Oregon may require locator beacons for Mt. Hood expeditionsThe recent death and disappearance of three climbers on Oregon's 11,249-foot Mt. Hood has revived debate about requiring mountaineers to carry personal locator beacons on the mountain.http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/outposts/2009/12/mt-hood-locator-beacons.html
That sure makes sense to me.
Anyone know exactly what devices would be considered an acceptable locater beacon? Do the lower cost devices, like the Spot or Spot 2, qualify?
Based upon news accounts I've read, the devices are rented for as little as $5, so my hunch is that is for either a Spot ($100 MSRP) or the Spot 2($150 MSRP).
That sure makes sense to me.
Please tell us you're kidding.
Bob R wouldn't that be a help to SAR. Curious on your perspective. Is that too much governmental intervention into an adventurers freedom? I can see both sides. Especially when Mt. Hood has been such a death trap for those heading into well forecasted storms.
Okay, read the blog...
1. PLBs: Good idea? Electronic things do fail, then what?
2. I suggest electrodes to the brain. When brain detects imminent danger, signal transmitted to basecamp of some loved ones. "Danger, Danger, Danger! Proceed?" "Hell no! get your butt off the mountain. Climb later when weather is more nicer." "No way. Type T behavior wanting more. Hitting override button. Gotta summit the Hood!" "Life insurance cover mountaineering accidents?" "Affirmative." "You are on your own, pal. Hope you brought along extra batteries."
Just my opinion.
Happy Holidays!
I think it's a horrible idea, I value personal liberty to the point I wont even own a cell phone because it can be used as a locator, if things like that became mandatory, it's one psychological step away from accepting mandatory Verichips for every person.
Now I wouldn't mind if the ranger stations offered either for rent or for free locator beacons that are voluntary, people have the right to choose and I think people have the right to put their own lives in any level of danger because well it's our lives right? I guess people argue that if I die some where that someone has to pay to remove my body, can't I just sign a form saying no one has to? if I died on a mountain especially one as beautiful as Hood I would want my body to be left up there.
I suppose from the libertarian view point, we shouldn't require those things. Of course, I feel the same way about motorcycle helmets and seat belts; even helmets for kids on bicycles. Heck, I'd even vote to drop the fines for speeding tickets to something like $25 so the two-wheeled tax collectors could find better work.
But for the missing climbers families, they may be wishing their lost loved ones had been carrying SOMETHING that could have helped to find them.
Bob, I'd like to hear a little more than those few words why you feel that way.
Please tell us you're kidding.
I agree with Bob. I don't want the Forest service or anyone else tracking my every move in the wilderness.
If they require you to carry a beacon, next they will fine you if your beacon shows you left the trail, cut a switchback or entered the wilderness 2 hours before your permit allowed. Who knows, maybe they will make you swallow a transmitter so they can find out if you actually used your wagbag or not......
More importantly, it gives people a false sense of security and may lead people to make choices they would not if they didn't have the beacon.
But for the missing climbers families, they may be wishing their lost loved ones had been carrying SOMETHING that could have helped to find them.
It still falls down to personal choice, it's a bit much to say our families should have more control of our lives then we have, when it comes to family the debate is better left there.
Hikehigh is also correct in saying it opens the door for other actions, your beacon will undoubtedly be connected to your permit which could create all sorts of problems, an example is a hike I was on last summer, I was heading for the Whitney zone to resupply and double back but was forced to turn around and make a new route out off the mountains, the permit laws allow you to leave the wilderness for no more then 24 hours before you re-enter or you have to get a new permit, although I was on schedule on my permit by the time I was able to get to the Whitney zone I had been officially out of the wilderness for almost 48 hours, and what are the odds of me actually being able to get a permit to enter the Whitney Zone?
Most of the people I know who carry a SPOT device do so at the insistance of their family (mine was a birthday gift)But, you want to know the REAL deterrent that guards me from making conscious foolish mistakes on the mountain? It's the tabloid nature of these message boards -- I can hardly stand my picture to be taken, much less, the thought of having the gory details of some stupid mishap that I may experience posted over and over and OVER again
I did a quick Google search on locator beacons, and read this at
http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/emerbcns.html. Wouldn't much of the same logic apply to climbers on some of the more dangerous mountains, especially the impact on SAR personnel? Haven't there been several SAR serious injury/deaths on Hood in recent years?
