4 ms·

Sure. It's the unknown search radius, availability of pilots, human factors, as well as the greater ability of a drone to self (or with human intervention) trac

Sure. It's the unknown search radius, availability of pilots, human factors, as well as the greater ability of a drone to self (or with human intervention) track in to greater resolution that makes me wonder if this is doable. Get the helicopter with a flir camera, but also send out 50 quadcopters or uavs as a force multiplier. If there is some sort of interesting infrared or acoustic signature at a site, just log it with GPS coordinates for human follow up.

Alupis 6y ago
> Get the helicopter with a flir camera, but also send out 50 quadcopters or uavs as a force multiplier. You're going to have to contend with the disruption of 50 quadcopters barreling their way through natural wild habitat, foilage and more without disturbing all of the animals that live there. Or simply convince people that is a worth-while trade-off for saving unprepared skiiers that went off trail and down the wrong side of a mountain against all warnings... That aside, I don't think there's much utility there. A large aerial drone like a Predator or something, ya that might be a big help (very long loiter times, powerful imaging equipment, etc). But you wouldn't need 50 of those, and the same difficulties will be present (body heat can only show on FLIR if it's not blocked by layers of foilage, etc). But... then you'll have to convince people it's not a "militarization" of rescue services!
- throwaway5752 6y ago
  I will push back on you a bit there. Most people can only cover a couple of dozen miles a day, depending on the person and the terrain. A lot of the time, they realize they are lost and will yell or try to make themselves found. Maybe a high foliage environment would be a better target for directional mics / acoustics. I think the search and rescue efforts as they stand are pretty disruptive (helicopters, teams covering grids) so I don't think this is incrementally much worse. The "unprepared skiiers" (or hikers, sailors) you mention are someone's child and often someone's parent. They are loved and mourned, and it's a bit easier to get lost than is generally appreciated. A sea rescue is a different ball of wax than a forest rescue, and I was freely mixing both situations. In the sea setting, Plant Labs or a aerial drone like a predator (like commercializing existing military tech, eg, GPS) is more appropriate, perhaps. The biggest obstacle here is staging these for use and being available in a timely manner, on the order of hours.
  - Alupis 6y ago
    > Maybe a high foliage environment would be a better target for directional mics / acoustics. I don't think this works as well as you might hope. When in dense foliage, it's difficult to hear sounds that are not that far away. It's a fantastic noise insulator. For this reason, survival classes usually teach signalling with reflective surfaces, like mirrors, watch faces, metal object/knives, etc. If you can sweep a helicopter with a reflection several times, they'll notice and rightfully think it's man-made. Plus, you can't hear someone screaming over a helicopter anyway. > I think the search and rescue efforts as they stand are pretty disruptive (helicopters, teams covering grids) so I don't thin this is incrementally worse. Certainly they are, but I do think drones close to the ground would be incredibly more disruptive, and potentially dangerous to curious wildlife. > The "unprepared skiiers" you mention are someone's child (and often someone's parent). You are not wrong. I think I was getting at, that most rescues are unglamorous, and usually caused by sheer stupidity of the people that were lost. Boats running out of fuel because they didn't prepare properly, or the skier example of ignoring all warnings, etc. It's not often that people were prepared, and the rock beneath their feet gave-way and now they're trapped. Yes, we have to rescue stupid people too, but I think we should weigh the external costs to the environment when doing so. We wouldn't drain a lake to find a missing person. Maybe that's not a fair comparison? I don't know... but I do know people went outdoors to experience nature, so we shouldn't destroy it trying to save people either. I guess, in short, you can make this scheme work, but I don't think it'll add tangible benefits to rescues, and it might actually be more effort to manage and operate, which could suck resources away from actual "boots on the ground/in the sky".
