Fall is also the time of year to start thinking about selection of officers for next year. As a preview of the process, I will ask for nominations at the October business meeting. Nominations will be accepted through the close of business at the November meeting. Those nominated will be contacted to verify that they are willing to serve. The election will take place at our December meeting, immediately after which the new officers assume their duties. We are publishing a list of officers' duties below, so everyone can get an idea of what is done today to manage this team, and those thinking about running for office can get a sense of the scope of responsibilities. We will devote some space in the newsletter and time at the November business meeting to allow the candidates to tell us their plans for their term in office. During this process, we should ask what the candidate has done in the past to serve CSAR. CSAR's reason for existence is to provide search and rescue services, so it is also appropriate to ask about the mission experience of the candidate. We want the most experienced people possible to lead our team.

I encourage everyone to check out our training officer's report. The land navigation training held last month was a real eye-opener. Just goes to show that answering multiple choice questions about it and actually performing orienteering are two different things. The way the training was performed forced people to be more self-reliant than most of our past trainings, and really demonstrated the need to practice land navigation at an individual level. True that we frequently search on trails, but for our own safety as well as that of our teammates, and the good of the subject, we need to be able to navigate in the wilderness without relying on GPS. The same philosophy applies to search techniques and litter operations. I can't think of a better argument in support of adopting standards for the duties we perform on missions.

Finally, I made a serendipitous discovery in a colleague's office today that I just had to share with you. Advice for creating an enthusiastic team from an expert on team building: Look for ways to make new ideas work, not for reasons they won't.

Boots and Blisters

by Larry Mervine

Map and Compass training for August

Fourteen team members participated in this month's training. At five o'clock five team members rushed to set up the compass course at Elena Gallegos Park. We started the training at 8:00 pm. Five teams with two members each were given a true bearing. They had to calculate the magnetic bearing, and then follow the bearing to a point placed earlier. Once the point was found each team radioed base camp, described the clue at the point and were given another true bearing. The distance was also given.

Arriving at Elena Gallegos Park, I figured all we only had to do was walk the bearing and set the points. But as teams were reporting back to base camp there seemed to be a problem with teams finding their points. At 10:00 pm teams were called to return to base camp.

What was the problem? Most teams had a problem with calculating declination and judging distances. Western states have an easterly declination, so the following is true:

The other problem was distances. Teams were given a .4 km distance, but walked 2 km before calling in. What does this mean? It means we need to practice our map and compass skills. So in September I will be offering another map and compass training. Below is an outline of the next map and compass training, which I estimate will take 4 hours:

1. calculate declination
2. follow a bearing
3. learning to judge distances, by walking a timed measured distance
4. watch and walk a three point course planned by the training officer
5. teams of two will plan and setup a course and exchange courses with another team, then walk course

I spent a month (off and on) developing the FAQs for the website, designed to complement the Introduction page. I tried to make them as specific as possible so a person considering SAR would have detailed answers to common questions. Suggestions for modification were reviewed at the last officer's meeting, and some were incorporated.

For the record, here's the process for distributing or changing any information about Cibola that is intended for public release: Since it is not appropriate for any non-elected member to represent the team in an "official" sense, any publication that could be construed to represent the team must be approved by the officers (or at least the president, if time is a factor). Send suggestions to any of the officers so that they can be discussed and approved. If there is an urgent need for action (due to timeliness of the information or inaccuracy), make that known so the issue can be expedited.

Mini Lesson

by John Mindock

Probability of Detection (POD) - Part 1

Overview
During a debriefing after an assignment, field teams are commonly requested to report their `Probability of Detection'. Often this is divided into two types - Responsive and Unresponsive. Often, the POD is formulated by using `gut feeling' based on experience, wishful thinking, and some idea of what was expected in the first place. Note - POD's higher than 80% are defacto counted as 80%, perhaps due to legal concerns.

Unresponsive POD
Unresponsive POD is simple to fathom - if the subject was lying within your search area, but unable to respond to you, what's the chance that you saw him? This usually is a function of the size of the area, the number of searchers, the rate of travel, the terrain/flora, the subject's clothing, and the thoroughness of the search tactics. Weather and darkness also can figure into the calculation. A subject may be unresponsive because of death, unconsciousness, weakness, fear of searchers, or evasion.

Responsive POD
Assuming that the standard attraction techniques (yelling, whistles) are used, what is the probability that the person was in the area you searched, and yet you did not hear him responding to you? This measurement is a function of the size of the search area and the number of searchers. Rate of travel, terrain/flora, and thoroughness are not really factors one way or another. Weather (such as high winds) may figure in, but darkness has no bearing. Responsive POD is never less than unresponsive POD, for obvious reasons.

