example For a CS of 80 06 est ESW=48 for 86 POD Coverage=2 amp Spacing = 24 (Note for AMDR skip Chart 1 multiply AMDR by 15 to calculate est ESW then use Charts 2 amp 3)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
POD
Coverage
CHART2 Exponential Detection Function POD from Coverage
86
63
05
101520253035404550556065707580859095
100105110
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Sear
cher
Spa
cing
est Effective Sweep Width (ESW)
CHART 3 Searcher Spacing from est ESW amp Coverage
SPC Cov=10SPC Cov=20
Version 12 Source danonewsarorg
By 2014
bull No More Detection Experiments for ISAR
bull AMDR sampling and conversion to ESW
bull Critical Separation (CS) and conversion to ESW
bull ldquoBecause of the complexities of the Land environment search planners need a way to estimate the value of W (ESW) without conducting formal experimentsrdquo (Koester Twardy Chiacchia Cooper Frost amp Robe)
4L 3L 2L 1L 0 1R 2R 3R 4R
Asymmetric ISAR Terrain amp Vegetation
= Hit
= Miss
Mt Greylock base trail Berkshires MA ndash Various Seasons Source Rick Toman (2006)
The Complexity of the Ever-Changing LandSAR Environment
ldquoThose damn fernsrdquo
Was it worth it
bull YES
bull Detection Experiments allowed calibration of the Visual Range estimates of ESW
X
Maximum Detection Range (MDR)
Average of Many = Avg Max Detection Range (AMDR)
X
75 of 2 x MDR
Estimating ESW with 15 AMDR
New AMDR to ESW Conversion factors 18x 16x 11x NOTE 1 AMDR is equivalent to 50 CS
X
Estimating ESW with CS
70 to 50 of 1 Critical Separation
K9 POD scaled to Coverage
bull Hatch Graham POD charts went up to 99
bull Tempered in MLPI 2nd Ed PODmax = 86
bull For SAR Managers POD scaled to Coverage for conservative estimates
bull Some Push Back from Handlers because K9 POD not empirically derived from EDF curve
Factor POOR FAIR GOOD
Sun Angle High Medium LowNo
Wind
Less Than
4 mph
4 to 10 mph
11 to 20
mph Cloud Cover
Clear
50 Low Clouds
Overcast or Night
K9 Track Spacing
Estimated Coverage
Estimated Coverage
Estimated Coverage
100m 01 03 05 50m 02 06 10 25m 04 12 20
Adapted From NASAR MLPI Text 2nd Edition (2007)
The ldquoExpandedrdquo EDF
Exponential Detection Function POD v Coverage
0102030405060708090
100
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Coverage
POD
Too Efficient Not Thorough
Too Thorough Not Efficient
Optimal region
63
86
Conclusions
bull MSAR-like experiments abandoned for ISAR
bull ISAR gets a Detection Function
bull Everybody is Happy (no email flurries)
Wilderness Environ Med 2014 Jun25(2)132-42 doi 101016jwem201309016 Epub 2014 Jan 22 Use of the visual range of detection to estimate effective sweep width for land search and rescue based on 10 detection experiments in north america Koester RJ1 Chiacchia KB2 Twardy CR3 Cooper DC4 Frost JR5 Robe RQ6
Abstract OBJECTIVE Standard-of-practice search management requires that the probability of detection (POD) be determined for each search resource after a task To calculate the POD a detection index (W) is obtained by field experiments Because of the complexities of the land environment search planners need a way to estimate the value of W without conducting formal experiments We demonstrate a robust empirical correlation between detection range (Rd) and W and argue that Rd may reliably be used as a quick field estimate for W
References
By 2007 MLPI 2nd Edition New Concepts In ISAR Mgmnt Course
bull Effective Sweep Width
bull Coverage as a function of ESW
bull The Exponential Detection Function
bull POD as a function of Coverage
By 2007 MLPI 2nd Edition 3- Ways for ISAR to get ESW
bull Eco Table ESW from Detection Experiments
bull AMDR sampling and conversion to ESW
bull Critical Separation (CS) and conversion to ESW
bull See also 3-Chart handout for CS amp AMDR
0102030405060708090
100110
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
110
120
130
140
150
Est
Effe
ctiv
e Sw
eep
Wid
th
Critical Separation Value
CHART 1 Estimating ESW from CS
07CS06CS05CS
Determining Grid Spacing from Critical Separation
Chart 1 Convert CS to est ESW Chart 2 Select Desired Coverage Chart 3 Obtain Spacing Example For a CS of 80 06 est ESW=48 for 86 POD Coverage=2 amp Spacing = 24 (Note for AMDR skip Chart 1 multiply AMDR by 15 to calculate est ESW then use Charts 2 amp 3)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
POD
Coverage
CHART2 Exponential Detection Function POD from Coverage
86
63
05
101520253035404550556065707580859095
100105110
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Sear
cher
Spa
cing
est Effective Sweep Width (ESW)
CHART 3 Searcher Spacing from est ESW amp Coverage
SPC Cov=10SPC Cov=20
