Tell me what you want

Tell me what you want

When I travel to trade shows and to demonstrations at agencies all around the country, people always say the same two things: first, “That is exactly what I need!” and, second, “You guys have the best ideas.” Both of these statements make me happy, but only the first is true. We DO make things that are exactly what people need. But, generally speaking, they aren’t our ideas. They are yours.

At Lithos, we make a point of asking what our users need. That’s a little different from giant tech companies like, say, Microsoft or Google (or even Remotec), which have a tendency to tell their end-users what it is they’ve been wanting all along. The result is sometimes far less successful than the companies would hope. Windows 8 and the clunking, over-developed Microsoft Word are examples. Google’s brilliantly integrated systems at first seem like godsends as customized-to-your-search-habits info determines your interactions with Google…until you realize that your Gmail is being parsed for content clues and your correspondence is somewhat less private than you’d hoped.

The difference is, of course, that a poor Google search doesn’t affect your ability to come home safely at the end of your shift. If your bomb robot control system fails, forcing you to send a tech in a suit to set up your PAN disruptor, that’s a whole different ballgame.

When I was still on active duty on a bomb squad, my team wanted to be able to share robot video with people around our bomb truck. While the people who would be able to see the video thought we were being generous and trying to make their jobs easier (and more entertaining on a call out) the truth is less giving. We wanted to keep as many people out of our bomb truck as possible. No matter who is there, they take up space, talk too much, and hang over the robot operator’s shoulder. We asked Lithos, with whom I was consulting, if it was possible to wirelessly share video. It was. The CommandLink 900 was the result…a point-to-point video sharing system that would send audio and video to a second vehicle location (typically an incident command truck).

After I left the sheriff’s office, we were approached by the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office (near Tampa, FL) and asked if we could do the same thing with throw phone video. In their case, though, they needed to share with individual officers on-scene. SWAT commanders, incident commanders, shift commanders…all wanted to be able to hear or see what was happening but there were physical limitations as to how many could fit in the relatively small negotiator’s van. The other alternative, running lengths of cable, required close-proximity parking in most situations and the cables were a nuisance. CommandLink i900 was the result.

Over the course of a year, we had SWAT commanders asking to GPS track their operators on an iPad. We added that. Others wanted a whiteboard function. We added that. Now you can click on a robot to see its video stream. Same with a Sentinel surveillance unit. We added repeaters to the surveillance unit so  you can go double the distance or bounce signals around buildings, all because someone on the job said, “Hey, you know what we really need?”

It’s one of those conversations that has us working on a SWAT robot. It’s not a throw bot, because there are several good ones out there. It’s not a big Remotec F6A that, while powerful and imposing, is too heavy and awkward for many situations and too expensive for most agencies to buy on their own (and the lack of Federal grants is, as we all know, a huge impediment to agencies buying ANYTHING). Our robot is mid-size. It’s about $30K. It’s got a good arm/gripper arrangement that will open doors. It will climb stairs. It doesn’t get tangled up in towels and socks on the floor. It can see over couches and in windows. In short, as one customer said, “Can you make it so that it’s kind of a mini-tactical officer? We don’t want to have to get out there WITH it. That defeats the purpose.”

And that is one of our chief complaints about tactical robots—and the way companies make officers bend their practices to the limitations of the equipment. We’ve been on training call outs with SWAT teams where the robot operator walks about 50 feet behind the “tactical” robot, making it less tactical and more dangerous as the operator pays more attention to the video monitor and less to his surroundings. The reason is because the radio control system doesn’t have enough range, power or penetration to allow officers to stay behind cover while operating the robot. The only solution is to send cover officers. Now you have two or three men downrange in a hostile environment, one driving a robot that is SUPPOSED to be there doing the job of a person so that the people—the men and women we work with and who have spouses and kids and dogs at home that will miss them if they don’t come back—stay safe. The robot, while arguably lovable in its own way, will not be nearly as missed as an officer should it take a shotgun blast to the video camera.

Trailing after a robot because the radio doesn’t have enough punch is bad tactics. And it’s a ridiculous necessity that robot manufacturers should be ashamed to ask of officers. We have the best digital radio control system available, with a mile line-of-site range and terrific penetration capabilities. We have a repeater. We’ve had the ability to keep you all as safe as possible as you do your jobs.

To be honest, we really weren’t planning on making a robot. But, after we’ve received so many requests, it just seemed like the right thing to do. After all, as with everything we make, there is a definite and identifiable need. And if it will make it possible for us all to get home at the end of the day, then I think it’s worth building. Look for it coming soon!