The recent series of news reports of stranded motorists brings to my mind the utility of a PLB or SPOT in those situations.

I still read forum threads comparing SPOT with PLBs, and folks comment something along the line that the PLB's support system may not be reliable because it is government run/supported, while in general it seems that SPOT users tend to rely on family-based rescue - having a family member react to a call for help and arrange rescue.

I was wondering if anyone knows whether the government - or anyone else - keeps statistics on how often people have turned on a PLB but for whatever reason there was no response. Either the signal was not received, or there was an error in the response communication process.

It would be interesting if there were statistics comparing PLB rescue information (time, misses, ...) with SPOT (and related device) rescue info.

A TOPIC WORTHY OF A POLL
This question cries for an ETS investigative article.

One of the current ALASKA COAST GUARD shows covered the details of a PLB rescue. It was not without problems. The stranded did little to aid their rescue beyond the PLB. (The PLB did its job. The rescue was successful)

The latest snow storm rescues covered the problems of the family of three buried in a car. Many 911 calls, including those from the victims, reported their location at the beginning of the storm. None were accurate enough. Death was near. Lady luck provided some help.

The 10 day saga of the college gal took luck to the max. She provided no clues in her hide and seek story.

The onus of rescue still lies with those to be rescued. Learn what details are important to those coming to rescue you. Make sure you have the format correct.

Frankly, that sounds like anti-government paranoia to the max. As far as I know, the system functions quite well. Any contrary reports?

Communication among involved parties, which would include reporting families, may be an issue, but that is a long standing problem that has nothing to do with PLBs, per se.

Important Details:

• Location
• Number of people
• Names and ages of people
• Injuries/medical conditions
• Known hazards
• Clothing worn
• Vehicle information, if applicable
• Equipment
• Experience

What am I missing? What is the correct format?

I find it interesting that the thing SPOT users mention as a benefit is that they can use the SPOT in essentially the opposite way as a PLB.

With a PLB, nothing is heard from the user until rescue is needed, and then the device is turned on and heard and provides a fairly exact location.

With a SPOT, they can press the Help button when needed - kind of like a PLB - if the Help message is received along with a fairly exact location, gets to the right people, and rescue is hopefully arranged.

This is the first comparison I'd be interested in seeing ... what is the successful rescue rate for PLB vs. SPOT-like devices?

BUT - from comments given in forums - their view is that the SPOT can also be used in an opposite way. The user communicates an OK message on a regular basis, and it is pre-arranged that the ABSENCE of an OK communication signal indicates that rescue is needed. Supposedly the family/friend can use the previous location reports and the trip plan to estimate the user's location. This makes me wonder about how large that search area could be if backpacking, or canoeing (ala BWCA).

Of course the problem with this later method is that a lost or malfunctioning SPOT can result in a false rescue attempt.

This creates the second comparison I'd be interested in. I wonder how often what I'd call "no-signal rescues" happen for SPOT-like devices? AND I wonder how many of those rescues are not really needed?

Ken

this seems to be a good spot to insert this: I have a Delorme InReach, and I have done some testing on it, but not in a mountainous and heavily forested area. So far it works very well and can provide good tracking of your progress if you set that. Two way communications is good, not instantaneous, but timely (minutes as opposed to seconds). Researching the satellite constellations of the Iridium system and the Globalstar system, the primary difference is that the Globalstar satellites are generally in orbit near the equator, so you need to have a clear view to the South to hit them. the Iridium has much broader coverage of the globe. So two-way comms versus one way and better coverage for the InReach.

So the InReach is an option to prevent those unnecessary rescues. I have not had a message dropped yet. when I have an opportunity to get into some good, rugged wilderness, I will give it a more thorough test.

Do you use Android or the Delorme GPS with the InReach?

The Delorme Pn-60w GPS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cospas-Sarsat#Rescue_statistics

Rescue statistics
In 2010, the Cospas-Sarsat system provided emergency-beacon alert data used in rescuing 2,362 people in 641 SAR events. From September 1982 until December 2010, Cospas-Sarsat alert data has helped to rescue 30,713 people in 8,387 SAR events.[5]

Aviation 20%
Maritime 56%
Land 24%
Total 100%
No detailed data on failed rescues.

What is interesting is the very low number of land rescues related to the very large number of PLB's.

IMHO - It relates to the very small number of backcountry users that carry beacons. Almost zero % of our customers have even heard of PLB's. Once educated on their usage, they still only understand and carry cell phones.

We monitor the airwaves in Idaho 18 hrs a day. Since the release of PLB's to civilians, we have not monitored one rescue yet. We carry PLB's because there are no idiots in the information exchange between the rescuer and us.

We have monitored many rescues initiated by cell phones and worried family members. If the victims were not dead, the stories are almost slapstick humor.

My favorite was a 911 call on a Sunday at 2:00PM. (155.520 MHz)
The dispatcher broadcast that a woman had called 911 to report that she was lost but that she knew where she was. The Sheriff requested an explanation. The woman stated she had a GPS but didn't know how to use it. She had gotten lost in her car and had placed the GPS on the hood. The woman gave her location verbally as " N43 Degrees, xx Feet and xx Inches and W115 Degrees, xx Feet and xx Inches. The dispatcher didn't know much more. The conversation between the dispatcher and the lost woman went down hill quickly.

After 15 minutes of eavesdropping, I asked the dispatcher to have the woman drive her car south and downhill until she hit the next intersection. At that time I had the woman read off what she saw on her GPS. She was only three miles from Idaho City, ID. I gave the dispatcher the location in deg.decimal degrees.

N43.88156 W115.83941

Her GPS preferences were set to Deg Min Sec which neither she nor the dispatcher understood. The only format that is VERBALLY understood is Deg.decimal degrees. Do not try to communicate with any type of chopper with anything except degrees and decimal degrees.
Now back to the original question – SPOT or the like or a PLB? You get to choose where to place your trust.

Those Cospas-Sarsat numbers are for EPIRBs (Emergency Position-Indicating Radio Beacons), which signal maritime distress and ELTs (Emergency Locator Transmitters), which signal aircraft distress, in addition to PLBs. While we mere people are allowed to carry PLB's, aircraft and larger boats/ships are required to carry ELT's and EPIRB's.

I wonder what the stat's would look like if aircraft and larger boats/ships were merely "allowed" to carry emergency beacons -- fewer saves would be my guess.