Version 12 Source danonewsarorg
By 2014
bull No More Detection Experiments for ISAR
bull AMDR sampling and conversion to ESW
bull Critical Separation (CS) and conversion to ESW
bull ldquoBecause of the complexities of the Land environment search planners need a way to estimate the value of W (ESW) without conducting formal experimentsrdquo (Koester Twardy Chiacchia Cooper Frost amp Robe)
4L 3L 2L 1L 0 1R 2R 3R 4R
Asymmetric ISAR Terrain amp Vegetation
= Hit
= Miss
Mt Greylock base trail Berkshires MA ndash Various Seasons Source Rick Toman (2006)
The Complexity of the Ever-Changing LandSAR Environment
ldquoThose damn fernsrdquo
Was it worth it
bull YES
bull Detection Experiments allowed calibration of the Visual Range estimates of ESW
X
Maximum Detection Range (MDR)
Average of Many = Avg Max Detection Range (AMDR)
X
75 of 2 x MDR
Estimating ESW with 15 AMDR
New AMDR to ESW Conversion factors 18x 16x 11x NOTE 1 AMDR is equivalent to 50 CS
X
Estimating ESW with CS
70 to 50 of 1 Critical Separation
K9 POD scaled to Coverage
bull Hatch Graham POD charts went up to 99
bull Tempered in MLPI 2nd Ed PODmax = 86
bull For SAR Managers POD scaled to Coverage for conservative estimates
bull Some Push Back from Handlers because K9 POD not empirically derived from EDF curve
Factor POOR FAIR GOOD
Sun Angle High Medium LowNo
Wind
Less Than
4 mph
4 to 10 mph
11 to 20
mph Cloud Cover
Clear
50 Low Clouds
Overcast or Night
K9 Track Spacing
Estimated Coverage
Estimated Coverage
Estimated Coverage
100m 01 03 05 50m 02 06 10 25m 04 12 20
Adapted From NASAR MLPI Text 2nd Edition (2007)
The ldquoExpandedrdquo EDF
Exponential Detection Function POD v Coverage
0102030405060708090
100
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Coverage
POD
Too Efficient Not Thorough
Too Thorough Not Efficient
Optimal region
63
86
Conclusions
bull MSAR-like experiments abandoned for ISAR
bull ISAR gets a Detection Function
bull Everybody is Happy (no email flurries)
Wilderness Environ Med 2014 Jun25(2)132-42 doi 101016jwem201309016 Epub 2014 Jan 22 Use of the visual range of detection to estimate effective sweep width for land search and rescue based on 10 detection experiments in north america Koester RJ1 Chiacchia KB2 Twardy CR3 Cooper DC4 Frost JR5 Robe RQ6
Abstract OBJECTIVE Standard-of-practice search management requires that the probability of detection (POD) be determined for each search resource after a task To calculate the POD a detection index (W) is obtained by field experiments Because of the complexities of the land environment search planners need a way to estimate the value of W without conducting formal experiments We demonstrate a robust empirical correlation between detection range (Rd) and W and argue that Rd may reliably be used as a quick field estimate for W
References
By 2007 MLPI 2nd Edition 3- Ways for ISAR to get ESW
bull Eco Table ESW from Detection Experiments
bull AMDR sampling and conversion to ESW
bull Critical Separation (CS) and conversion to ESW
bull See also 3-Chart handout for CS amp AMDR
0102030405060708090
100110
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
110
120
130
140
150
Est
Effe
ctiv
e Sw
eep
Wid
th
Critical Separation Value
CHART 1 Estimating ESW from CS
07CS06CS05CS
Determining Grid Spacing from Critical Separation
Chart 1 Convert CS to est ESW Chart 2 Select Desired Coverage Chart 3 Obtain Spacing Example For a CS of 80 06 est ESW=48 for 86 POD Coverage=2 amp Spacing = 24 (Note for AMDR skip Chart 1 multiply AMDR by 15 to calculate est ESW then use Charts 2 amp 3)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
POD
Coverage
CHART2 Exponential Detection Function POD from Coverage
86
63
05
101520253035404550556065707580859095
100105110
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Sear
cher
Spa
cing
est Effective Sweep Width (ESW)
CHART 3 Searcher Spacing from est ESW amp Coverage
SPC Cov=10SPC Cov=20
Version 12 Source danonewsarorg
By 2014
bull No More Detection Experiments for ISAR
bull AMDR sampling and conversion to ESW
bull Critical Separation (CS) and conversion to ESW
bull ldquoBecause of the complexities of the Land environment search planners need a way to estimate the value of W (ESW) without conducting formal experimentsrdquo (Koester Twardy Chiacchia Cooper Frost amp Robe)
4L 3L 2L 1L 0 1R 2R 3R 4R
Asymmetric ISAR Terrain amp Vegetation
= Hit
= Miss
Mt Greylock base trail Berkshires MA ndash Various Seasons Source Rick Toman (2006)
The Complexity of the Ever-Changing LandSAR Environment
ldquoThose damn fernsrdquo
Was it worth it
bull YES
bull Detection Experiments allowed calibration of the Visual Range estimates of ESW