Significance of POD to the Mission Management
Subsequent to the `initial attack' portion of a mission, the territory being searched is subdivided into portions called `search segments'. After a certain amount of effort over several operational periods, mission management develops a strategy where they start eliminating search segments. This is often used to justify a decision to suspend the mission. The criteria for suspending a mission are somewhat subjective, but for this paper let's say that much of that decision is based upon reaching 75% POD in all segments within the subject's probable range of travel. This range is determined by statistical analysis of many missions nationwide with similar subjects, as described in documents used by Incident Management for planning the search. At this point, the teams being deployed notice a change in assignment directives, hearing instructions like `search this segment to a 80% POD' instead of `go up such and such trail'. The nature of POD has shifted to a pre-deployment specification, as opposed to an assessment of the results upon return.

The decision to suspend a mission will occur after a number of operational periods, and the subject will have been in the elements for a significant time. The assumption at that time will be that the subject is no longer able to respond. During this phase of a mission, the assignment to search a segment at `x' POD really means an unresponsive POD. This normally goes unsaid during the team briefings, but it is the only sensible interpretation, i.e., if the person is still highly likely to be responsive, we wouldn't dare consider suspending the search yet.

Management Usage for Responsive POD
There are scant few scenarios where this is used to make management decisions. Perhaps if a team had not used common attraction techniques (whistles, etc.), or if there had been a howling wind, a low responsive POD might instigate a re-search of the area. Another scenario would be where searchers spread out too far to hear each other and the subject might be in-between. If your team returned with a very high responsive POD in the early stages of a mission (when the subject might still be likely to be responsive), mission management might decide to send teams into other high-potential areas instead of re-searching your area in an `area search' mode.

Management Usage for Unresponsive POD
From a practical standpoint, unresponsive POD is more likely to have an influence on management decisions than responsive POD does. A search segment can be eliminated from further searching if the area has been covered to a high unresponsive POD. There is a somewhat rigorous set of cascading mathematical calculations that depict the actual cumulative POD's and the prescription for elimination. As mentioned above, the nature of the assignments change to where a high unresponsive POD is requested prior to deployment. This dictates the search tactics, and the thoroughness to be applied.

"Efficiency" vs. "Thoroughness"
In previous paragraphs, it was mentioned that thoroughness is a factor in POD. Lack of thoroughness in this sense does not imply sloppiness, laziness, or some other less-than-desirable behavior. Thoroughness and efficiency are different aspects of the search spectrum, and neither is right (or wrong) by itself. Efficiency refers to searching the largest territory in a minimal amount of time, using limited personnel resources. Thoroughness means ignoring time/personnel constraints and looking `everywhere'. In general, efficiency implies rather swift passage while thoroughness denotes a slower pace. Hasty teams are intended to perform `efficient' searches as opposed to `thorough' ones. Looking behind every bush, rock, and log (in an effort to be extremely thorough) is contradictory to the theory of using hasty teams, and represents improper execution for their assignment. Since hasty teams are responsible for 80% of all finds, it is important to perform the proper techniques during such an assignment.

A corollary to this is that a low POD is acceptable (indeed, often expected) of hasty teams. On the other hand, `area search' teams are expected to be thorough, and generally are counted upon to return with a very high POD. Failure to return with a high POD may require the segment to be re-searched.

Self-Quiz on POD - Part 1

1. When do teams report POD to Incident Management?
2. What is `Responsive POD'?
3. What are some factors that determine Responsive POD?
4. What is `Unresponsive POD'?
5. What are some factors that determine Unresponsive POD?
6. What does Incident Management use POD for?
7. Which type of POD is the most pertinent to a decision to suspend a mission?
8. At what stage of a mission is POD likely to be a pre-assigned criteria?
9. When is it desirable to be less-than-thorough on a search assignment?
10. What is the relationship between the POD and the quality of a team's efforts?

On August 19, Mike Dugger and Terri Mindock represented Cibola at the kickoff for the fiscal year 1998 Combined Federal Campaign for United Way. Pete Dominici was the guest speaker. This meeting is where representatives from federal employers around the state learn about campaign objectives to communicate back to their workplaces. Mike and Terri met with campaign organizers and offered Cibola's services as guest speakers. We also got to see Lynn Green (Bill's wife) dressed as the statue of liberty! What a photo op!

On the Right Track

by Mickey Jojola

August has come and gone and the fall is about to be ushered in. I look forward to the cool days, and hopefully some searches! Things have been kinda dry lately but that hasn't stopped us from being busy. On the weekend of the 23rd Cibola was invited to participate in the East Mountain Rendezvous. On Saturday Jake and myself along with Chuck (who did a great job with the display) and Bruce held down the fort. Jake did a demonstration that day, which went very well. Thanks Jake. After the rendezvous the K-9 group headed for the hills. We spent the night in the Jemez where, after setting up camp, we had a CTF. Unfortunatly Mother Nature did not cooperate. With large amounts of rain, at times rivaling Capilla Peak last year, we were forced to take shelter. Thanks to Mary's camper shell we were able to continue the planning into our future. We also had the oppertunity, since it was raining and there was nowhere else to go, and discussed the philosophy of what we are about. In our discussion the recurring theme was that we were members of Cibola SAR that chose to use our dogs to help with the cause of search and rescue. Our main goal is to inhance the teams abilities and not to detract from them. Our goal is to work with the team in achieving these goals. The following day, after drying out, we trained hard. Once again I find myself learning about the art of dog handling. J.C. nailed his tracking exercise and Caveman, Dave Mahoney's partner, is progressing quite well. All in all it was a very productive weekend and month for us. We look forward to future trainings with the Bernilillo County Mounted SAR and getting more dogs in the field.