    - hluska 6y ago
      These are good points too. I like the idea of being able to deploy drones into areas where weather/conditions expose search and rescue teams to immense personal risks. I know so little about boats or the ocean that I’m nowhere near qualified to even have an opinion. But I wonder about applications in mountain ranges where highly experienced climbers run into constantly shifting weather or unpredictable avalanche threats. At some point, search and rescue techs have to call off searches because the conditions that lead to the original disaster threaten to lead them into the very same kind of disaster. Programmatically, that’s a very difficult problem and I can see many problems with solving it in any sort of efficient way. But armed with some education about good emergency beacons and ways to make your team visible to drone rescuers, I think there’s something there. The crap part of search and rescue is that teams tend to go out to rescue anyone who needs it. There was an incident near Calgary several years ago when a man decided to go for a hike but didn’t have enough experience in the mountains to realize that getting down is significantly more difficult than climbing up. He didn’t survive that mistake and a SAR team found him without incident. But had weather conditions been any different, it’s sad to think that those skilled, loving people could have needed their own rescue while trying to find someone whose lack of experience lead to a personal disaster...
- closeparen 6y ago
  I don't think there is any such principle as "if rescuing the human might disturb some animals, just let him die."
  - leesalminen 6y ago
    Seriously. That’s a really extreme position to take. Saving a human’s life clearly and objectively outweighs temporarily disturbing wild animals with increased noise. Is this seriously even a debate?
    - Alupis 6y ago
      Tough choices have to be made in Rescue teams all the time. Another comment pointed out above that SAR teams routinely abandon searches when it becomes too hazardous. Trading one or more human lives for another isn't worth it in many cases. We do value human life more than animals. This is non-debatable for sure. However, at some point the costs of pursuing a rescue might be outweighed by other factors - one of which might be destruction of wild habitat and/or animals. Like mentioned, we could drain lakes to find lost boaters, but we don't. We could cut down forests to find lost hikers, but we don't. There is some line we won't cross - so we have to find it and debate that particular point if we want to introduce potentially disruptive technology into natural habitats. As an aside - it pains me inside to hear stories like this[1]. A rescue (not the type we're discussing, but still applies), caused 100% by human negligence. The result? The gorilla was shot dead... for... being a gorilla. Was that fair or humane? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Harambe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Harambe
      - hluska 6y ago
        I’ve got to compliment you. This is one of the better conversations that I’ve had online in a very long time. You’re a big part of why this has been so enjoyable. Thanks for the fun and for raising so many good points. I was a lot more certain before I started reading you and now I’m not sure. Big respect and thanks again. If you’re interested, here’s an absolute nightmare scenario that actually happened. People were completely unprepared for what they were walking into. It had every chance to end in tragedy, but somehow it worked out okay. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/missing-children-burke-mountain-coquitlam-1.5142571 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/missing-chil...
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>but also send out 50 quadcopters or uavs as a force multiplier. Random small aircraft with FLIR on a swivel mount that beams the results back to somewhere else for analysis would likely be more cost effective for equivalent coverage.
CarbyAu 6y ago
I agree with the use of smallish unmanned aerial units. I also agree with using them in significantly large numbers. But I'd like to see combination use. Example:Unmanned plane delivers quadcopters to position and retrieves them later. Protoss - "Carrier has arrived."