X
Maximum Detection Range (MDR)
Average of Many = Avg Max Detection Range (AMDR)
X
75 of 2 x MDR
Estimating ESW with 15 AMDR
New AMDR to ESW Conversion factors 18x 16x 11x NOTE 1 AMDR is equivalent to 50 CS
X
Estimating ESW with CS
70 to 50 of 1 Critical Separation
K9 POD scaled to Coverage
bull Hatch Graham POD charts went up to 99
bull Tempered in MLPI 2nd Ed PODmax = 86
bull For SAR Managers POD scaled to Coverage for conservative estimates
bull Some Push Back from Handlers because K9 POD not empirically derived from EDF curve
Factor POOR FAIR GOOD
Sun Angle High Medium LowNo
Wind
Less Than
4 mph
4 to 10 mph
11 to 20
mph Cloud Cover
Clear
50 Low Clouds
Overcast or Night
K9 Track Spacing
Estimated Coverage
Estimated Coverage
Estimated Coverage
100m 01 03 05 50m 02 06 10 25m 04 12 20
Adapted From NASAR MLPI Text 2nd Edition (2007)
The ldquoExpandedrdquo EDF
Exponential Detection Function POD v Coverage
0102030405060708090
100
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Coverage
POD
Too Efficient Not Thorough
Too Thorough Not Efficient
Optimal region
63
86
Conclusions
bull MSAR-like experiments abandoned for ISAR
bull ISAR gets a Detection Function
bull Everybody is Happy (no email flurries)
Wilderness Environ Med 2014 Jun25(2)132-42 doi 101016jwem201309016 Epub 2014 Jan 22 Use of the visual range of detection to estimate effective sweep width for land search and rescue based on 10 detection experiments in north america Koester RJ1 Chiacchia KB2 Twardy CR3 Cooper DC4 Frost JR5 Robe RQ6
Abstract OBJECTIVE Standard-of-practice search management requires that the probability of detection (POD) be determined for each search resource after a task To calculate the POD a detection index (W) is obtained by field experiments Because of the complexities of the land environment search planners need a way to estimate the value of W without conducting formal experiments We demonstrate a robust empirical correlation between detection range (Rd) and W and argue that Rd may reliably be used as a quick field estimate for W
References
0102030405060708090
100110
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
110
120
130
140
150
Est
Effe
ctiv
e Sw
eep
Wid
th
Critical Separation Value
CHART 1 Estimating ESW from CS
07CS06CS05CS
Determining Grid Spacing from Critical Separation
Chart 1 Convert CS to est ESW Chart 2 Select Desired Coverage Chart 3 Obtain Spacing Example For a CS of 80 06 est ESW=48 for 86 POD Coverage=2 amp Spacing = 24 (Note for AMDR skip Chart 1 multiply AMDR by 15 to calculate est ESW then use Charts 2 amp 3)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
POD
Coverage
CHART2 Exponential Detection Function POD from Coverage
86
63
05
101520253035404550556065707580859095
100105110
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Sear
cher
Spa
cing
est Effective Sweep Width (ESW)
CHART 3 Searcher Spacing from est ESW amp Coverage
SPC Cov=10SPC Cov=20
Version 12 Source danonewsarorg
By 2014
bull No More Detection Experiments for ISAR
bull AMDR sampling and conversion to ESW
bull Critical Separation (CS) and conversion to ESW
bull ldquoBecause of the complexities of the Land environment search planners need a way to estimate the value of W (ESW) without conducting formal experimentsrdquo (Koester Twardy Chiacchia Cooper Frost amp Robe)
4L 3L 2L 1L 0 1R 2R 3R 4R
Asymmetric ISAR Terrain amp Vegetation
= Hit
= Miss
Mt Greylock base trail Berkshires MA ndash Various Seasons Source Rick Toman (2006)
The Complexity of the Ever-Changing LandSAR Environment
ldquoThose damn fernsrdquo
Was it worth it
bull YES
bull Detection Experiments allowed calibration of the Visual Range estimates of ESW
X
Maximum Detection Range (MDR)
Average of Many = Avg Max Detection Range (AMDR)
X
75 of 2 x MDR
Estimating ESW with 15 AMDR
New AMDR to ESW Conversion factors 18x 16x 11x NOTE 1 AMDR is equivalent to 50 CS
X
Estimating ESW with CS
70 to 50 of 1 Critical Separation
K9 POD scaled to Coverage
bull Hatch Graham POD charts went up to 99
bull Tempered in MLPI 2nd Ed PODmax = 86
bull For SAR Managers POD scaled to Coverage for conservative estimates
bull Some Push Back from Handlers because K9 POD not empirically derived from EDF curve
Factor POOR FAIR GOOD
Sun Angle High Medium LowNo
Wind
Less Than
4 mph
4 to 10 mph
11 to 20
mph Cloud Cover
Clear
50 Low Clouds
Overcast or Night
K9 Track Spacing
Estimated Coverage
Estimated Coverage
Estimated Coverage
100m 01 03 05 50m 02 06 10 25m 04 12 20
Adapted From NASAR MLPI Text 2nd Edition (2007)
The ldquoExpandedrdquo EDF
Exponential Detection Function POD v Coverage
0102030405060708090
100
