Via Yahoo News

"SALEM, Ore. - Two days after electronic locator units helped rescuers locate three missing climbers on Mount Hood, veteran mountaineers pleaded with state lawmakers not to require them to carry the devices every time they head for the summit."

Some warned Tuesday that requiring locators would foster passivity among climbers who get into trouble and activate the beacons."

For Entire Story, Click Here

That's a hard one. Part of me thinks that for a $5 rental fee and 8 oz. of weight there is no excuse not to have one. But part of me also resents the nanny attitude expressed by the attempt to lump experienced, level-headed climbers in with the incompetent ones. Only requiring them for the winter months may well be a good compromise.

While I agree that passivity is a bad thing and requiring climbers to carry a PLB might lead to it somewhat, I don't see this as any more a "nanny" issue than having SAR crews or sending National Guard resources for a rescue in the first place; meaning I don't see it as an issue in that respect at all. If it could possibly save resources, time and money for rescue operations for climbers to carry PLBs, then it seems to me that is a good thing.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't see it only as the state regulating how people should act for their own safety, but also for the safety and expense of the crews who are going to have to go up the mountain after those in need of rescue.

I tend to lean toward libertarianism in a lot of respects, at least up to a point where personal freedoms start to affect others.

How about a big sign at the base of the mountain that says, "Take a PLB with you, or get yourself off the mountain in the case of an emergency!"

I do understand your point about a climber's experience, norad. However, experience, while improving one's odds, is no assurance that nothing bad will happen to the experienced climber. Experienced or not, anyone that gets into trouble on the mountain is going to waste resources.

That's just my take on it. As always, I could be wrong.

Here in WY, unless you pay a small annual SAR fee, if you require a SAR you are billed for your own rescue.

If other states adopted such a system requiring PLB would cause people not to use them unless they needed to because they would be left with a heafty bill.

I think requiring PLBs a good idea, it would end these multi-day, multi-man, search the entire side of the mountain SAR efforts.

On the face of it, requiring a MLU that can be rented for $5 doesn't seem to be an obscene burder, especially if you would like people to rescue you when you get in trouble.

However, no one seems to have asked what the rental will cost if a MLU it is suddenly absolutely required to get on the mountain - $5? $10? $50? $500?

By the way, it has been said that an MLU will not alert anyone that you are in trouble, it will only help if they are already looking for you. I understand that the system uses fixed recievers located on or around the mountain. What prevents them from listening all the time?

So climbers can afford several hundreds of dollars in climbing gear and climbing expeditions, but they can't afford to rent, or buy, beacons? Come on now..

It seems as though people want to have their cake and eat it, too.

They want the solitude and peacefulness of being in the outdoors without the strings (or chains) of day-to-day life. They also want an instantaneous rescue should something go wrong. Somehow, there needs to be a balance between the two.

I guess the question is do we want additional government intrusion into the backcountry, or less risky SAR operations? Or both?

Clear as mud.

Meline, a question from the curious:

Does WY tend to find that some people who need rescue refuse to request it due to facing a big bill, and other hikers stumble over their bones later?

Do the ones who use SAR actually PAY the bill, or are most of them sitting in collection agencies?

Sue

My second thought, how long will it take for this great & "safe" law to be extended to all state & national parks where a PLB/MLU will be required for even a short day hike on well established, travelled trails. How long before it is required for every (recreational) boat on any and every body of inland water (including small lakes and large ponds). The creep effect can be quick when it is fueled by "political concern" and manufacturer's money.

Please keep in mind that I am from the great state of Lousy-anna and we are well known for having the best politicians and police THAT MONEY CAN BUY!

After looking closer at my fishing licience I do believe I am in error. Its a $1 SAR donation to pay for search and rescue costs. Not a $1 SAR insurance to pay for SAR costs.

I don't see this being any different than the state trooper at the bottom of a snowy mountain road that won't let you start up the hill unless you have a 4x4 and snow tires. SAR is expensive. Anything that takes the search out of search and rescue is money well spent. Anybody that thinks they are too good of an outdoorsman to get into trouble is an idiot. S%*t happens! People take a tumble and break a leg. Why should the taxpayer pay for their mistake when taking a little bit of personal responsibility (carrying a PLB) would greatly reduce the cost of saving their skin.

I'm sorry, this is not a big brother issue to me, but just plain common sense. If you are going to engage in extreme sports and expect government resources to pull your fat out of the fire when you get in trouble, then the government should be allowed to enforce reasonable steps to preserve its resources.

