Griz attack followup, needed Spot, not PLB

"After the bear attack, the NOLS group was able to punch a button on a personal locator beacon (PLB) that sent an immediate call for help with their location coordinates. But the signal didn't tell anyone the nature of the emergency. Rescuers had no way of knowing the group had at least two critically injured people. If rescuers had known that information, they might have immediately sent to the scene a fully equipped Alaska National Guard medical team, only 35 flight minutes away in Anchorage, troopers said. And that crew would eventually be called to the scene, but not until eight hours after the PLB button was punched."

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/anatomy-alaska-bear-mauling-rescue

Wow, glad to read none were killed.

Lee

Thanks for posting that. That is the best account of the details that I've read so far. It's one heck of a story.

One of the details that sticks out to me is the fact that the rescue center that receives the satellite signal immediately tries to contact whoever is on your contact info for the PLB. Whoever that person is needs to know a lot about you. In my case, my satellite phone number and my cell phone number are on there and then I list two family members cell phones as contacts. Those family members know a lot about me, what I'm driving, my medical history, a list of my gear, my skills, and the fact that I carry some survival equipment. They also know that I would never press the PLB button unless I am in really bad shape. Hopefully that information will elicit a more immediate response.

That's something I've been thinking about a lot as of late. Here's a hypothetical situation that's scary; imagine you run into bad buys in the woods (eg grow farm for pot, a meth lab, etc) and you're wounded. If you hit your PLB you'll get SAR, not a fire team. Without having any idea of the nature of the emergency the rescuers could find themselves in a world of hurt. It would be a nightmare if they expected a lost hiker only to stumble into an "active shooter" situation.

That's why we still need a simple "inexpensive" satellite texting device. I realize some of the latest plb's allow lines of text to be sent.

Although the SPOT might have helped, what they really needed was an appropriate response! Although a two way com might have helped, the real problem in this case is the lack of response capability. If there had been a helicopter at Anchorage ready to go, there could have been help within an hour.

The other problem here is our expectation. We have had PLB's for only a few years now. But we expect wilderness rescue within hours. The system is just learning to deal with this type of notification. We expect the same response we get from 911 on our cell phones (which often takes longer than we would like, even in the city). We have become used to instant response. I hope that it will come in the near future, but in many places it is not here yet. Just 10 or 15 years ago, the notification would have come when the event was scheduled to be over, when the pickup came in to get them.

As a philosophical rant, something is also lost when we have instant communication in the wilderness, is it truly wilderness any more? One of my favorite lines from Calvin Rutstrum's "Paradise Below Zero" is a statment made to him as the boat that brought them into northern Canada and would not be back for a year, "Now, dammit, at last we can holler for help and not be heard".

Respectfully,

Jerry

You raise an interesting point. I go into wilderness and wild places in order to disconnect and to seek solitude, one of the defining characteristics of the wilderness experience.

I think that is why I have been somewhat resistant to obtaining a PLB. For years, I have managed without one, and have reaped the rewards of self-sufficiency and reasonable preparedness. I am not anxious to twitter and facebook when out in the wilds, not even a little bit.

Delorme's inReach two-way texting satellite device is supposed to be ready for prime time on October 1, 2011. I've been holding off upgrading my Spot 2 to see how this will fare, but two-way texting is very enticing.

Getting rescued in 9 hours in Alaska is freaking excellent, I can't believe they're complaining.

I'm glad to see this more detailed article, but like most journalists the writer hasn't done the homework necessary to write with authority.

Observations:

1) The latest SPOT-2 device has a more sensitive GPS receiver that is very good at receiving GPS coordinates. However its transmitter has a very tough time getting a signal out through tree cover and is quite sensitive to the orbital position of the receiving satellites. The McMurdo FastFind was a wise choice by NOLS, IMO, given the technology available at that time.

2) The SPOT-2 won't send a specifically medical message unless it is preprogrammed before the trip to do so. And, this message must be one of the less-than-emergency messages; the text of the "SOS/Send the Cavalry!" message CANNOT be specified by the user.

3) Ultimately, the 'slow' response was due not to any technical difference between a McMurdo and a SPOT-2 but by the cultural and operational practices of the responding authorities. By analogy, it's like a tactical team getting ambushed and blaming the event on being equipped with 9mm instead of 40S&W.

How long would it have taken the author to Google the above info, 1 hour? Less?

IF the author knew the right questions to ask.