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Coverage
POD
Too Efficient Not Thorough
Too Thorough Not Efficient
Optimal region
63
86
Conclusions
bull MSAR-like experiments abandoned for ISAR
bull ISAR gets a Detection Function
bull Everybody is Happy (no email flurries)
Wilderness Environ Med 2014 Jun25(2)132-42 doi 101016jwem201309016 Epub 2014 Jan 22 Use of the visual range of detection to estimate effective sweep width for land search and rescue based on 10 detection experiments in north america Koester RJ1 Chiacchia KB2 Twardy CR3 Cooper DC4 Frost JR5 Robe RQ6
Abstract OBJECTIVE Standard-of-practice search management requires that the probability of detection (POD) be determined for each search resource after a task To calculate the POD a detection index (W) is obtained by field experiments Because of the complexities of the land environment search planners need a way to estimate the value of W without conducting formal experiments We demonstrate a robust empirical correlation between detection range (Rd) and W and argue that Rd may reliably be used as a quick field estimate for W
References
By 2014
bull No More Detection Experiments for ISAR
bull AMDR sampling and conversion to ESW
bull Critical Separation (CS) and conversion to ESW
bull ldquoBecause of the complexities of the Land environment search planners need a way to estimate the value of W (ESW) without conducting formal experimentsrdquo (Koester Twardy Chiacchia Cooper Frost amp Robe)
4L 3L 2L 1L 0 1R 2R 3R 4R
Asymmetric ISAR Terrain amp Vegetation
= Hit
= Miss
Mt Greylock base trail Berkshires MA ndash Various Seasons Source Rick Toman (2006)
The Complexity of the Ever-Changing LandSAR Environment
ldquoThose damn fernsrdquo
Was it worth it
bull YES
bull Detection Experiments allowed calibration of the Visual Range estimates of ESW
X
Maximum Detection Range (MDR)
Average of Many = Avg Max Detection Range (AMDR)
X
75 of 2 x MDR
Estimating ESW with 15 AMDR
New AMDR to ESW Conversion factors 18x 16x 11x NOTE 1 AMDR is equivalent to 50 CS
X
Estimating ESW with CS
70 to 50 of 1 Critical Separation
K9 POD scaled to Coverage
bull Hatch Graham POD charts went up to 99
bull Tempered in MLPI 2nd Ed PODmax = 86
bull For SAR Managers POD scaled to Coverage for conservative estimates
bull Some Push Back from Handlers because K9 POD not empirically derived from EDF curve
Factor POOR FAIR GOOD
Sun Angle High Medium LowNo
Wind
Less Than
4 mph
4 to 10 mph
11 to 20
mph Cloud Cover
Clear
50 Low Clouds
Overcast or Night
K9 Track Spacing
Estimated Coverage
Estimated Coverage
Estimated Coverage
100m 01 03 05 50m 02 06 10 25m 04 12 20
Adapted From NASAR MLPI Text 2nd Edition (2007)
The ldquoExpandedrdquo EDF
Exponential Detection Function POD v Coverage
0102030405060708090
100
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Coverage
POD
Too Efficient Not Thorough
Too Thorough Not Efficient
Optimal region
63
86
Conclusions
bull MSAR-like experiments abandoned for ISAR
bull ISAR gets a Detection Function
bull Everybody is Happy (no email flurries)
Wilderness Environ Med 2014 Jun25(2)132-42 doi 101016jwem201309016 Epub 2014 Jan 22 Use of the visual range of detection to estimate effective sweep width for land search and rescue based on 10 detection experiments in north america Koester RJ1 Chiacchia KB2 Twardy CR3 Cooper DC4 Frost JR5 Robe RQ6
Abstract OBJECTIVE Standard-of-practice search management requires that the probability of detection (POD) be determined for each search resource after a task To calculate the POD a detection index (W) is obtained by field experiments Because of the complexities of the land environment search planners need a way to estimate the value of W without conducting formal experiments We demonstrate a robust empirical correlation between detection range (Rd) and W and argue that Rd may reliably be used as a quick field estimate for W
References
4L 3L 2L 1L 0 1R 2R 3R 4R
Asymmetric ISAR Terrain amp Vegetation
= Hit
= Miss
Mt Greylock base trail Berkshires MA ndash Various Seasons Source Rick Toman (2006)
The Complexity of the Ever-Changing LandSAR Environment
ldquoThose damn fernsrdquo
Was it worth it
bull YES
bull Detection Experiments allowed calibration of the Visual Range estimates of ESW
X
Maximum Detection Range (MDR)
Average of Many = Avg Max Detection Range (AMDR)
X
75 of 2 x MDR
Estimating ESW with 15 AMDR
New AMDR to ESW Conversion factors 18x 16x 11x NOTE 1 AMDR is equivalent to 50 CS
X
Estimating ESW with CS
70 to 50 of 1 Critical Separation
K9 POD scaled to Coverage
bull Hatch Graham POD charts went up to 99
bull Tempered in MLPI 2nd Ed PODmax = 86