Craig.

I have heard the same "causes passivity" argument applied to the concept of requiring personal locater beacons (PLBs) as well. So, in my humble opinion, why not just apply the concepts to prevent PLB abuse here as well.

When a climber may be in trouble, try to contact the climber to find out exactly what the climber's situation is. If contact is unable to be made and the climber is rescued, simply fine their butts into oblivion if their rescue situation was inappropriate. Nothing like a hit to the wallet to get people to take things seriously. After all, it's not like SAR couldn't use the money!

When the system works out the way it was intended, praise it. When the system is abused, abuse the abuser.

The real risk is that a people who have no business on a mountain like Hood will but up there becuase they think a ride home is a pin pull away.

That being said, I think they are a good idea, but I'd rather see a requirement that allows the park system to require you to pass a basic skill and equipment test to climb, and make an MLU part of that. "You must be this clued to ride this ride", ya' know?

There's a great article by Lloyd Athearn, the Deputy Director of the American Alpine Club, at:

www.americanalpineclub.org/pdfs/MRreal.pdf

It helps to put the whole issue into perspective (for me at least), I especially liked the statistic on pg.3, under "All Oregon Rescues" for the year 2003:

Climbing = 3.8%
Mushroom Picking = 3.3%

That settles it, lock up all the mushroom pickers and the problem is solved!

I have served in both roles, as a climber and as a rescuer. While the case seems clear to many non-climbers, it is not as acceptable to a climber when it comes to a "beacon" issue. As a climber, I would not particularly want the extra weight and responsibility of a beacon and in the case of the recent Mt. Hood rescue, the beacon is similar to ones used to track animals in wildlife studies, it does not alert anyone that you are in trouble, it merely sends a signal that can be tracked and triangulated. That requires a phone call or some other means to let potential rescuers know you need to be located.
A simple $99 GPS unit and the phone together can accomplish the same results faster, since you can identify your precise location.
I can see issues where a climber may have a "beacon" and expect rescue and no one can get a strong enough signal to arrive at a location. Again, the type they are suggesting requires some form of notification to alert rescuers to start looking. What if the party that was on that particular climb had divided gear differently in the party and the beacon ended up with the group that did not fall and continued off the mountain? Rescuers would then not known what area to look in perhaps. The reality of this situation was that the beacon provided some assistance, but they already knew the approximate location from the other half of the climbing party. Had it been another group with a "beacon" that all stayed together and needed assistance, the rescue party would have had to try to locate the signal with the entire mountain as a search area. It could have taken days to attain a signal and narrow down the position. The "beacon" that is being discussed is not a PLB, it is a radio transmitter like the ones used to track animals in studies, that is a really different item with very different possibilities.
My personal take on the beacon requirement is that it is a bad idea not so much because of false sense of security, but because there is no truly positive potential. It is merely an aid to rescue parties and not a guaranteed locator.
My personal take on the PLB is that it is much more effective but because it takes a proprietary battery that is not user or field serviceable, the PLB is not a device that can be relied on that much either. There are circumstances that I could see taking one with the understanding that it may not work if needed.
I also would rather take a sat phone and a GPS if I was worried about needing a rescue. Reason; calling someone and actually talking to a live person and providing a GPS plot to them would do wonders for my morale in a bad situation. Turning on a PLB and wondering if anyone was getting the message and wondering when the battery and signal was going to die would not do a lot of positive things to my thought process.
I think the locator is great for aviators and mariners, as has been proven many times. It is also a requirement on most vessels and aircraft. There are also many instances when boats and planes go down and no signal is ever received.
I hope all this makes some sense, bottom line it should be your choice and not someone legislating it to you!

Statistics, being statistics, can be built to fit just about any situation. For example, on Table 4, it is stated that "Rock climbing (all forms)" only accounts for 3.3% of all NPS rescues. Nowhere (and I will admit that I did not read the whole thing) did I see a figure showing what percent of all USERS of the NPS facilities are rock climbers. From my personal observations at Yosemite, climbers are a much smaller percentage of total visitors than 3.3%. I have seen hundreds of people on the valley floor watching two or three climbers on El Capitan, with thousands driving by at the same time. So I fail to see what that particular figure (and others) in the article has to do with much of anything.

