personal locator beacons

[meganursula]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/travel/2010171491_trhikingemergency01.html?cmpid=2628

This article discusses one of the side-effects of having working and affordable beacons on the market. I linked to one of these beacons a couple of weeks ago, and Saska pointed out that she'd actually gotten on for her father, who likes to spend time alone in the wilderness. Basically, the beacons allow for easy call for help, and they are occasionally misused by someone who wants comfort, but isn't in an emergency situation.

Honestly, the article sort of annoys me. The problems isn't the beacons. The beacons are a tool, and, i think, really can serve a valuable function. I like the one i linked to that had an 'i'm okay' function - mostly because i have spent a few evenings wondering when my friends are late enough in returning to merit a phone call to the ranger service. Also because when Josh or i are traveling, we use text messaging for that purpose just checking in, and its a really nice thing to be able to do. I can see valuable uses for these things in both emergent and non-emergent situations. (An 'i'm okay' call might actually prevent an un-necessary rescue.)

Like most tools, though, they can be abused, and it sounds like they are. But i don't think its fair to blame the tool for people being idiots. I don't really know how to solve the problem - idiots have been going into the woods for a long time. Their chances of survival have increased (along with those of the non-idiots), but they are still idiots. Short of somehow eliminating idiots, i'm not sure we can eliminate the kind of problems that this article is citing.

Don't be idiots, folks. I like you all too much.

Comments

[ef2p.livejournal.com]

Being on a search and rescue team, this is something we discuss at length.

The problem isn't the beacon itself. The problem is that the beacon makes people feel safe. They then go beyond their limits because they can always just 'call for help'. When you have no communication with the outside world, you tend to ask 'can I get out of this myself' a lot more. In my opinion the family in this story should be banned from Grand Canyon for a year and banned from going more than 1 mile from an open road in any national park for 2 years in addition to paying expenses of 'rescuing' them all three times.

The other problem is that the beacon does not convey very much information. It gives location and that there is a problem. It's very much like responding to a 911 hang up.

On a recent trip with my SAR team we activated a beacon for a real emergency. We also sent a team down 5 miles of rough terrain and another 15 miles of driving to cell coverage to follow up on the beacon. When I spoke with sheriff's dispatch, they pretty much admitted to having no clue how to respond to the beacon. In the end we were able to resolve what happened without outside help between the beacon activation and the phone call. The issue was a lost hiker on a 13,500 foot mountain, after dark with no light and a storm moving in. Had we not found her, she would have been in a life or death situation.

It also worth noting that out east they have the same problem with 911 calls from wilderness. Our urban EMS systems have similar problems with 'frequent fliers'.

[mh75.livejournal.com]

Well, people feeling artificially safe falls into the category of 'people are idiots', as far as i am concerned. I think the examples of 911 issues show that this isn't a problem with the technology, but rather the user. (Making the fix harder to see, sadly.)

I do see your point about needing additional information. It would be great to be able to supply a 'i can't get out on my own, but its not life-or-death' sort of message. Cell phones have really changed the way an urban trip can be handled, because they can supply so much more information. I wasn't sold on mine until i started biking a lot and realized how helpful they could be. I suppose technology will continue to change until beacons can become more like cell-phones.

[via-lens.livejournal.com]

The reason I bought the beacon I did for my father (a SPOT) was that 99.9% of the time he only needs to send a message to tell us that he's fine. It sends an e-mail with a link to Google maps so we can look at where it was sent from, and it only goes to his contact list of 10 people. He can send a "please help me" message with his location to 20 people, but still just his own contacts. Or he can send an emergency message, which supposedly interfaces with local 911 in the area where the beacon was triggered.

If more beacons supported this kind of tiered call for help, you'd have fewer "convenience" calls.

[mh75.livejournal.com]

Out of curiosity, would you bring a beacon if you were going out on your own?
I think via_lens's dad is a great example of a responsible user - he is knowledgeable, takes care of himself, and unlikely to abuse the system. But it also gives him a back up just in case, and it brings priceless peace of mind to his family.

[ef2p.livejournal.com]

If I owned one, it would be a must have item for back country trips, alone or with a group. But I'm likely to crawl 5 miles out of the wilderness with a broken ankle before I activate it too.

I think they are great technology and an important innovation. But the world keeps making better idiots.

[mh75.livejournal.com]

Thanks. Wasn't sure if your rescue experience gave you different insight.

[ef2p.livejournal.com]

I will note that I rarely go out without my Ham radio these days. Of course they were useless in summoning help in the mentioned incident with the beacon.

[cheesepuppet.livejournal.com]

As an S&R worker, what do you think about billing people for resources and time? There's an article to that effect (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2010162452_apushikerrescuepenalties.html?prmid=obnetwork) linked to at the bottom of the one that Megan posted.

Proponents argue that the prospect of paying might keep people from calling for help, but they didn't mention that being a problem in New Hampshire, where the practice is in place. I'm not sure that I agree with paying ALL of it - the article cited a teenager who was charged 25k - but perhaps a portion? What's your feeling?

[ef2p.livejournal.com]

That is a long and involved question.

Are there cases where I think the parties should be billed? Yes, the group in the linked article is a prime example of people who should be paying.

Are there cases where I think the parties should not be billed? Yes, things happen. If you're prepared for everything, you never do anything.

Are there cases where I'm not sure if people should be billed? Absolutely! And it is hard for the law to deal with these cases.

One model I find interesting is SAR insurance. The way this works most of the time is that you need a permit to climb a particular peak (i.e. Mt. Rainer). The permit is not cheap but comes with accident insurance which pays for a rescue should it be needed. Of course you'll get people who climb the mountain several times a year for years, who get mad about paying for service they never need. (Ski areas are a good example, one thing that your lift ticket pays for is the Ski Patrol.)

Searches are expensive even if you don't use air support. (Most of the teenager's bill was for the helicopter.) Even if the search teams are volunteer, there will be law enforcement involved (read: paid, most likely overtime). The volunteer teams gladly give there time (and money) but we do get frustrated when the subject is so far over their head they can't even see the sky.

EMS companies deal with this too. You (or your insurance) pays for the ambulance ride. It Pittsburgh, PA they will bill your insurance and bill you for the rest unless you're a city resident in which case they get what they can from insurance and write off the rest.

[mh75.livejournal.com]

My office mate and i were talking about this. When we dive we carry DAN insurance, which actually is a pretty awesome service. Hopefully we never use it, but it is necessary for our peace of mind to have it available if we need it.

It seems like there could be some sort of mountaineering insurance that could provide the same service. One thing about an insurance company is that they could spell out some of the benefits up front - and perhaps state that they won't pay for every type of response?

It does seem tricky, though, especially in those borderline cases.