1. I was a little put off that we were being used as sweepers (going about after dark with flashlights covering a few square miles in the dark when there was a possibility that posting folks with radios handbills and sharp eyes at strategic points might have yielded something better....if we hadn't been called out 5 hours after the subject went missing. But we were not trained to manage that way, and we were also not trained stringently either how to do that, nor how to conduct searches around unfenced private and public properties (home construction sites, pastures, storm channel easements with large waterways borders by un-mowed wetlands studded with trash and a few homeless camps).
2. We were walking roads around croplands saying "What are we doing here?". We were walking areas which had already been canvassed, or had been alerted by reverse 911 true prior evening. (The latter was probably why we were not being constantly challenged).
Thanks for the training materials Mountain Res-Q. I'm hoping from this experience we generate some training and a closer affiliation with our local official SAR.
Ya, like I said before, it really depends on how the Search Managers profiled this person. Based on what I knew about her, I have my own thoughts and ideas for planning and operations. But the thing is, I was not there and didn't have the information that the managers actually there had. Easy for me to monday morning quarterback. I have to assume there was a reason for their utilization of CERT in the manner decided.
Had this been a call I was involved in at the command post CERT would not have been used. It is too much of a liability to do so without them having the same level of training required of all entry level ground searchers in my county. Search Managers in CA are taught to not use untrained volunteers... there are horror stories... for instance, mycrofft, look at Appendix A of the material I sent you.
Also, looking at the 7 crucial priorities mentioned in the first chapter in Section 3 of the material, remember the need to "assure unity of command". When ground searchers, who usually have a fraction of the information that the Search Managers have, question their assignment, they are often less clue conscious and clue vigilant because they feel that they have been given a dummy assignment. To paraphrase the material I send: It is the searchers job to complete his/her assignment with 100% dedication; to do any less would be a disservice to the victim we seek to help. Remember, the victim is always around the next rock!
Also, look at the basic search management math I showed in the manual. As a Search Manager, we are looking for a 90% retrospective POD for every assignment. Calculating a teams POD is based on critical spacing or essential search width. If team one reports a 75% POD, Managers are likely to place another team in the area, hoping that the next team also has a 75% POD, making the cumulative POD to nearly 94%. This is especially true if the predictive POD was high.
On that note, if your CERT group is interested, I have been contemplating the idea of offering the SAR Probationary Academy I developed for my Team to other agencies. Those of us interested in that idea have yet to work out all the kinks... but it was an idea we had... the focus of the academy was on producing well rounded basic ground searchers meeting state and local standards for ground search, and providing the foundation for our members to move into the advanced stuff... just an idea... keep it in mind...