bull For SAR Managers POD scaled to Coverage for conservative estimates
bull Some Push Back from Handlers because K9 POD not empirically derived from EDF curve
Factor POOR FAIR GOOD
Sun Angle High Medium LowNo
Wind
Less Than
4 mph
4 to 10 mph
11 to 20
mph Cloud Cover
Clear
50 Low Clouds
Overcast or Night
K9 Track Spacing
Estimated Coverage
Estimated Coverage
Estimated Coverage
100m 01 03 05 50m 02 06 10 25m 04 12 20
Adapted From NASAR MLPI Text 2nd Edition (2007)
The ldquoExpandedrdquo EDF
Exponential Detection Function POD v Coverage
0102030405060708090
100
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Coverage
POD
Too Efficient Not Thorough
Too Thorough Not Efficient
Optimal region
63
86
Conclusions
bull MSAR-like experiments abandoned for ISAR
bull ISAR gets a Detection Function
bull Everybody is Happy (no email flurries)
Wilderness Environ Med 2014 Jun25(2)132-42 doi 101016jwem201309016 Epub 2014 Jan 22 Use of the visual range of detection to estimate effective sweep width for land search and rescue based on 10 detection experiments in north america Koester RJ1 Chiacchia KB2 Twardy CR3 Cooper DC4 Frost JR5 Robe RQ6
Abstract OBJECTIVE Standard-of-practice search management requires that the probability of detection (POD) be determined for each search resource after a task To calculate the POD a detection index (W) is obtained by field experiments Because of the complexities of the land environment search planners need a way to estimate the value of W without conducting formal experiments We demonstrate a robust empirical correlation between detection range (Rd) and W and argue that Rd may reliably be used as a quick field estimate for W
References
Mt Greylock base trail Berkshires MA ndash Various Seasons Source Rick Toman (2006)
The Complexity of the Ever-Changing LandSAR Environment
ldquoThose damn fernsrdquo
Was it worth it
bull YES
bull Detection Experiments allowed calibration of the Visual Range estimates of ESW
X
Maximum Detection Range (MDR)
Average of Many = Avg Max Detection Range (AMDR)
X
75 of 2 x MDR
Estimating ESW with 15 AMDR
New AMDR to ESW Conversion factors 18x 16x 11x NOTE 1 AMDR is equivalent to 50 CS
X
Estimating ESW with CS
70 to 50 of 1 Critical Separation
K9 POD scaled to Coverage
bull Hatch Graham POD charts went up to 99
bull Tempered in MLPI 2nd Ed PODmax = 86
bull For SAR Managers POD scaled to Coverage for conservative estimates
bull Some Push Back from Handlers because K9 POD not empirically derived from EDF curve
Factor POOR FAIR GOOD
Sun Angle High Medium LowNo
Wind
Less Than
4 mph
4 to 10 mph
11 to 20
mph Cloud Cover
Clear
50 Low Clouds
Overcast or Night
K9 Track Spacing
Estimated Coverage
Estimated Coverage
Estimated Coverage
100m 01 03 05 50m 02 06 10 25m 04 12 20
Adapted From NASAR MLPI Text 2nd Edition (2007)
The ldquoExpandedrdquo EDF
Exponential Detection Function POD v Coverage
0102030405060708090
100
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Coverage
POD
Too Efficient Not Thorough
Too Thorough Not Efficient
Optimal region
63
86
Conclusions
bull MSAR-like experiments abandoned for ISAR
bull ISAR gets a Detection Function
bull Everybody is Happy (no email flurries)
Wilderness Environ Med 2014 Jun25(2)132-42 doi 101016jwem201309016 Epub 2014 Jan 22 Use of the visual range of detection to estimate effective sweep width for land search and rescue based on 10 detection experiments in north america Koester RJ1 Chiacchia KB2 Twardy CR3 Cooper DC4 Frost JR5 Robe RQ6
Abstract OBJECTIVE Standard-of-practice search management requires that the probability of detection (POD) be determined for each search resource after a task To calculate the POD a detection index (W) is obtained by field experiments Because of the complexities of the land environment search planners need a way to estimate the value of W without conducting formal experiments We demonstrate a robust empirical correlation between detection range (Rd) and W and argue that Rd may reliably be used as a quick field estimate for W
References
Was it worth it
bull YES
bull Detection Experiments allowed calibration of the Visual Range estimates of ESW
X
Maximum Detection Range (MDR)
Average of Many = Avg Max Detection Range (AMDR)
X
75 of 2 x MDR
Estimating ESW with 15 AMDR
New AMDR to ESW Conversion factors 18x 16x 11x NOTE 1 AMDR is equivalent to 50 CS
X
Estimating ESW with CS
70 to 50 of 1 Critical Separation
K9 POD scaled to Coverage
bull Hatch Graham POD charts went up to 99
bull Tempered in MLPI 2nd Ed PODmax = 86
bull For SAR Managers POD scaled to Coverage for conservative estimates
bull Some Push Back from Handlers because K9 POD not empirically derived from EDF curve