Alupis 6y ago

> Get the helicopter with a flir camera, but also send out 50 quadcopters or uavs as a force multiplier. You're going to have to contend with the disruption of 50 quadcopters barreling their way through natural wild habitat, foilage and more without disturbing all of the animals that live there. Or simply convince people that is a worth-while trade-off for saving unprepared skiiers that went off trail and down the wrong side of a mountain against all warnings... That aside, I don't think there's much utility there. A large aerial drone like a Predator or something, ya that might be a big help (very long loiter times, powerful imaging equipment, etc). But you wouldn't need 50 of those, and the same difficulties will be present (body heat can only show on FLIR if it's not blocked by layers of foilage, etc). But... then you'll have to convince people it's not a "militarization" of rescue services!

throwaway5752 6y ago
I will push back on you a bit there. Most people can only cover a couple of dozen miles a day, depending on the person and the terrain. A lot of the time, they realize they are lost and will yell or try to make themselves found. Maybe a high foliage environment would be a better target for directional mics / acoustics. I think the search and rescue efforts as they stand are pretty disruptive (helicopters, teams covering grids) so I don't think this is incrementally much worse. The "unprepared skiiers" (or hikers, sailors) you mention are someone's child and often someone's parent. They are loved and mourned, and it's a bit easier to get lost than is generally appreciated. A sea rescue is a different ball of wax than a forest rescue, and I was freely mixing both situations. In the sea setting, Plant Labs or a aerial drone like a predator (like commercializing existing military tech, eg, GPS) is more appropriate, perhaps. The biggest obstacle here is staging these for use and being available in a timely manner, on the order of hours.
- Alupis 6y ago
  > Maybe a high foliage environment would be a better target for directional mics / acoustics. I don't think this works as well as you might hope. When in dense foliage, it's difficult to hear sounds that are not that far away. It's a fantastic noise insulator. For this reason, survival classes usually teach signalling with reflective surfaces, like mirrors, watch faces, metal object/knives, etc. If you can sweep a helicopter with a reflection several times, they'll notice and rightfully think it's man-made. Plus, you can't hear someone screaming over a helicopter anyway. > I think the search and rescue efforts as they stand are pretty disruptive (helicopters, teams covering grids) so I don't thin this is incrementally worse. Certainly they are, but I do think drones close to the ground would be incredibly more disruptive, and potentially dangerous to curious wildlife. > The "unprepared skiiers" you mention are someone's child (and often someone's parent). You are not wrong. I think I was getting at, that most rescues are unglamorous, and usually caused by sheer stupidity of the people that were lost. Boats running out of fuel because they didn't prepare properly, or the skier example of ignoring all warnings, etc. It's not often that people were prepared, and the rock beneath their feet gave-way and now they're trapped. Yes, we have to rescue stupid people too, but I think we should weigh the external costs to the environment when doing so. We wouldn't drain a lake to find a missing person. Maybe that's not a fair comparison? I don't know... but I do know people went outdoors to experience nature, so we shouldn't destroy it trying to save people either. I guess, in short, you can make this scheme work, but I don't think it'll add tangible benefits to rescues, and it might actually be more effort to manage and operate, which could suck resources away from actual "boots on the ground/in the sky".
  - hluska 6y ago
    These are good points too. I like the idea of being able to deploy drones into areas where weather/conditions expose search and rescue teams to immense personal risks. I know so little about boats or the ocean that I’m nowhere near qualified to even have an opinion. But I wonder about applications in mountain ranges where highly experienced climbers run into constantly shifting weather or unpredictable avalanche threats. At some point, search and rescue techs have to call off searches because the conditions that lead to the original disaster threaten to lead them into the very same kind of disaster. Programmatically, that’s a very difficult problem and I can see many problems with solving it in any sort of efficient way. But armed with some education about good emergency beacons and ways to make your team visible to drone rescuers, I think there’s something there. The crap part of search and rescue is that teams tend to go out to rescue anyone who needs it. There was an incident near Calgary several years ago when a man decided to go for a hike but didn’t have enough experience in the mountains to realize that getting down is significantly more difficult than climbing up. He didn’t survive that mistake and a SAR team found him without incident. But had weather conditions been any different, it’s sad to think that those skilled, loving people could have needed their own rescue while trying to find someone whose lack of experience lead to a personal disaster...
closeparen 6y ago
I don't think there is any such principle as "if rescuing the human might disturb some animals, just let him die."
- leesalminen 6y ago
  Seriously. That’s a really extreme position to take. Saving a human’s life clearly and objectively outweighs temporarily disturbing wild animals with increased noise. Is this seriously even a debate?
  - Alupis 6y ago
    Tough choices have to be made in Rescue teams all the time. Another comment pointed out above that SAR teams routinely abandon searches when it becomes too hazardous. Trading one or more human lives for another isn't worth it in many cases. We do value human life more than animals. This is non-debatable for sure. However, at some point the costs of pursuing a rescue might be outweighed by other factors - one of which might be destruction of wild habitat and/or animals. Like mentioned, we could drain lakes to find lost boaters, but we don't. We could cut down forests to find lost hikers, but we don't. There is some line we won't cross - so we have to find it and debate that particular point if we want to introduce potentially disruptive technology into natural habitats. As an aside - it pains me inside to hear stories like this[1]. A rescue (not the type we're discussing, but still applies), caused 100% by human negligence. The result? The gorilla was shot dead... for... being a gorilla. Was that fair or humane? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Harambe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Harambe
    - hluska 6y ago
      I’ve got to compliment you. This is one of the better conversations that I’ve had online in a very long time. You’re a big part of why this has been so enjoyable. Thanks for the fun and for raising so many good points. I was a lot more certain before I started reading you and now I’m not sure. Big respect and thanks again. If you’re interested, here’s an absolute nightmare scenario that actually happened. People were completely unprepared for what they were walking into. It had every chance to end in tragedy, but somehow it worked out okay. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/missing-children-burke-mountain-coquitlam-1.5142571 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/missing-chil...

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

>but also send out 50 quadcopters or uavs as a force multiplier. Random small aircraft with FLIR on a swivel mount that beams the results back to somewhere else for analysis would likely be more cost effective for equivalent coverage.

CarbyAu 6y ago

I agree with the use of smallish unmanned aerial units. I also agree with using them in significantly large numbers. But I'd like to see combination use. Example:Unmanned plane delivers quadcopters to position and retrieves them later. Protoss - "Carrier has arrived."