As for requiring climbers heading higher than a certain altitude during certain months of the year, what does it hurt? Only costs $5, weights next to nothing. If needed and it doesn't work, what is lost. If needed and it does work, much can be gained. Many of us never really need our seat belts or auto insurance, but when you need it, you NEED it...

"...who will protect us from ourselves if not our beloved and trusted government..."

I am not one to propose a new law for everything in the world, I see that far too often. And I am a big believer in being independent, and responsible for your own actions. But in most cases, when "we" get in trouble, be it a traffic accident, plane crash, sinking boat, or injured mountain climber, who do we call to come save our bacon? Why the government of course, in the form of city, county, state, or federal governmental agencies. And we, the taxpayers, all of us, foot the bill for that. So why not, in instances that have more inherent risks than driving to the corner grocery store, require an inexpensive, light weight, readily available, item that MIGHT cut down on the time, cost, and risk of a rescue? Yosemite and Wrangell St. Elias NP's, for example, now required a bear proof food container (not a bag and a rope) for all back country overnight hikes. Why? Too many backpackers just about starving to death after one of those really smart Yosemite bears got their stash and ate it, miles and miles from the nearest stop and rob. Don't own one, no problem, they can be obtained free, with a deposit, from the NPS. No one seems to yell too loudly about that one...

My wife used to be a cellular 911 operator, and where she worked she got most, if not all, of the 911 calls from Yosemite. After transferring those calls to the NPS in Yosemite she was required to listen in, in case the NPS lost their end of the call. The rangers evaluated each call, if it was not, in their opinion, a "real" emergency ("mister ranger, it got dark, we don't have a flashlight, and we ran out of candy bars, come get us"), the ranger would tell them to stay put for the night and walk out in the morning when the sun came up. No cost to the taxpayers on that one...

Bad things can happen to experienced, level-headed climbers also...

I've got a far, far better solution I think, much more practical.

Require anyone intending to climb the mountain to register, and show proof of posting a $1 mil bond against the possibility of needing rescue.

That way if something happens, your fault, their fault, nobody's fault, at least the rescue attempt(s) get paid for by those who took the risk, and not by the gen pub. That seems much more responsible to me.

Can't get bonded or insured? Fine, then post the amount in escrow from your own account. Haven't got the $1 million up front, then don't take the risk. I grow tired of being forced to bail others out for their foolish or reckless behavior.

The alternative is to close the mountain down, then climbers will become trespassing criminals, or to abolish funding SAR with tax dollars.

Pick one.

OBG,

Granted, statistics can be manipulated to support just about any position but let's cut to the chase, the real issue here isn't how many practitioners of which type of activity cause the most rescues, it's money, who is going to pay for these rescues?

Many will try to justify legislating the mandatory carrying of MLU's as a way to save the lives and preserve the safety of the SAR personnel who answer these calls for help but you and I know that's just not true. The SAR people who respond to these call outs do so because they love what they do, it's not for money, recognition or a sense of obligation to the person being rescued.

To get into the Emergency Services Detail(ESD), on my department you have to try like hell. You have to be an EMT, dive certified, swift water trained, mountain rescue certified, in excellent physical condition and able to type 150 words per minute (ok, so I lied about that last one but I probably missed a few other requirements), and that's just to qualify! There are always many more qualified applicants than available positions and if I weren't on the downhill side of my career, I'd be going for it myself, so no, I don't buy the image of a bunch of SAR people cursing the dumb fools who cause them to put their lives at risk any more than you or I got into a black&white and put our lives at risk everyday because someone held a gun to our heads (no pun intended).

I don't want to make this political but if the real issue is our tax dollars, I would much rather spend my money rescuing a group of climbers trapped in a white out (whether or not they had MLU's), than on the food stamps the gentleman ahead of me at Von's today used to pay for his Doritos and Pepsi before getting into his new Escalade (don't get me started).

"...I don't want to make this political but if the real issue is our tax dollars, I would much rather spend my money rescuing a group of climbers trapped in a white out (whether or not they had MLU's), than on the food stamps the gentleman ahead of me at Von's today used to pay for his Doritos and Pepsi before getting into his new Escalade (don't get me started)..."

You are so right about that. But, if having the climbers carry a $5 item will possibly save a bunch of tax dollars, maybe to be spent buying better equipment for the SAR guys, why not???

I agree with your sign idea.

Many years ago my Dad and I canoed down the Raisin River in Lenawee county. We notified the authorities of our plans. They reminded us to portage around the upcoming falls. There is a sign saying, " three people have died trying to shoot these falls." We told them we'd shot many falls. They were unphased and replied, "No problem. We can change the three to a five."

