This topic has been discussed multiple times on this forum....

http://www.rr.com/news/topic/article/rr/...fear_Yuppie_911

Tired from a tough hike? Rescuers fear Yuppie 911
Published - Oct 25 2009 07:54PM EDT
By TRACIE CONE - Associated Press Writer

[...]
Technology has made calling for help instantaneous even in the most remote places. Because would-be adventurers can send GPS coordinates to rescuers with the touch of a button, some are exploring terrain they do not have the experience, knowledge or endurance to tackle.

Rescue officials are deciding whether to start keeping statistics on the problem, but the incidents have become so frequent that the head of California's Search and Rescue operation has a name for the devices: Yuppie 911.
[...]

An awful lot of people died too, and still do, because they were in serious trouble and could not call for help.
Even with a beacon people still die because the rescue team can't be sent to where they are soon enough.

It is a really hard call. The way the media reports these events does not help either. Successful rescues which were justified might only get a few lines of press. Tragic deaths and bonehead stupidity which waste resources get over reported.
It would be nice to know how many idiot calls there are in relation to serious ones.
If it is fewer than 1% is it really a concern?
What if it is less than 5%?
There is the question there of how many false alarms are acceptable when balanced against the real alarms and against how many would die if the service was not available.

Maybe the idea of keeping track of the rescue calls and doing some statistical analysis would be a good idea.
Maybe doing a statistical analysis of the media reporting would be a good idea too.
Unfortunately such studies are not usually reported in the media.

I think the people who abuse public services should face fines and I think the SPOT service should be paying for a lot of the rescue costs in cases of abuse.
SPOT does charge for insurance to cover rescue costs, so maybe if they were actually paying for it they could figure out a way to reduce the number of false calls without impairing the service too much.

I do still think SAR should be there as a public service, but I think it is like other public services.
I mean we don't go setting our fire alarms off without expecting a serious fine if it was just a joke.
Yet at the same time we don't fine people for accidental false alarms.

There is a serious problem in addressing this problem of "Yuppie 911s" because it is easy to decide on a zero tolerance policy which would be counterproductive instead of a commonsense policy which would unfortunately require common sense from everybody enforcing it.

The one thing I have found about statistics, and this comes from a company auditor; more statistics just give you another method to find flaws, seldom are the improvements noted. maybe a bit cynical and certainly not a perfect statement.....

Didn't I read in Backpacker a few months back there was a guy who tracked all PLB responses for the last ten years or so? I don't have my copy anymore. Maybe it was just for injuries and not rescue.

they need a dispatcher and triage system. For example:

"SPOT dispatch, what's your problem?"
-"I fell down a cliff and broke my femur (aaah! owww! aah!! in the background"
"OK, we'll contact SAR. It'll take them about 10 hours to reach your site."

versus

"SPOT dispatch, what's your problem?"
-"I ran out of beer..I mean, water! The bugs are too buggy! My cell phone is out of reception!"
"OK, we'll contact SAR. It'll take them about 10 hours to reach your site. There will be a $10,000 charge to recoup losses."
-"Uh.... I can walk out in 4 hours. Never mind."

Probably not possible to implement, given the current system. Though it could be contractual before the fact.

But I applaud the sentiment.

Maybe drop it down to "at least $2,000.00." I remember being a dirt-poor student, when two grand was a colossal amount of cash.

Bottom line, I think, when you hit that switch, you will be extracted by SAR/law enforcement, whether you like it or not.

(The option: "Okay, stay and sign this waiver. If you poke us again, we ain't comin', dumb@ss,")

Something similar happens when U.S. Embassies and Consulates overseas get such calls, often from college kids on spring break. They, too, have had to implement measures to prevent frivolous use and abuse of their services.

"Yeah, hi, um, I've run out of money and need a place to stay and help getting home."

"Cetainly, Sir, we'd be happy to help. We'll need the names and contact details of three members of your immediate family and your permission to contact them. If they are unable to help, then we would be happy to provide you with a no-cost loan to cover your return expenses. We'll be replacing your passport with a one-time passport good only for return to the USA. You won't be able to leave the USA again until the loan is paid and, in the event you choose not to pay, well, we're the Government, so we'll just dock your pay. So, could I get those names and numbers, please?"

"Um, well, I guess I'll just call my Mom."

"That's fine, Sir, feel free to call back if you still need our help."

I see absolutely no reason why there shouldn't be standards as to what is and is not an emergency and, if you make a nuisance or unjustified call on a PLB, you get billed for the cost. If a genuine emergency, I have no problem with all of us sharing the burden (you wouldn't want to get a bill from the fire department added to your woes if the house burned down). But if frivoluous, by all means, bill them or at the very least make it a ticketable offense with a hefty fine.

I suppose it was inevitable. The problem with implementing fines is that people who may truly need help may wait too long to ask for it. Truly objective standards may be hard to draft since there are so many creative and unpredictable ways people find to get into trouble.

The Coast Guard used to get many calls that were not emergencies, such as boaters out of gas, or who suffered mechanical failure because of poor maintenance. We would usually provide a tow to the nearest marina, but the calls in some jurisdictions outnumbered the true emergency calls.

Then they instituted a policy of not providing assistance unless people or property were in real danger, otherwise we would advise the boater to call a local tow service. It eventually reduced the number of non emergency calls, but it took a long time for the boating public to get accustomed to the new policy, and in the meantime there was still the expense of responding to every call.

I actually discussed this with an LT on my local fire dept this weekend. I teach him bagpiping, and after the lesson we got around to talking about "false" 911 calls. They regularly get calls (the calls for 911 come into the FD) for people who have locked themselves out, a few to have someone come over to change fuses, lightbulbs, things of those nature, a woman called recently to complain about the color of the fire hydrant even (they recently painted their home, and the hydrant now clashed colors). Not that this is exactly on topic, but people seem to use the 911 system not for emergencies, but as a complaint line. And I am SURE that this doesnt just occur here...

I am still of the same opinion as before.

"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."

or in this case:

"Don't play if you can't pay".

Meaning don't take the risk if you can't afford to lose. I find it interesting that people who would never sit down to a poker game and expect the guy sitting next to them to cover their bet will gladly head to the hills and expect someone else to foot their bill if something goes wrong.

Why does it seem okay to foist off one's responsibilities on others in order to have a little fun in one instance, and not in others? Heading into the wilderness unprepared is not much different than betting on red at the roulette table. Would anyone even think of taking chips off someone else's stack in that situation?

The fear I have is two fold ( trust me I have more fears, but lets limit it down to these two)

1) "The boy how cried wolf" syndrome. When the punks finaly are in true trouble, the rescuers are less inclined to respond, or respond slower due to having been paged out by the bafoonary induced call for refreshments, and the person is actualy injured. As I say this I do realize that Rescurers are required, and DO, respond with the same level of effort and responsiveness to every call, even if they know it may be the fools they responded two times previously.

2) The sheer fact that we have over saftyed things, where poeple will continue to push themselves in unsafe ways, becouse they had the PLB.