Factor POOR FAIR GOOD
Sun Angle High Medium LowNo
Wind
Less Than
4 mph
4 to 10 mph
11 to 20
mph Cloud Cover
Clear
50 Low Clouds
Overcast or Night
K9 Track Spacing
Estimated Coverage
Estimated Coverage
Estimated Coverage
100m 01 03 05 50m 02 06 10 25m 04 12 20
Adapted From NASAR MLPI Text 2nd Edition (2007)
The ldquoExpandedrdquo EDF
Exponential Detection Function POD v Coverage
0102030405060708090
100
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Coverage
POD
Too Efficient Not Thorough
Too Thorough Not Efficient
Optimal region
63
86
Conclusions
bull MSAR-like experiments abandoned for ISAR
bull ISAR gets a Detection Function
bull Everybody is Happy (no email flurries)
Wilderness Environ Med 2014 Jun25(2)132-42 doi 101016jwem201309016 Epub 2014 Jan 22 Use of the visual range of detection to estimate effective sweep width for land search and rescue based on 10 detection experiments in north america Koester RJ1 Chiacchia KB2 Twardy CR3 Cooper DC4 Frost JR5 Robe RQ6
Abstract OBJECTIVE Standard-of-practice search management requires that the probability of detection (POD) be determined for each search resource after a task To calculate the POD a detection index (W) is obtained by field experiments Because of the complexities of the land environment search planners need a way to estimate the value of W without conducting formal experiments We demonstrate a robust empirical correlation between detection range (Rd) and W and argue that Rd may reliably be used as a quick field estimate for W
References
X
Maximum Detection Range (MDR)
Average of Many = Avg Max Detection Range (AMDR)
X
75 of 2 x MDR
Estimating ESW with 15 AMDR
New AMDR to ESW Conversion factors 18x 16x 11x NOTE 1 AMDR is equivalent to 50 CS
X
Estimating ESW with CS
70 to 50 of 1 Critical Separation
K9 POD scaled to Coverage
bull Hatch Graham POD charts went up to 99
bull Tempered in MLPI 2nd Ed PODmax = 86
bull For SAR Managers POD scaled to Coverage for conservative estimates
bull Some Push Back from Handlers because K9 POD not empirically derived from EDF curve
Factor POOR FAIR GOOD
Sun Angle High Medium LowNo
Wind
Less Than
4 mph
4 to 10 mph
11 to 20
mph Cloud Cover
Clear
50 Low Clouds
Overcast or Night
K9 Track Spacing
Estimated Coverage
Estimated Coverage
Estimated Coverage
100m 01 03 05 50m 02 06 10 25m 04 12 20
Adapted From NASAR MLPI Text 2nd Edition (2007)
The ldquoExpandedrdquo EDF
Exponential Detection Function POD v Coverage
0102030405060708090
100
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Coverage
POD
Too Efficient Not Thorough
Too Thorough Not Efficient
Optimal region
63
86
Conclusions
bull MSAR-like experiments abandoned for ISAR
bull ISAR gets a Detection Function
bull Everybody is Happy (no email flurries)
Wilderness Environ Med 2014 Jun25(2)132-42 doi 101016jwem201309016 Epub 2014 Jan 22 Use of the visual range of detection to estimate effective sweep width for land search and rescue based on 10 detection experiments in north america Koester RJ1 Chiacchia KB2 Twardy CR3 Cooper DC4 Frost JR5 Robe RQ6
Abstract OBJECTIVE Standard-of-practice search management requires that the probability of detection (POD) be determined for each search resource after a task To calculate the POD a detection index (W) is obtained by field experiments Because of the complexities of the land environment search planners need a way to estimate the value of W without conducting formal experiments We demonstrate a robust empirical correlation between detection range (Rd) and W and argue that Rd may reliably be used as a quick field estimate for W
References
X
75 of 2 x MDR
Estimating ESW with 15 AMDR
New AMDR to ESW Conversion factors 18x 16x 11x NOTE 1 AMDR is equivalent to 50 CS
X
Estimating ESW with CS
70 to 50 of 1 Critical Separation
K9 POD scaled to Coverage
bull Hatch Graham POD charts went up to 99
bull Tempered in MLPI 2nd Ed PODmax = 86
bull For SAR Managers POD scaled to Coverage for conservative estimates
bull Some Push Back from Handlers because K9 POD not empirically derived from EDF curve
Factor POOR FAIR GOOD
Sun Angle High Medium LowNo
Wind
Less Than
4 mph
4 to 10 mph
11 to 20
mph Cloud Cover
Clear
50 Low Clouds
Overcast or Night
K9 Track Spacing
Estimated Coverage
Estimated Coverage
Estimated Coverage
100m 01 03 05 50m 02 06 10 25m 04 12 20
Adapted From NASAR MLPI Text 2nd Edition (2007)
The ldquoExpandedrdquo EDF
Exponential Detection Function POD v Coverage
0102030405060708090
100
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Coverage
POD
Too Efficient Not Thorough
Too Thorough Not Efficient
Optimal region
63
86
Conclusions
bull MSAR-like experiments abandoned for ISAR
