Wow! That was fast. You really are on top of this stuff! Bravo.

I guess it was only a matter of time before a private company would offer something like the spot. Will they be charging monthly fees for the message relaying to authorities is another question...

I have filed my FTC complaint...have you? Be responsible and protect your fellow consumers today! (cue drum beating here) ;^)

Cheers,
~Logan.

Hi Doug,

The term 'Personal Locator Beacon' has been around for a very long time now. I can remember reading a patent for a Personal Locator Beacon, which was developed by a UK company for the Apollo Space Program in the 1960s, which could not be described in anyway in the modern technological sense as being a 406MHz PLB. The electronic sophistication revolution moves forward, legal patent language it appears does not. TracMe does have an International patent for the device they are trying to market which is described in its patent title as a 'Personal Locator Beacon'. The technology TracMe is using is a retrograde step in PLB design and has none of the advanced sophistication of a 406MHz PLB, but the TracMe device is a 'Personal Locator Beacon' device despite its obvious limitations. The TracMe device despite its limitations could prove to be quite useful in a small scale area search. An example could be the case of a US army soldier who was lost during a navigational exercise in Texas earlier this year but who had unfortunately died. The TracMe device may well have saved this mans life or at least resulted in the recovered of his body much more quickly. The cost of outfitting full 406Mhz PLBs for groups of children or even groups of soldiers on exercise would be prohibitive and would expose the main downside of these devices, that of accidental activation leading to false alarm and the associated costs for SAR.

I fully agree that the TracMe device use of the term ‘Personal Locator Beacon’ is misleading or unfortunate in relation to a full 406MHz PLB, but I do doubt that this device is going to end up killing people because of the marketing term ‘Personal Locator Beacon’ used by TracMe. Anyone who purchases such a device from TracMe and confuses their purchase to that of a full 406MHz PLB probably shouldn’t be purchasing either of them. The manual on the TracMe website for the TracMe device is very specific about what the device is and what the device is not. If these folks cannot read and understand the differences between the TracMe device and a full 406MHz PBL, then owning a full 406 MHz PLB probably isn’t going to do much good for them either way and will actually end up as a headache for the SAR authorities because of inappropriate activation.

A cell phone is probably a much more appropriate device for most folks on a jaunt into the woods or into the hills rather than a full 406MHz PLB. Even cell phones are abused in the 'Its got a little bit misty on the top of this hill, I don't know which way to go and could you send one of those big bright yellow helicopters to take me off the hill!!' type scenarios.

As folks think they can disregard their personal safety in the wilderness together with not having the appropriate survival skills such as navigation, thinking that they can rely on their electronic fall back insurance, probably results in more loss of life than falling foul of not purchasing the right PLB insurance (either a Full 406MHz PLB or TracMe device) in the first place.

406MHz PLBs certainly have there place, but thinking why and when they are deployed and by who is deploying them is very important also. I would have to say that if everyone who ventured into the wilderness carried a full 406MHz PBL then the whole 406MHz PLB system would become unworkable and therefore pointless.

Hmm, were I to make a comparison in marketing fraud, I would say someone who sells cordless phones calling their product a cell phone would be about the same as in this case.

As for the widespread use of real PLBs creating an unworkable system, researching the use of the technology more ought to lead you to a far different conclusion. Again, that would be like saying that too many people using cell phones makes the system unusable.

From the diagram we can see the problem that would be caused from widespread use of 406MHz PLB technology. There are three distress calls coming in simultaneously but only one helicopter. A sinking boat, a crashed aircraft, and a hillwalker who has pressed his electronic hiking insurance panic button because he can't use a map and compass

I would tend to disagree, that 3 (or even a few more) isolated calls would cause the rescue response system to become overwhelmed. Yes, in a regional/state disaster situation, rescue resources can and do become overwhelmed at times. That is why transfer/fill-in, mutual aid, emergency management agency compacts (EMACs) and memos of understanding (MOUs) charters/agreements are in place. Whenever there is an activation of the emergency response system, a backup system/agency is physically moved, placed on alert or moved up within the computer assisted dispatch systems (CAP) to handle the next due call.

This occurs daily in many jurisdictions, an ambulance is dispatched, and another call(s) comes in at the same time or just after. If the station does not have another ambulance, then the next closest unit is dispatched. If resources in a particular area are exhausted on a call(s), such as a high-life hazard incident, then resources are alerted/moved up to cover/fill-in those stations that are depleted.

If a particular aviation (or other rescue resource) rescue resource is tied up, then the next due unit is alerted, dispatched or moved to cover the area. The increase in cell phone use has certainly increased the calls coming into emergency/dispatch communication centers, but the increase in actually emergencies is determined more by population density and life style then cell phone use. Likewise, the increase in use of PLBs might lead to more activation of emergency services by this specific method, but the same PLB user may have previously activated the system by phone, radio, cell phone or runner in the past. A substantial increase in the activation of rescue resources solely due to an increase in the number of PLBs users is unlikely.

Pete

More SPOT debate by the backpackers. There is a $99 yearly fee or a monthly fee.

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/xdpy/forum_thread/9048/index.html

Any word on when we might hear something from D. Ritter on his thoughts?

Hope to post my Outdoor Retailer Report this weekend, which will include a report on the SPOT Satellite Messenger.

Since you have to pay the extra fee for the extra features, why not not just purchase a PLB and bring your cell phone. Granted your cell phone is less likely to get a signal out depending on your location (than say a sat phone) but for just checking in to say "honey, I'm fine" I could do with that.

After a couple years of subscription you are almost at the same price you paid for the satellite based PLB anyway so what type of sucker is this guy pitching his equipment to?

Personally, I think wait a year or two for the PLBs to come down a bit more in price and size then maybe I'll get one.