Oh, I completely agree- 9 hours was PDQ! I was more commenting on the fact that they didn't know what to expect.

9 hours versus 35 minutes?
When two people are critical/serious?
Two helicopters responding
instead of one, who else might have needed that first 'copter?

Cultural or protocol differences need to be taken into account.
A SPOT or some other method of communication may be needed
in that geo-political area. Pre-scripted messages might be
the way to go.

I see plenty to improve upon. Every incident has opportunity to
learn from.

"You raise an interesting point. I go into wilderness and wild places in order to disconnect and to seek solitude, one of the defining characteristics of the wilderness experience.

I think that is why I have been somewhat resistant to obtaining a PLB. For years, I have managed without one, and have reaped the rewards of self-sufficiency and reasonable preparedness. I am not anxious to twitter and facebook when out in the wilds, not even a little bit. "

I agree as an individual. I like to choose the extent to which
I must rely on myself.

In this case it was school
kids, and reasonable preparedness should be up to a high level.

The SPOT and SPOT 2, with SOS, "I'm Okay", non-emergency help and "here I am" functions wouldn't have done any more good than the PLB.

The SPOT Connect or Delorme InReach might have permitted the user to follow up the distress alert with the sort of details that would have improved response times. Keep in mind, though, that the InReach isn't available yet and SPOT Connect (like SPOT and SPOT 2) is not as reliable as a PLB.

An Iridium phone would have been the best answer, but the cost is tremendous. I'm not aware if any Iridium phones are built to the same reliability standards as PLBs.

Given the available technology, it seems to me that NOLS did exactly right.

Perhaps the instructors, with their Sat phone, should have stuck
closer to the group. If they were able to be contacted by NOLS
once the PLB was activated, they could have converged on the scene and provided better communication.

Is the SPOT that "spotty" in Alaska? And what should they use in
the future? Or maybe is unaccompanied travel just not a good idea
there.

Here is another bear attack on a school group. This time in
Norway. Fatality too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-14456536

http://www.findmespot.com/en/index.php?cid=109

IMHO - The ONLY event in this story that went well was the RESCUE. The PLB eliminated the normal problem - SEARCH. Getting rescued in 8 hours in a wilderness area is perfect. It is your job to be prepared to survive the 8 hours. The idiots involved include the NOLS organization and the parents.

I would love to see the list of BANNED EQUIPMENT that the kids were not allowed to take with them. It may be similar to the list of MANDATORY EQUIPMENT for the planes that fly over the same area.

1. BEAR SPRAY - 8OZ
2. PUMP SHOTGUN - OOO BUCK, SLUG, 000 BUCK, SLUG, 000 BUCK
3. HAND GUN - BIG BORE REVOLVER

This is a very good point, the wilderness is a dangerous place sometimes and those who go out have a responsibility to "be prepared" and to expect that rescue will take a number of days. That they were rescued within 9 hours was excellent! That anyone expect rescue within a few hours is dangerous.

Agreed. To be "Prepared" in bear country is to be armed.. period. 99% of the time a firearm wont be needed, but when it is it's needed very badly.

Preparing for the best outcome, and expecting something, are two different things.

I don't think anyone was expecting quick rescue. In this
case the kids took the time to tend to the injured as their first priority.

However, if you don't learn and improve from incidents,!!!

I just read on the NOLS blog that the beacon was dented and didn't work at first.

http://nols.blogs.com/nols_news/2011/07/...-in-alaska.html

"but all organizations need to assess every incident and think what they would do differently, NOLS needs to rethink the lack of a wilderness medicine trained and certified pesonnel with the kids, that the GPS beacon was dented and did not immediately work, that the training of how to handle bears did not last in the panic of the moment, etc., etc."

I agree. Looking at this whole situation from a parent's perspective I would not hold NOLA at fault; I think they had appropriate risk mitigation in place for this trip.

On the technology front, I don't think technology is the issue, rather its how people are using that technology. As the original article pointed out, too many people appear to be using PLBs for non-emergency issues:

"What's happening is people are triggering their (PLB) because their vehicle is stuck or they forgot their tent or whatever," Leemon said. "It's watering down their response. It’s a lot like crying wolf."

If people were to restrict their PLB usage for real emergencies the rescuers would be in a much better place. I don't know how we accomplish that, however.

Fines.

Given this scenario and how it played out, a firearm is unlikely to have made a difference. This opinion article from the Alaska Dispatch does a good job at outlining why.