bull ISAR gets a Detection Function
bull Everybody is Happy (no email flurries)
Wilderness Environ Med 2014 Jun25(2)132-42 doi 101016jwem201309016 Epub 2014 Jan 22 Use of the visual range of detection to estimate effective sweep width for land search and rescue based on 10 detection experiments in north america Koester RJ1 Chiacchia KB2 Twardy CR3 Cooper DC4 Frost JR5 Robe RQ6
Abstract OBJECTIVE Standard-of-practice search management requires that the probability of detection (POD) be determined for each search resource after a task To calculate the POD a detection index (W) is obtained by field experiments Because of the complexities of the land environment search planners need a way to estimate the value of W without conducting formal experiments We demonstrate a robust empirical correlation between detection range (Rd) and W and argue that Rd may reliably be used as a quick field estimate for W
References
X
Estimating ESW with CS
70 to 50 of 1 Critical Separation
K9 POD scaled to Coverage
bull Hatch Graham POD charts went up to 99
bull Tempered in MLPI 2nd Ed PODmax = 86
bull For SAR Managers POD scaled to Coverage for conservative estimates
bull Some Push Back from Handlers because K9 POD not empirically derived from EDF curve
Factor POOR FAIR GOOD
Sun Angle High Medium LowNo
Wind
Less Than
4 mph
4 to 10 mph
11 to 20
mph Cloud Cover
Clear
50 Low Clouds
Overcast or Night
K9 Track Spacing
Estimated Coverage
Estimated Coverage
Estimated Coverage
100m 01 03 05 50m 02 06 10 25m 04 12 20
Adapted From NASAR MLPI Text 2nd Edition (2007)
The ldquoExpandedrdquo EDF
Exponential Detection Function POD v Coverage
0102030405060708090
100
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Coverage
POD
Too Efficient Not Thorough
Too Thorough Not Efficient
Optimal region
63
86
Conclusions
bull MSAR-like experiments abandoned for ISAR
bull ISAR gets a Detection Function
bull Everybody is Happy (no email flurries)
Wilderness Environ Med 2014 Jun25(2)132-42 doi 101016jwem201309016 Epub 2014 Jan 22 Use of the visual range of detection to estimate effective sweep width for land search and rescue based on 10 detection experiments in north america Koester RJ1 Chiacchia KB2 Twardy CR3 Cooper DC4 Frost JR5 Robe RQ6
Abstract OBJECTIVE Standard-of-practice search management requires that the probability of detection (POD) be determined for each search resource after a task To calculate the POD a detection index (W) is obtained by field experiments Because of the complexities of the land environment search planners need a way to estimate the value of W without conducting formal experiments We demonstrate a robust empirical correlation between detection range (Rd) and W and argue that Rd may reliably be used as a quick field estimate for W
References
K9 POD scaled to Coverage
bull Hatch Graham POD charts went up to 99
bull Tempered in MLPI 2nd Ed PODmax = 86
bull For SAR Managers POD scaled to Coverage for conservative estimates
bull Some Push Back from Handlers because K9 POD not empirically derived from EDF curve
Factor POOR FAIR GOOD
Sun Angle High Medium LowNo
Wind
Less Than
4 mph
4 to 10 mph
11 to 20
mph Cloud Cover
Clear
50 Low Clouds
Overcast or Night
K9 Track Spacing
Estimated Coverage
Estimated Coverage
Estimated Coverage
100m 01 03 05 50m 02 06 10 25m 04 12 20
Adapted From NASAR MLPI Text 2nd Edition (2007)
The ldquoExpandedrdquo EDF
Exponential Detection Function POD v Coverage
0102030405060708090
100
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Coverage
POD
Too Efficient Not Thorough
Too Thorough Not Efficient
Optimal region
63
86
Conclusions
bull MSAR-like experiments abandoned for ISAR
bull ISAR gets a Detection Function
bull Everybody is Happy (no email flurries)
Wilderness Environ Med 2014 Jun25(2)132-42 doi 101016jwem201309016 Epub 2014 Jan 22 Use of the visual range of detection to estimate effective sweep width for land search and rescue based on 10 detection experiments in north america Koester RJ1 Chiacchia KB2 Twardy CR3 Cooper DC4 Frost JR5 Robe RQ6
Abstract OBJECTIVE Standard-of-practice search management requires that the probability of detection (POD) be determined for each search resource after a task To calculate the POD a detection index (W) is obtained by field experiments Because of the complexities of the land environment search planners need a way to estimate the value of W without conducting formal experiments We demonstrate a robust empirical correlation between detection range (Rd) and W and argue that Rd may reliably be used as a quick field estimate for W
References
Factor POOR FAIR GOOD
Sun Angle High Medium LowNo
Wind