Signs worked for us. We portaged.

Well said! Also consider that many rescues are really carried out by volunteers, particularly mountain rescues. As for Oregon, they have an Air Force reserve rescue wing in Portland that trains constantly by mock rescues or simply flys to punch holes in the sky. They really love getting to do a real rescue. We are already paying for most city, state and federal people that participate in search and rescue. Are we supposed to pay them to be ready and then get charged when they have to actually do a rescue??
All of these agencies spend huge sums of money on equipment and training, our tax dollars. They should not be charging for actually providing a service.
Remember when you run off the road on ice and the Highway Patrol came and pulled you out, were you sent a bill? When you fell off a ladder and were knocked unconscious, did the city paramedics charge you for coming and checking you out?
What annoys me is a person saying mountain climbers should pay but not others who also take risks on the highways, at home whatever. If some fatcat that never took care of his health drops on the street with a heart attack, should the paramedics not come along because he took unnecessary risks?? Trust me, no matter what you do, you can come into need of some form of rescue.
From my experience, many that are responsible for rescue operations are not very capable of actually accomplishing them. No proper training, no experience and too many donuts along the way. We once were called to haul some sheriff folks from a canyon because they were in a "life and death situation". The truth was that they were out of shape, overweight and lazy. They had no problem hiking downhill, just could not get back up. As it happened the helicopter had a mechanical failure and crashed on that "rescue", one crewman lost a leg when trapped under the wreckage, one had a broken back and another minor burns. The Air Force was out a $25 million aircraft. Should we have charged the Sheriff's office for the medical, time off work and the helicopter??
We pay taxes to receive some services, whether it is better roads, law enforcement, fire protection, etc. When we fall off a mountain, we should get consideration also. Could have stayed home and been safe until an electrical short caused a fire and we had to be rescued by the fire department. Sure draw a line, but where?

I am of the mind that we all pay our share of taxes already. I can not see how some official agency doing their funded job really drives much additional cost. Helicopters fly training missions all the time, personal are on duty and so on. Maybe we should ground the birds and lock up the sheriff's office until they are needed then pay them for their services only, instead of paying for the flying club and the cruise to the coffee shop 365 days a year with our tax dollars.

YES! That is what should be done. Put it simple and blunt and people pay attention and do the smarter thing.

All those "Volunteers" need to be housed and fed, trucks need fuel, batteries are needed, disposable supplies are needed, ropes and webbing need to be replaced after so many uses or hard falls, personal and team gear gets damaged and needs to be replaced, etc..
What most don't realize is the high costs involved EVEN THOUGH the search team may be unpaid volunteers. Often paid LEO's are on overtime to be on scene, the regular shift staff is needed for routine duty.
As a former volunteer SAR team member who worked both as a field team leader, and a team logistics officer, I've been personally and directly involved in mission costs, and expenses in SAR missions, and often the $$$ amount involved would shock most people.

Hmm, I think there is a huge difference between paying for infrastructure improvements and support, vs paying for exclusive acts of a recreational nature.

I am not opposed to supporting the costs associated with keeping our country, our community, and our security intact and reasonably up to date. I am not thrilled about taking care of folks who go about their daily business and somehow end up in trouble. So long as they didn't cause the issue by being reckless, I can live with it.

What I don't cotton is when some meatball goes out and does something involving significant risk for no other reason than just because he wants to see if he can, and the rest of us foot the bill.

You are quite correct that life is full of risks. We all face our share every day. If in the course of going to work I should encounter conditions that would likely jeopardize my ability to proceed, and should I then be in need of assistance, that seems to be a justifiable reason to have someone on payroll able to render assistance. That is what will keep our society functioning through a crisis. People drop in the street all the time, regardless of their apparent condition. You can take all the precautions in the world, and you will still die someday. It is just as likely that a healthy person will drop in the street while the fatcat continues on his merry way, so I don't see how singling them out is relevent either. I would tend to conclude that those who don't take care of themselves are less prepared to deal with a physical crisis, but that is more an observatory conclusion.

Yes, I think we should've charged the Sheriff's office for that rescue. Not only were they delinquent, but their actions deliberately resulted in the destruction of government property and grave personal injury. Hopefully they will be held accountable on a negligent charge, as that is precisely what they were.

