3 ms·
This does not work well in practice, yet. There is a lot of interest already in using both off-the-shelf and more purpose-built drone technologies in search an
by thaumaturgy 6y ago
This does not work well in practice, yet.
There is a lot of interest already in using both off-the-shelf and more purpose-built drone technologies in search and rescue. They currently have too many limitations: they cannot navigate complex tree canopies close enough to the ground to provide reliable visual contact with subjects; their flight time is so limited that deployment and management is a real pain for large search areas; and if they aren't fully automated then you get the same signal problems with your remote that we have with our much more powerful radios with the added benefit of extremely powerful repeaters scattered on nearby hills.
This isn't to say they can't be a resource in SAR. Alameda County brought out a brilliant array of UAV equipment after the Camp Fire and were able to survey large portions of the burned town of Paradise and then process the imagery down to almost 1 cm resolution in their IC trailer. It really was some next-gen stuff and they did it way faster than the ground pounders could survey the same area. Down in the southwest, in specific types of terrain, drones are being used to quickly survey some popular holes that hikers find their way into. And, a drone scouted an orchard and found a lost subject there about a year ago.
But you have to weigh those successes against the much larger number of cases where people with hundreds of hours of experience can still very nearly step on top of a nonresponsive subject without seeing them. Finding lost people is hard, and many of the failures to find lost people have more to do with the problems of getting bad information into IC, or searching the wrong area, or the subject being in an inaccessible area, or the lost person's remains getting quickly predated by local wildlife.
Thermal imaging likewise just does not work the way that people think it does. It doesn't work in cold environments like the Sierra in winter (western or eastern), because people are typically wearing insulated clothing and the entire area around them is a gigantic heat sink. It also doesn't work in very warm environments or in heavily vegetated environments or rocky environments with sunlight -- rocks absorb and re-radiate heat and so do plants.
I've had this conversation a few times with different technologists. What we need is a balloon that we can put up with a big ol' repeater on it. That would provide a lot more immediate benefit for search operations. But, it's not sexy, so nobody's as interested as they are in trying to fly quadcopters over impossible terrain 20 minutes at a time.
- throwaway5752 6y agoThanks for the informative reply. Your point about "What we need is a balloon that we can put up with a big ol' repeater on it" is particularly brilliant and I hope the right people are reading.
- hluska 6y agoYears ago, there was a kickstarter for a Rescue Me Balloon. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/651668573/rescue-me-balloon https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/651668573/rescue-me-bal...
- nwallin 6y agoI used to be an imagery analyst. You're spot on about infrared imaging. Normal dirt, rocks, and plants show more contrast than human vs environment. The only way to tell that the blur you're looking at is a person is if they start moving, and you recognize it's a human by the motion, not by the shape. When I was an E-3, I had a three star general ask me if the image I was analyzing was a picture of a MiG-29 Fulcrum. I had to explain to him no, sir, it's a pickup truck. Probably a Hilux.
- keenmaster 6y agoWhat about combining machine learning and thermal imaging? You would train the ML on the specific thermal characteristics of humans in different conditions. The ML may output a ton of false positives, but if there are a lot of eyes on the footage, and other sensors (LIDAR?) + normal image recognition are used, that might be worth it. Another thing to consider is two-way audio search. The drone would make an extremely loud screech to announce its presence to the lost individual (paired with extremely bright light at night), then it listens for a human response. People can be trained to make a certain response that is easier to detect (loud continuous shout? Start and pause every 2 seconds? etc..). Of course, that should all be a backup to safety protocol and satellite communicators. Lastly, I want to make the obvious point that a constellation of drones would do a better job than a single one. A swarm of drones can simultaneously cover the whole area where the lost individual might be. Combined with the above technology, that can be very powerful.