That said, we already have a fairly lengthy discussion on appropriate bear defense in another thread. I think it would be cleaner to keep this thread on the topic of the signalling / communication technology and leave the firearm aspect over there.

Great piece, thanks for posting the link.

[quote=Denis Given this scenario and how it played out, a firearm is unlikely to have made a difference. [/quote]

Perhaps you could elaborate with some details. Your supporting article's author seems to carry more than a bible. The kids had time to kick, fight, watch from a distance and scream. Perhaps the time might have been better spent using pepper spray or the 12 gauge. When in deep cover, with minimal warning distance, the knowledgeable carries the shotgun at ready arms. Those wearing teal and burgandy should carry at least 8 OZ of spray in their strong hand.

I think the concept is "EQUIPPED TO SURVIVE".

Here is yet another instance of a hiker unable to deploy bear spray, but no details as to specifically how it was carried. If the griz gets the drop on you, your fate is in his/her hands:


Thursday, August 11, 2011

Glacier National Park
Hiker Injured In Bear Attack Treated And Released

The 50-year-old hiker who was attacked by a grizzly bear last Friday (click here for the original incident report) was treated and released later that day and continued with his travel itinerary. His injuries - bites to his left thigh and left forearm - were not life threatening. The hiker was hiking alone on the trail from Many Glacier to Piegan Pass when he was attacked by a grizzly bear. When he rounded a bend in the trail, he surprised a sow grizzly with one sub-adult. The bear attacked the hiker, biting his left thigh and left forearm, then grabbed his foot, shook him, released him and left the area. The hiker said he was carrying bear spray, but was unable to employ it before the bear attacked and that he was making noise as he hiked. According to rangers, the bear's response to the hiker was defensive in nature and consistent with a surprise encounter with a hiker. No action will be taken against the bear. The trail from Piegan Pass to Feather Plume Falls remains closed, but will likely open by the end of the week.

A quick Google of Mr. Medred's works reveals a serious political slant with an pretty upfront gun control agenda. I would hardly consider his opinion piece a dispositive work on this topic, especially relating to anything having to do with the usefulness of firearms.

There was a fairly thorough discussion about this on a previous thread about this incident.

I think that your questions will be answered by reading through that thread. And if not, I think that thread would be the best place to continue that discussion.

You are right, of course. I think it would be quite reasonable to bring in fines for improper use and/or negligence coupled with an education campaign regarding the proper use of PLBs.

This thread is sort of hopping between a PLB/SPOT2 thread and a grizzly bear thread.

DeLorme announced they have partnered with Iridium to produce a two-way satellite GPS communicator that works off of the Andriod OS. It is essentially a self contained, portable wifi that allows two way texting with rescue units. The webpage has some good information.

DeLORME INREACH UNIT

I'm posting this b/c if it gets market share it could help determining the amount of effort that needs to go into the rescue before assets or volunteers are tasked out.

For those that don't read the whole article, they want to do a iPhone version but it was cheaper to do the Android OS first and there is a concern that because the app is text based, Apple might deny the it b/c apparently they are critical of apps that include competitive options things they include on the phone already. FWIW

Funny how the author himself used a gun to get a grizzly off him.
Don't really see his point, given his personal examples.

It is time to get rid of the old style PLB and use two way
communications. For everyone's benefit including the searchers.

Ask anyone who volunteers in SAR and they will tell you its a
bad idea to fine people who call for help. All kinds of
unintended consequences (as has been pointed out on many threads here).

It may be possible to write a law that fines people who abuse the system but won't discourage legitimate calls for help. It's probably irrational to expect our legislators to implement it correctly. My suggestion of fines was, as you say, a bad idea.

So what do we do?

Yosemite Search and Rescue (YOSAR) interviews their rescuees after the event. The most common cause for large scale rescues on the big walls is weather, not injury. If a rescued party did stupid things like bringing down sleeping bags or taking no raingear, the NPS will charge them with "creating a hazardous situation" and hit them with a fat fine. I don't know how often they actually collect, though.

It's too bad this statement is so true.

His main point is that guns in inexperienced hands are worse than no guns at all.

IMHO - There have been two statements that I would disagree with.

1. "His main point is that guns in inexperienced hands are worse than no guns at all."

2. "Given this scenario and how it played out, a firearm is unlikely to have made a difference."

Neither statement above has any basis in reality. They only apply to those that prefer to turn the other cheek.