I don't care if it is falling off a mountain, crashing a motorbike, sinking a sailboat, or playing with matches in the garage. Reckless behavior ought to require individual accountability at some point, preferably before the fact. I am tired of paying for it.

As well, rescue services do cost a bit to get equipped up and kept functional through training and maintenance, again that is warranted to safegaurd against unavoidable malady. However, rescue operations also cost a lot of money, and if the rescue effort is based on needlessly reckless behavior, then I think those responsible for perpetrating the activity ought to pony up.

OBG, as for dealing with welfare fraud, you really don't want to get me started on that one, do you?

The least we can do is label reckless behavior for what it is. I would favor not charging people for rescue costs. However, going up Mt. Hood without the proper clothing or supplies in the middle of winter (and dying for it), or taking your dog (Black Lab!-not husky or bitter cold prepared dog) up the mountain in the middle of winter is a sign of cruelty and/or stupidity. I would bet that the poor dog had a cute bandana around it's neck as it layed on top of it's abusing humans to keep them warm. I vote - save their asses -then embarass and educate them and have them talk to school kids about their mistakes and misjudgments.

It is kind of like reimbursable services in law enforcement. A big tree falls down blocking a road, the local agency sends an officer to direct traffic, that is part of the job. A movie company wants to film on that same road, gets the required permits from the highway department, and pays the agency to send an officer, paying both the officers overtime (NOT an on duty officer, but one off duty), and so much per mile for the vehicle. Why? Because making movies on a public highway is not the "normal" use of the road, so the user has to pay for the governmental agency to provide the service.

As for the use of the military in civilian rescues, yes, they love to get involved in them. A real life civilian rescue is great training for their primary mission, real life military rescues. I had more than one Navy chopper land at a traffic accident, and ask if they could provide medical aid, "for the training." And that is why the Army sends its combat medics and doctors to Martin Luther King Hospital in L.A., lots of shooting and stabbing victims for them to train on, to prepare them for their primary mission, combat.

I still say, if a $5 item will just possibly help in your rescue, what does it hurt to take one along???

"... people pay attention and do the smarter thing..."

Some do, some don't. As you enter the Kern River Canyon, near Bakersfield, CA, there is a sigh saying how many people have drowned in that river (Meryl Haggard even made a song), yet every year more people go in and don't come out. But, since that place is a posted hazzard, survivers (there are a few, from time to time) should be charged for the cost of the rescue.

Signs are often ignored, but their presence can shift liability...

I guess it's not the $5 item aspect of it that bothers me, a Jet Scream whistle, Star Flash signal mirror or roll of orange surveyors tape all cost about $5 and can make the difference between getting found or not, it's the fact that the government will be making it a crime NOT to carry one that gets my goat.

I think it's a great idea to carry one when climbing and would encourage anyone who asked my opinion to do the same, but to make it the law? Do we really want to go down this road?

I mean sure, Hillary, Barak, Rudy and Mitt are all highly experienced climbers and outdoor survival experts, but after seeing the great progress they've all made on securing our borders, fixing public education, bringing down health care costs, etc., etc., I'm not so sure I want them or their local variety getting involved in this arena at all.

Again, you're right, it's cheap insurance but let's us who do this stuff and are passionate about it, police our own so big brother can handle the more "impotent" issues.

We pay for the military, the military likes to do rescue work... fine.

But those people in SAR who are slogging through the snow, in 80 mph winds, and low windchill temps, who are LOOKING for the fools so the Blackhawks can pick them up are usually not paid. From what I understand, they even have to foot the bill for their own equipment and much of the travel costs.

Why shouldn't the fools causing the problems for 'sport' foot at least part of the bill for their rescue? Then divide the money between the participating SAR teams.

BTW, insurance companies aren't likely to go for this kind of 'high risk' policies, because the only people who would buy it are the ones who would be likely to use it. Insurance companies are in the premium-collecting business, not the claim-paying business. Most types of polices are spread over a wide user base, and the insurance companies have calculated to the .000001 degree the likelihood of any premium holder causing the company to pay off. The many payers who never use the insurance are paying for the few who do. Joe and Jane Average aren't likely to be climbing Mt. Hood in the middle of winter with minimal gear, Joe and Jane know it, and they won't be buying the insurance, just to be paying for Bozo and BooBoo HiRisk to do it.

Sue

Hey, I know them!

