Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
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, Robert J; Chiacchia, Kenneth B; Twardy, Charles R; Cooper, Donald C; Frost, John R; Robe, R Quincy.
Afiliação
  • Koester RJ; Center for Earth and Environmental Science Research, Kingston University London, Kingston-upon-Thames, UK. Electronic address: r.koester@kingston.ac.uk.
  • Chiacchia KB; Allegheny Mountain Rescue Group, Pittsburgh, PA.
  • Twardy CR; C4I Center, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
  • Cooper DC; Akron General Health System, Medical Education Research, Akron, OH.
  • Frost JR; Office of Search and Rescue, United States Coast Guard, Washington, DC.
  • Robe RQ; Research and Development Center, United State Coast Guard, Groton, CT.
Wilderness Environ Med ; 25(2): 132-42, 2014 Jun.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24462331
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. METHODS: We obtained the average maximum detection range (AMDR), Rd, and W values from 10 detection experiments conducted throughout North America. We measured the correlation between Rd and W, and tested whether the apparent relationship between W and Rd was statistically significant. RESULTS: On average we found W ≈ 1.645 × Rd with a strong correlation (R(2) = .827). The high-visibility class had W ≈ 1.773 × Rd (also R(2) = .867), the medium-visibility class had W ≈ 1.556 × Rd (R(2) = .560), and the low-visibility had a correction factor of 1.135 (R(2) = .319) for Rd to W. Using analysis of variance and post hoc testing, only the high- and low-visibility classes were significantly different from each other (P < .01). We also found a high correlation between the AMDR and Rd (R(2) = .9974). CONCLUSIONS: Although additional experiments are required for the medium- and low-visibility search objects and in the dry-domain ecoregion, we suggest search planners use the following correction factors to convert field-measured Rd to an estimate of the effective sweep width (W): high-visibility W = 1.8 × Rd; medium-visibility W = 1.6 × Rd; and low-visibility W = 1.1 × Rd.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Trabalho de Resgate Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies Limite: Humans País/Região como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: Wilderness Environ Med Assunto da revista: SAUDE AMBIENTAL Ano de publicação: 2014 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Trabalho de Resgate Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies Limite: Humans País/Região como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: Wilderness Environ Med Assunto da revista: SAUDE AMBIENTAL Ano de publicação: 2014 Tipo de documento: Article