Reality is -

* When seconds matter, your unarmed friends will rush to be mauled also.

* The armed guide on the other side of the river will be there in less than a minute.

* If you have three bars on your phone, medical aid may be there in less that an hour.

* If you have three buck and slugs in your Mossberg, none of the above apply.

Since this second statement is mine, I guess I should reply.

I am not coming from the perspective of one who would "prefer to turn the other cheek", but as one who prefers the best chance at survival. In the event of a bear attack my goal is to end the attack, period. This is what I base my opinion on.

If I ever come face to face with a bear I want to be able to walk away from the situation. In my conversations here I've assumed others hold a similar goal and have made my arguments for the most effective way to do so accordingly.

Since we've already had a lengthy discussion about how best to defend against a bear attack in the first thread about this incident, I will again suggest that this topic is better discussed over there rather than rehashing the same thing in this thread.

This thread would be best served as a place to discuss the signalling / communication aspects of the incident and what we can learn in that regard.

[quote=Denis Since we've already had a lengthy discussion about how best to defend against a bear attack [/quote]

In actuality, there was little discussion on how to BEST defend against a bear attack. In actuality, there were several comments that might imply that a firearm would not be effective.

IMHO - After digesting the complete initial thread and this one, there has been only one QUOTE that I would want a inexperienced reader to leave with -

”bear spray was effective at stopping aggressive bear behavior in 92 percent of cases while firearms were effective in 67 percent of cases”

(Both must be in immediate reach if visibility is zero. Dump at least 8 ounces of spray and immediately retreat under CONDITION RED with the shotgun if possible.)

I'm not sure why you feel the need to belittle the discussion which took place on that thread.

The primary tools for defence were compared for effectiveness, the results of at least 3 different studies were brought up at various points, methods for carrying and using these tools in the most effective manner were discussed as were appropriate reactions to coming in contact with a bear. At several points various posters suggested what they felt the best tool, or tool combination, would be to carry in bear country and why. I wouldn't say we all agreed at the end, but lots of good ground was covered.

If we missed any aspect or neglected some salient points about defending yourself against a bear, please feel free to add to that discussion. However, it seems quite disrespectful for your to simply dismiss everything that was said over there (save one partial quote) and then present your position as the be all and end all on the topic.

Wow! I came to this thread thinking it would be a discussion about the most effective communication device and lo and behold another gun fight has broken out. Geesh!

I've been thinking more about this and it seems like the ideal solution really is to improve things so that when a PLB is activated it does means there is an emergency in a very high percentage of the cases.

Realistically many outdoors people will echo hikermor's sentiment; they aren't looking for a way to maintain constant communication with civilization. How many of us are more than happy when we see "No Signal" on our cell phones?

Coupled with this is the cost; while a couple hundred bucks every 5 years is a realistic investment as a back up, a hundred or more annually plus initial investment is pushing it for many who aren't interested in the communication aspect but are only interested in the emergency use.

Just thinking out loud, but maybe registering a PLB could require some form of on-line training & exam, ensuring the owner understands the difference between appropriate and inappropriate use. You pass the test & you get to register your device.

To effect real change though, you still might want to couple this with some form of penalty for improper usage though. Admittedly you'd have to be careful on this front, but the Yosemite SAR fine system described by Glock-A-Roo sounds like a promising model.

From my perspective, the various other options - SPOT's non-emergency functions, two-way satellite communicators and satellite phones - really shine in the domain of the non-emergency call; this too could be included in an education aspect of PLB ownership. These tools give the user the ability to reach out for assistance before a situation devolves into one that would legitimately require PLB usage, while still allowing the user to get real emergency assistance if needed.

While some of these other tools have the potential for providing an added benefit in an emergency situation; ideally a PLB should be enough to initiate a proper rescue.

Your proposed test might help, mostly because it would expose some folks to the concept that there is such a thing as inappropriate use of a PLB. That indeed might help when they are confronted with a problem in the woods.

I think the real issue is even more basic - What is your strategy for coping with a problem when you are in an isolated situation? do you plan on taking measures yourself (active), or is your primary plan to call for help and wait for assistance(passive)?

Situations can develop where even the most self reliant will need assistance, but I get the feeling that PLB technology encourages a passive approach to dealing with emergencies, at least with some folks.

They should be mindful that conditions can be such that outside help is not possible (storms or weather conditions) or will be irrelevant (sudden falls or immersions in water). Somewhere new outdoors folk should get some understanding of how emergencies develop and what the proper role of PLB's, etc should be in resolving the issues. They should understand that their own actions, apart from triggering the PLB, are very significant in determining a good outcome.