We agree that making a new law is often not the way to solve anything. But if I recall correctly, the three who died on Mt Hood a few months ago were suppsed to be experienced climbers, maybe even passionate about it, yet they apparently didn't have one with them. So countless people hours and public dollars were spent trying to rescue them, to no avail. What are the other passionate climbers gonna do about that? Maybe, if they had carried that $5 gizmo, at least their families could have gotten the bodies back.

But I think that this topic has been beaten to death, no one is going to change their minds, so I'm not gonna play on this one anymore. Happy climbing...

Tossing my 2¢ worth...

1. I am fundamentally opposed to any and all "nanny state", "it's for your own good" laws on principal. As such, I also oppose mandatory seatbelt use laws, child car seat use laws, motorcycle helmet use laws, etc.

2. A wiser person than I stated "Survival favors the prepared..." This forum exists as a gathering place for those who agree with that statement. Not taking the advantage to be properly prepared invites a "less than optimum outcome".

3. An MLU would be a useless item if, as someone has stated, the authorities don't constantly monitor for signals. If that was in fact true, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

More later???

JimJr

Quite right, and if Bozo and Booboo could find someone to insure them, the premium would be atrociously high I am sure. This is why I recommended posting a bond instead. Bonds are pretty cool tools for this sort of thing. If Bozo and Booboo make it up the mountain and back without incident, the cost of the bond is relatively insignificant. If they get hosed, then the Bondsman pays whatever the rescue costs are up to the limits of the bond, and they pay him back the rest of their lives. I like that idea a lot. If Bozo and Booboo are rich, then they can forgo the bondsman and just put a big bag o' bucks in escrow with the SAR crew (maybe a little oversimplified, but I think the point is made).

This idea that the tax kitty is there as insurance for reckless and/or irresponsible behavior is a bad precedent, both for individuals and for groups. New Orleans is a prime example of this sort of thinking on a grand scale. It stinks.

Just for the sake of argument, child car seat laws are not "for your own good" laws, they are for the good of your child laws. Some can argue that if you do not want to buckle up or wear a helmet it is your life (I can come up with a pretty good argument to that too, but won't here). But you do not have the right to endanger any other person, 'specially a child...

I agree on requiring a locater beacon. I like the idea they are using on the bear containers (refundable deposit). Where I've got a problem is with the system they want to use. For less than two ounces more a PLB WILL cut down on the time. If the GPS can pick up enough satellites it also won't require triangulation to locate you. With the extra receivers that will be needed, the cost for the systems used in one rescue will probably be as much or more than a PLB. They could cut down on the expense by also operating as a dealer by selling PLB's & servicing them (replacement batteries at dealer price for the rental/loaner units).

I am not entering this debate, but I do want to correct what appear to be some misunderstandings you may have about PLBs.

You are correct that PLBs have proprietary batteries. Some PLBs do have user exchangeable batteries. In either case, it's really irrelevant. The batteries in PLBs are lithium based with a 10+ year functional life. They typically have a 5-year service interval in keeping with the conservative nature of the industry, though in most cases I expect by the time you need to replace the battery, you'll probably just purchase a cheaper, smaller, lighter PLB. PLBs also include a self test feature and the latest PLBs check that the batteries have not been discharged beyond a set limit that ensure they will still meet their transmission specs at the end of battery life.

Your comments regarding reliability are simply unsupported by fact. Compared to any other signaling device, 406 MHz distress beacons, including PLBs, are simply the most reliable means of declaring distress and summoning help, far more so than a cell phone or sat phone which have much more significant operating limitations. In many scenarios where a cell or sat phone may not work, a PLB will get a signal out and provide distress alerting and location.

I still cannot justify the cost of a PLB. I think the concept is very good, great in fact. I also think it should take standard lithium batteries, be more water resistant and as a limited radio transmitter, cost much less than it currently does.
I wish James Kim had one along when he ventured off the Interstate. Myself, I will stick with amatuer radio, cell phones and perhaps rent a sat phone if I wonder way off the beaten path.
I do not see any debate here really, just a few good folks with some differnt perspectives on the beacon issue being proposed in Oregon. I appreciate your opinion on the PLB issues and they are certainly a move forward in wilderness emergency location. They are just not the ultimate safety answer for all who venture into the wilderness, just one potential option with some limitations that could be overcome.
If you continue your efforts perhaps someday they will be less expensive, take standard lithium batteries and become more durable. I think we would all appreciate some improvements, beyond the recently intoduced models of PLBs.

