Skip to Content
Last modified by Mark Rinse van Koningsveld on 2025/09/02 12:05
From version 2.1
edited by Mark Rinse van Koningsveld
on 2025/09/02 12:04
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 3.1
edited by Mark Rinse van Koningsveld
on 2025/09/02 12:05
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -1,5 +1,33 @@
1 1  A team of first responders accesses a hazard zone. Methodologically, they spread themselves along the area to look for victims. [[Jack>>doc:Main.sdf.4\. Scenarios & Personas.WebHome]], one of the first responders on site, takes on the role of "loud hailer". He calls out for victims and listens for replies. In this scenario, Jack is heavily dependent on the environment to find victims. It must be quiet, and victims must be able to call out. In a partially collapsed building, victims may be lightly trapped underneath debris. Jack might not be able to find these victims through the loud hail method. Additionally, Jack has to access the hazard zone to find the victims, thereby potentially comprimising his safety.{{footnote}}**This problem scenario was derived from Use Case 3 ("Localisation of lightly trapped victims in a partially collapsed building"). For more information, see the [[associated deliverable>>https://pnogroup.sharepoint.com/:w:/r/sites/HORIZON-CL3-2022-DRS-01-07/Shared%20Documents/General/06%20Work%20Packages/WP1%20Practitioners%20Needs%20%26%20Toolkit%20Architecture%20and%20Design/T1.1%20Defining%20Scenarios%20and%20Use%20Cases/FR%20Workshops/USE%20CASE%20definitions%20-%20working%20folder/SYNERGISE%20Master%20Scenario_Use%20Cases.docx?d=w01c398e060f744518692b79844465e26&csf=1&web=1&e=oSGy8i]].**{{/footnote}}
2 +
2 2  
4 +Possible problems include unknown interior layouts, hidden voids, and unstable structures force blind entry or delays. Interviews stressed that pre-entry prep is acceptable when it clearly buys safety or time later (“investment, not sacrifice”). Fire contexts have less setup time; USAR can stage more pre-entry sensing.
5 +
6 +**Symptoms & Impacts**
7 +
8 +* Missed hazards (voids, blocked routes) → injuries, slow extrication.
9 +* Duplicated probing by different teams; conflicting mental models.
10 +* Leaders get raw feeds instead of decisions; cognitive overload.
11 +
12 +**Contributing Factors**
13 +
14 +* Sparse interior data; poor light/dust; ad-hoc markings.
15 +* No standard path suggestions; asynchronous comms between pilot, analyst, and squad.
16 +
17 +**Desired Outcome**
18 +
19 +* Safe, fast initial route with marked hazards and POIs; minimal radio chatter; shared picture.
20 +
21 +**How SYNERGISE addresses**
22 +
23 +* **UC02.0** (Indoor Drone Exploration and Victim Detection): fast interior scan; analyst verifies detections; **flag → mark → notify** route suggestions.
24 +* **UC04.0** (Detailed indoor exploration with robots): deeper re-scan of critical areas; confirm safe corridors.
25 +* Role split (Pilot vs. Analyst); just-in-time activation at the worksite; answers over feeds.
26 +
27 +**Metrics**
28 +
29 +* Time from arrival to safe entry; first-attempt path success; hazard encounter rate; re-task cycles.
30 +
3 3  [[image:Deel scenario's-07.png||data-xwiki-image-style-alignment="center" height="289" width="602"]]
4 4  
5 5  ----