Web News

by Tom Russo

As was mentioned before, Southwest Cyberport has generously donated an account to Cibola SAR. Most of it seems to be working right now, and the new web site, http://www.cibolasar.org/, is now the sole functioning CSAR web site. If you find things that don't work well, don't look right, or are just plain wrong, please send email to csar@swcp.com, and we'll try to fix it. If you are interested and able to participate in maintaining the excellent web site that Mary has developed for us, please drop an email to csar@swcp.com and let us know.

NMESC Notes

by Mickey Jojola

NMESC is hosting the first of hopefully many WFA classes the weekend of September 20th. If there is enough interest there will be many more to follow. If you have any comments or suggestions for the board feel free to contact me any time. We are planning a winter skills class once again for this winter; we hope there will be better notification and therefore easer to plan for. Another upcoming event will be an orienteering course held throughout the state to supplement the state certification.

Member Spotlight: Ken Johnston

Hi, my name is Ken Johnston and I'm proud to be a member of Cibola Search and Rescue. Most of you know me but because of the enormous growth in membership and my relative inactivity over the last year there are some of you who must be wondering who I am. well, I was first introducted to CSAR in March 1991 when I met Bruce Berry, then president, Mary Berry, and some original members by the names of Fergie, Joel and Chip. There they were at REI manning a CSAR booth with a small can of donations. Obviously our charitable coffers and a lot of other things have come a long way since then.

I became a member because I have always been fascinated by survival techniques and improvising my way in the woods especially after hearing that a friend of mine had died of hypothermia while hunting less than a mile from his cabin.

Being a member of CSAR has taught me a lot and I've had an excellent time on missions and trainings. I don't have any personal "finds" although I've been on a lot of missions. I'll never forget wheezing with Don Gibson on Bart's Trail or getting pulled off a cliff face with the help of John Mindock's boot hanging over the ledge above me, or me and Bob Ulibarri jammin' thru that last mud puddle in El Rito with my Ford F150. The bivys have been outrageous too. One of my most memorable missions was the one up the Windsor Trail to Puerto Nambe and then across Lake Peak, Penitente Peak, and finally down from the top of the Santa Fe Ski Basin. I also had a really good time showcamping on top of the Sandias with huge bonfires and summer bivys sharing various concoctions with names like SPF15. The Chama train trip with Jerry Wheat's midnight "recon" mission was unforgetable.

During my six years with CSAR, I've also had the pleasure of being president of this fine group. I was given the oath of office by campfire light during the Mount Taylor Quadrathalon in 1994 by then outgoing president John Goorley. Before handing over the administration to Mike Dugger at Melissa Smith's Christmas/Election party in 1995, our team had about doubled in size, instituted some key team procedures and become very well respected in the NM SAR community. I had invaluable help during my tenure from many team members on numerous projects and committees and I think that spirit of volunteerism still holds true today. I look forward to more good times with CSAR in the future.

Oh yeah, in my other spare time I have lived in Albuquerque for 18 years, been married to Cyndy for 16 years, worked in uptown as an Investment Consultant (currently with Everen Securities) for 15 years and have fun raising my son Jeff who is 12. Life is good.

Feature Article: Officer's Duties

by Mike Dugger

Team members who have been around for more than a couple of years have witnessed an evolution in how Cibola is managed. The present management process was implemented to accomodate continued growth of this organization. Given the number of people on this team, many of the capabilities we now possess would not be possible with a "looser" organizational structure. In an earlier article, I alluded to a lot of work that presently goes on, mostly behind the scenes, that keep this team running the way it is run today. The purpose of this article is to inform team members how your officers are working for the team today.

All Officers

• Provide reports at monthly business meetings
• Provide written input for team periodical newsletter, if one exists
• Attend team events when possible
• Review/approve the training schedule
• Attend Officer's meetings when possible
• Review minutes of meetings prior to accepting for official recording
• Review past 6-months attendance prior to July and January meetings
• Decide on necessity to contact those with low attendance
• Approve phone tree layout
• Handle immediate problems if necessary prior to team voting on them
• Review/approve State Resource Directory listing
• Review/approve Member Guide and any other team policy documents
• Consider personnel matters as detailed in the Member Guide