Question: How prepared are the search & rescue teams to use the 121.5 MHz locator beacon?

I seem to recall that it was not as many as I might have thought, and that improper use of the equipment was a concern.

In those reviews did they use the Test button or the SOS button? If the latter, they must have made some type of prior arrangement with the PLB response authorities to avoid triggering a rescue effort. That makes me suspect they only used the Test function, which I addressed above.

There's another layer here that I think a lot of people overlook. When you register your PLB with the government, you provide a primary contact to them. This person will be notified if your PLB's SOS signal is detected, even if the GPS location did not make it through. Before every trip I give my contact person a very detailed trip plan, including a topo map screenshot. I use MS Excel and Nat Geo TOPO to generate this document, so I give them a hardcopy and I email them a PDF file of the document. This way they can easily email the PDF file to authorities hundreds of miles away.

If I send a PLB SOS and the GPS function doesn't work, by getting in touch with my contact person the SAR effort will still get my full trip plan and map. This goes a long way to backing up the PLB's GPS function.

Another thing: the PLB's power is 5 watts, which dwarfs the SPOT-2's 0.4 watts (400 mW). Plus the PLB uses a lower frequency than the SPOT-2, and the lower the frequency the better the signal gets through tree cover.

Bottom line: you can dream up all kinds of scenarios where a PLB might not work, but it's going to work better than you think and it's going to work better than a SPOT.

I think you may be confused. The vast majority of SAR is equipped to DF (Direction Find or "home") on 121.5. DFing on 121.5 is something of an art, but fairly straightforward with practice, especially when the provided location gets you very close. Someone trying to DF with no experience is going to get frustrated. <g> 121.5 DF gear is cheap, can be cobbled together from Radio Shack parts even, for ground SAR, and easily practiced.

406 DF is relatively new and the available equipment is very expensive and primarily fitted to aviation assets. At this point, virtually no 406 ground DF is available. USCG and CAP are equipping all their aviation assets with 406 DF. USCG is fitting some maritime assets with 406 DF. The advantages of 406 DF is that you can DF from up to 100 miles away due to the 5w signal. So, a big advantage when available.

The specs on the Acrelectronics website indicate that the ResQLinks+ (buoyant) model and the ResQLinks standard model are equally waterproof.

To be sure, can someone confirm that the only differences between the ResQLinks+ (buoyant) model and the standard ResQLinks model are that: the ResQLinks+ (buoyant) model is larger and about an ounce heavier than the standard model and the + model floats in water and the standard model sinks.

The standard model sinks. I haven't tested mine but the specifications say:
A non-waterproof PLB would be rather useless imo. I didn't need the version that floats because my ResQLink is tethered to the outside of my survival/flotation vest in a pocket high on the chest.

Thanks Russ for the info. Although I'm fairly certain that tonight I'll be ordering the standard ResQLink model, I thought that perhaps there could be a collateral benefit in having the ResQLink+ (buoyant) model in that the case might make the + (buoyant) model more impact resistant than the standard model.

You might want to contact ACR regarding impact resistance. The more buoyant case may provide add'l impact resistance but then again an impact may affect the waterproof integrity of either case making the difference moot. Both are made of an "Engineered polycarbonate blend" so my suspicion is that their respective impact resistance will be virtually identical. But ACR may have better information.

I'll send an email to ACR about whether or not the + model might be more impact resistent. I'll post their respose.

In any case I'll try using the rebate coupon.

Below is ACR's technical services reply to my question about whether the ResQLink+ (buoyant) model is more impact resistant than the standard (non-buoyant) model.

"Impact resistance of both units are the same. They are tested by independent laboratories to conform to Cospas-Sarsat specifications."

Grady

Making something float simply means you increase the item's volume (size) relative to its weight.

In this case it looks like ACR increase the volume, and it turn increased the weight a little - but obviously not enough to stop it from floating.

Floating is nice IF it doesn't float away. The only way to keep it from floating away is to attach it to something secure. If its attached, then you don't really need it to float.

... unless you are likely to be treading water, in which case this means that you don't have to hold it up while still treading water (assuming that the unit floats with both antennas are sufficiently out of the water and pointing to the sky).

I'm on land or a swimable distance from shore, so I'd go with the smaller unit. If I frequented the ocean or other large water bodies I might get the floating unit.