Less Than
4 mph
4 to 10 mph
11 to 20
mph Cloud Cover
Clear
50 Low Clouds
Overcast or Night
K9 Track Spacing
Estimated Coverage
Estimated Coverage
Estimated Coverage
100m 01 03 05 50m 02 06 10 25m 04 12 20
Adapted From NASAR MLPI Text 2nd Edition (2007)
The ldquoExpandedrdquo EDF
Exponential Detection Function POD v Coverage
0102030405060708090
100
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Coverage
POD
Too Efficient Not Thorough
Too Thorough Not Efficient
Optimal region
63
86
Conclusions
bull MSAR-like experiments abandoned for ISAR
bull ISAR gets a Detection Function
bull Everybody is Happy (no email flurries)
Wilderness Environ Med 2014 Jun25(2)132-42 doi 101016jwem201309016 Epub 2014 Jan 22 Use of the visual range of detection to estimate effective sweep width for land search and rescue based on 10 detection experiments in north america Koester RJ1 Chiacchia KB2 Twardy CR3 Cooper DC4 Frost JR5 Robe RQ6
Abstract OBJECTIVE Standard-of-practice search management requires that the probability of detection (POD) be determined for each search resource after a task To calculate the POD a detection index (W) is obtained by field experiments Because of the complexities of the land environment search planners need a way to estimate the value of W without conducting formal experiments We demonstrate a robust empirical correlation between detection range (Rd) and W and argue that Rd may reliably be used as a quick field estimate for W
References
The ldquoExpandedrdquo EDF
Exponential Detection Function POD v Coverage
0102030405060708090
100
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Coverage
POD
Too Efficient Not Thorough
Too Thorough Not Efficient
Optimal region
63
86
Conclusions
bull MSAR-like experiments abandoned for ISAR
bull ISAR gets a Detection Function
bull Everybody is Happy (no email flurries)
Wilderness Environ Med 2014 Jun25(2)132-42 doi 101016jwem201309016 Epub 2014 Jan 22 Use of the visual range of detection to estimate effective sweep width for land search and rescue based on 10 detection experiments in north america Koester RJ1 Chiacchia KB2 Twardy CR3 Cooper DC4 Frost JR5 Robe RQ6
Abstract OBJECTIVE Standard-of-practice search management requires that the probability of detection (POD) be determined for each search resource after a task To calculate the POD a detection index (W) is obtained by field experiments Because of the complexities of the land environment search planners need a way to estimate the value of W without conducting formal experiments We demonstrate a robust empirical correlation between detection range (Rd) and W and argue that Rd may reliably be used as a quick field estimate for W
References
Conclusions
bull MSAR-like experiments abandoned for ISAR
bull ISAR gets a Detection Function
bull Everybody is Happy (no email flurries)
Wilderness Environ Med 2014 Jun25(2)132-42 doi 101016jwem201309016 Epub 2014 Jan 22 Use of the visual range of detection to estimate effective sweep width for land search and rescue based on 10 detection experiments in north america Koester RJ1 Chiacchia KB2 Twardy CR3 Cooper DC4 Frost JR5 Robe RQ6
Abstract OBJECTIVE Standard-of-practice search management requires that the probability of detection (POD) be determined for each search resource after a task To calculate the POD a detection index (W) is obtained by field experiments Because of the complexities of the land environment search planners need a way to estimate the value of W without conducting formal experiments We demonstrate a robust empirical correlation between detection range (Rd) and W and argue that Rd may reliably be used as a quick field estimate for W
References
Wilderness Environ Med 2014 Jun25(2)132-42 doi 101016jwem201309016 Epub 2014 Jan 22 Use of the visual range of detection to estimate effective sweep width for land search and rescue based on 10 detection experiments in north america Koester RJ1 Chiacchia KB2 Twardy CR3 Cooper DC4 Frost JR5 Robe RQ6
Abstract OBJECTIVE Standard-of-practice search management requires that the probability of detection (POD) be determined for each search resource after a task To calculate the POD a detection index (W) is obtained by field experiments Because of the complexities of the land environment search planners need a way to estimate the value of W without conducting formal experiments We demonstrate a robust empirical correlation between detection range (Rd) and W and argue that Rd may reliably be used as a quick field estimate for W
References
![Flannery O’Connor[1]](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/577d26321a28ab4e1ea080c5/flannery-oconnor1.jpg)