"Be Prepared, That's the Boy Scouts Marching Song" - Tom Lehrer said it best.

You make an extremely valid point with respect to cost, especially the recurring cost of registration. Where do I buy stock in this outfit? Perhaps my earnings will outstrip the annual fees......

Pack check Wednesday - on Friday we were setting out with 7 scouts for an Olympics traverse from Quinault to Dosewallips, hard hiking and lots of elevation gain, and eventually elevation loss. After triaging the scout's packs, the Scoutmaster and I turned to mine, and showed all Scouts where my PLB would be kept. We talked about being on the trail, always at least one day and often 2-3 days hikes from any assistance (or restaurants, convenience stores, bathrooms etc). We would be on our own, and unless we encountered someone else, we would have to rely on each other. If one of us got hurt, we'd treat the person and make an evacuation decision: could we self-evacuate, or would we activate the PLB for help? We set the rules: adults in the party could activate the PLB, or if all adults were incapacitated, any scout would activate the PLB immediately. We talked about how to choose a location and demonstrated how to actually activate the PLB for every Scout. We passed it around. We made clear, we don't activate for blisters, the trots, twists and sprains, cuts, gashes, or other trail ailments. We carry with us what's necessary to cover that ground. Most emergencies, even medical issues, you plan to treat and self-evacuate: if life is threatened, we will activate the PLB.

Like most back country trips we all had a great time, suffered some blisters and one sprain, but emerged from the trail hungry but just fine. We saw plenty of the less scary black bears, and we hung our food at night and carried bulky food canisters. The scouts all got a primer on the role of the PLB in the outdoors, just like everything else we took with us. We didn't need the PLB, but that's the point. We had entered into a pact of sorts, that we were leaving civilization, to the point of taking 2-3 days to actually return to the world of cell phones, iPods, computers and TVs from the midpoint of our hike. We would be on our own, at least 24 hours from the most immediate assistance, for which the wheels could start moving only by the PLB. I think the boys moved more cautiously when they were out of reach of immediate assistance (there are some steep traverses across the middle of this Olympic route), but they also enjoyed the feeling of being out there, really on their own for the first or second times in their lives.

Hopefully they all realize a PLB is a lifeline, not a ticket home to avoid adversity. Any Scout that's been on a 50 miler I'll trust to use a PLB the right way going forward. Its getting them out on those 50 milers that is a challenge these days.

NOLS gets kids out there, beyond the reach of immediate assistance, where the kids can have that transformative experience in the outdoors. They do an excellent job of it. I think they're doing the correct risks assessments, even for Alaskan back country trips, where the analysis is a little trickier, and I have no experience.

Way to go...Congratulations.

You hit on some good points here. Hopefully with a combination of education and honest personal reflection an outdoorsman will be able to figure out where they are comfortable.

Is the outdoorsman satisfied with being self reliant in all but the most sever situations; when self extraction simply isn't possible or a search would be initiated anyway? Then a PLB alone is likely the right tool.

Or, as you described, is the outdoorsman more comfortable with the passive approach should things go wrong. Honestly determining this is okay, but someone with this preference needs to understand that a PLB alone isn't the right tool. They will be better served by one of those other options, most likely one offering 2-way communication, potentially with a PLB as a backup if things do really degrade into a true emergency and the 2-way isn't working for them. But they need to understand the difference and also the need for a certain level of self reliance in the wilderness.

The battle of course is getting the public at large, or at least those heading into the wilderness, to take the time to learn about the options and assess their needs appropriately.

Thanks for posting the article -- an interesting read. While the satellite phone option might be expensive, as NOLS themselves mentioned, they are carried/available for use by some of their adult instructors.

To give the group of kids a PLB but willingly hold back from letting them carry a satellite phone on their backcountry trek seems like a horrible lapse in judgement to me. IMHO, they are willing to risk spending the taxpayers' dime for SAR activation, but not their own money to keep the lines of communication open in an emergency.

Of course NOLS is giving everyone (including themselves) a pat on the back; no one perished and everyone was successfully rescued. That alone just saved them a heap of greenbacks from lawsuits and medical bills.

Maybe they can use the savings to buy a few more satellite phones...

Great job Lono!

You're right that getting them out there is a challenge. Good for you doing it and being smart about it.