The problem with taking standard batteries is that they aren't very good. Even the lithiums. The reason for this is they are designed as a series of compromises and are limited by the need to be, basically, backwards compatable. That limits your size, and your output levels.

You COULD make a AA-sized battery that puts out MUCH higher current, but no one WILL make it for liability and standardization reasons. It would be fairly easy to develop a CR123 replacement within the AA size envelope, but they won't for the issues I mentioned above. You could make D-sized battery that didn't suck, but no one will for the same reason. That is why your higher perfmance batteries (CR123, CR2, et al) are funny sizes. (Don't ask me why the N and A23, and certain watch batteries, are the same size. Those are the screw ball exceptions.)

When you have a propritary battery back on something that is basically a one use device, it lets you make the battery that is optimal for that device. That means you can get more power for your volume and mass. I've never taken a PLB apart, but you could practically wrap it around the components, reducing waisted bulk.

It also keeps you from thiefing it to power your MP3 player or any such silliness- people do stupid stuff, don't say you'll never do it, because every single person here has put thier back up batteries in a non-esential device, or spent thier emergency $20 on fast food when they didn't have other cash, or pulled some of the bug-in gas off for the lawn mower and didn't replace it right away. We've all done it, it's called being human.

I'm a back-ups to my back-ups kinda guy. Were I to go for a walk on Mt Hood I'd take the MLU, my Garmin Geko 301 (baro altimeter), cell phone and a PLB if DR can arrange an attractive group buy. Add up the weight of all that and it's still not that much additional weight. With any luck the guys monitoring the PLB will call my cell phone to check, and I'll give them a current position and elevation off my GPS Don't get stuck on either/or questions. If you have the $$$ to buy a PLB, $5 for an MLU rental is buried in the noise.

Well, I really cannot allow that comment to stand without a response as it implies that existing PLBs are somehow deficient in durability, which I do not believe is supported by the facts.

I always find it interesting that every electronics manufacturer (not an existing beacon manufacturer) who has come to me and thought they could produce a less expensive PLB, smaller PLB, etc., etc., has discovered it's a lot more difficult and expensive than they figured. I am still waiting for one of them to come through. <g>

After a few years working on the standards that govern these beacons, I have a better understanding why this is so. PLBs will get less expensive and smaller and lighter as the technology available allows, but reliably transmitting to a satellite in orbit 22,000 miles up is a lot more difficult than you might think. Add a GPS receiver to the equation that has to operate while the beacon is transmitting on 121.5 MHz homing frequency and it adds to the design problems.

The idea that you could use "standard lithium batteries," assuming you mean something you can buy off the shelf in a local store, while still meeting the tough standards and design criteria to produce a competitive product, reducing size and weight and all the rest, is pretty far fetched. Actually, to a degree what they all use are standard cells, just not what you can buy at the local store, and they are assembled into the battery package that works for any particular beacon. A package in which the power supplied is only one design factor, and often not the most critical. That's one way costs are kept down. Military beacons get more exotic batteries, not necessarily "standard," and they pay for it in much higher costs. It's one of those things that on the surface seems to be so easy, but really is not. And, unlike the issue with selling razor blades, there's little financial benefit to a company having a proprietary battery, they don't make much, if anything, on replacement batteries since they don't sell many and the service life is so long anyway. With the reduction in size and weight and price, people just go out a get a new beacon. Most I have spoken with in the business would love to not be in that business, at least with regards PLBs, it's just an expensive customer service nightmare PITA for them. Standard batteries would solve that problem, but they are not very practical for PLBs for a host of reasons. Wishing for lower cost beacons is one thing; wishing for something irrelevant and unimportant in the grand scheme of things like this, that's losing sight of what's important, which is saving lives.

As for the rest, I think the proposed standards are plenty for most circumstances. The latest ACR PLB is waterproof up to 16 ft (5 m) for one hour and 33 ft (10 m) for ten minutes. How much more waterproof, (always at greater expense in both cost and likely weight and size) would you want it, and how would that benefit the typical end user backpacker, climber, boater, etc.? PLBs are already required to withstand six drops from a height of 1 meter after cold soaked to -30 degrees or -40 degrees C (depending upon class). That's pretty cold for plastic and electronics to withstand impact forces. Given that gravity accelerates it at 10 meters/sec/sec and the force goes up at the square of the speed (if memory serves me correct), which means a even slightly higher standard requires significantly more hardening at ever increasing cost, weight and such, how much more hardened do you want it? ELTs have to survive 40 Gz and a lot more abuse, but they are lots heavier and much more expensive in part because of that requirement. It already far exceeds a cell phone or sat phone or most any other piece of typical consumer electronic gear in these regards.

Leading (and often bleeding) edge technology military beacons are available that are smaller and much tougher, but they also are 8-10 times more expensive and there isn't the economies of scale necessary to bring that technology to the mass market at this point. What we are seeing today was bleeding edge tech 5 years ago and has benefited from things like cell phone technology in digital electronics design, so it does trickle down eventually.

We spend a good deal of time in these committees arguing over where to draw the line on standards, what's good enough, at what point do you reach diminishing returns or is it counter productive? There is rarely a free lunch, though sometimes technology provides for a means to do better without a increase in cost, and that's one reason such standards are reviewed on a regular basis, so when technologically it can be made "better" without adverse impact we can raise the bar. However, the bottom line is always that anything that increases cost reduces the number of beacons in the hands of end users and anything that makes it less expensive increases the number of beacons out there and that translates into more lives saved. It always a balancing act.

We also have to design standards that actually ensure the product will reliably save lives. Some standards that have existed could be met with a design that wouldn't work worth a damn in the real world. If the goal was just to produce a low cost beacon, a company who might be located someplace where saving lives isn't part of the corporate or societal culture could design a lower cost beacon that would pass a standard, but might not save lives. What is the advantage of that? This is a real problem in some lifesaving gear (not yet for PLBs per se).

Anyway, I have rambled on long enough. Just want to ensure anyone reading this thread doesn't come away thinking that PLBs aren't capable within reason or that there's no thought given to these issues or that the solutions are as easy to accomplish as they are to suggest. I don't know any company in the business who isn't trying their utmost to make their beacons smaller, better and/or cheaper, or preferably a combination of these features.

I am a beacon manufacturer (ACR) and thought I would insert a couple of comments that are general in nature.

Doug is spot on with his comments on batteries. Also, in an emergency, if you have a cell phone/GPS, Sat phone, and PLB, the only device you can rely on is a PLB. I read somewhere in this thread that

"There are also many instances when boats and planes go down and no signal is ever received."

Planes, yes; especially older C91a ELTs. Boats? I know of two instances in nearly twenty years where a 406 MHz EPIRB has failed to activate when deployed, and one was recent where the EPIRB deployed and was sucked into the boat by a Scupper Vent and went down with the vessel... The problem with ELTs and planes is the speed with wich many planes come in contact with the earth... and not relevant to a PLB discussion.

Secondly, and I'm not sure this is totally rellevant, but there is a place where they turn a blind eye to standards and where price is the primary motivating factor for safety equipment: Australia. In Australia 121.5 EPIRBs can still be purchased for around A$160.00. They are rotten EPIRBs. Most allow the use of off-the-shelf C or D batteries. In 1998 the Sydney - Hobart race resulted in the loss of 6 sailors lives, 55 people rescued from sailboats, 5 boats sank and 66 boats retired out of the 115 starters when multiple storms merged on the race. http://www.ussailing.org/safety/Studies/1998_sydney_hobart.htm

The interesting part is every single one of the boats in the race had an EPIRB. In short, the cheap Aussy beacons didn't work. By the way, the Australian's play loose with all the standards; life rafts, PFDs, etc. They've taken the "let's make it cheap so more people will have safety equipment" philosophy to the point where the safety equipment is practically worthless. Now today the Sydney-Hobart race organizers require all participants to carry 406 MHz EPIRBs, (see point 3 in the above link). Unfortunately, their government is doing everything within its power to loosen the standards on 406 transmitters--so beacons can be made cheaper. Their logic: 406 is too good. If we relax the standards 406 will still be better than the 121.5 beacons that failed.

The bottom line here is that we are a "for profit" company and if we could sell more beacons we would like that. If we could make them cheaper without sacrificing performance and quality, then we would do that...And We Are! PLB prices are coming down. Performance is going up and their size is getting smaller, so stay tuned.

Thanks.

IMHO - I have come to some conclusions about PLB's and survival forums. This is based on 38 years of discussion with my retail customers face-to-face and on line.

1. The market for the ACR PLB's is for outdoor individuals that take their safety seriously.

2. Negative comments about PLB's almost always include the word "cost" or "cheap".

3. Survival forums are not frequented by individuals buying high end products such as PLB's.

4. The ACR406 PLB-300 products are as close to perfect as a victim could wish for.