"Presently, most aircraft operators are mandated to carry an ELT and have the option to choose between either a 121.5 MHz ELT or a 406 MHz ELT. The Federal Aviation Administration has studied the issue of mandating carriage of 406 MHz ELTs. The study indicates that 134 extra lives and millions of dollars in SAR resources could be saved per year. The only problem is that 406 MHz ELTs currently cost about $1,500 and 121.5 MHz ELTs cost around $500. It's easy to see one reason for the cost differential when you look at the numbers.However, no one can argue the importance of 406 MHz ELTs and the significant advantages they hold."
As for PLB's encouraging people to hike and climb beyond their limits - I'm not particularly persuaded by that point of view. Every advance in clothing and gear is met with some resistance, often citing this very reason, but ... the evidence seems to indicate that injuries/deaths decrease overall, anecdotal stories notwithstanding.
There are personal freedom issues, however, as Steve C. points out. Weighing the benefits to society (i.e., family, SAR, etc) vs. personal liberties is a thorny one.
Great information Kevin. I agree it is a slippery slope and the issues of personal freedom weighs heavily in the discusion. So does personal responsibilty.With that said accidents happen.SARs do have to be performed at great expense.Some SARs are not successful in either getting to a person that is alive in time or even locating the body for the family.
I took this little portion of info from Kevins articles.
Prior to July 1st, 2003 only residents of Alaska had been able to use PLBs. The Alaska PLB Program was set up to test the capabilities of PLBs and their potential impact on SAR resources. Since March of 1995, the experiment proved very successful and helped save nearly 400 lives while generating only a few false alerts. The success of the Alaska PLB program undoubtedly paved the way for nationwide usage of these devices.
I'm not sure I understand the opposition. The argument that we like to preserve the right to make stupid decisions?
I don't like stop signs, but after a bunch of fatal accidents at a particular intersection, I say, put in a stop sign. Does that mean I favor stop signs at ALL intersections? No.
We have a hell of a lot of mountains in America. I don't see happening, what I see happen repeatedly on Mt Hood, year after year. They appear to have a problem. They are trying to find solutions to the problem, that we do NOT have on Whitney.
I suppose it comes down to whether one prefers to PREVENT heart attacks, or TREAT heart attacks.
The PLB's currently on the market do NOT track one's movement (unless one sets up the SPOT to do that.) You cannot track someone with a cell phone (unless you make the decision to turn it on). You have to activate the PLB's for them to do ANYTHING.
"Take the SEARCH, out of Search And Rescue".
However, the legitimate issue for me, is would the use of PLB's save lives? If it did, it seems straightforward. If it was only useful for recoveries, I'd say no. I've got to look at the Alaska experience and see what that says.
http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/akplb.htmlhttp://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/emerbcns.htmlHmm, the Alaska experience is interesting. When you think about it, they are primarily interested in people who live and work in the harshest environment. When we recreate in such areas, we are the briefest of visitors, who have only minor knowledge, compared to residents.
Norman Clyde might have been one who crossed that boundary in our Sierra. George Durkee would be a modern equivalent. It seems that such people are constantly disappointed in what us visitors do and think about the places in which we are brief visitors.
Bob, I'd like to hear a little more than those few words why you feel that way.
There are two parts to my answer.
First, it's the idea of a broad-brush reaction to a problem that barely exists. Every year, about 10,000 people climb Mt. Hood, with an average of 1.3 dying from all causes. Comparing the deaths from falling and avalanches to those who go astray, what small fraction of that 0.00013 would have been saved with PLBs?
Regarding SAR fatalities on Mt. Hood: Apparently
one, in the early '90s, an avalanche victim.
Other technology such as transceivers and helmets can ameliorate risk, too, and behavior can as well; but again the fractions are miniscule. Common sense can go a long way to keeping it that way. Don't mandate them.
We all assess risks, and act accordingly. I eschew some technology and conventional wisdom that would arguably make me safer, because it gives me the freedom I so enjoy. My decision. By the way, my wife accepted long ago that I will probably die up there. But she knows what I get out of mountaineering, supports it one hundred percent, and our family is stronger because of my passion and immersion in it. She sleeps well at night.
So the second part is about what Helen Keller said:
"Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature,
nor do the children of men as a whole experience it.
Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure.
Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing."
I'm not sure I understand the opposition. The argument that we like to preserve the right to make stupid decisions?
Exactly, to argue that point you could argue banning the right to make any stupid decision such as eating food that is bad for you.
I do know that PLBs do not track you, they are quite different then an RFID system but I still am against mandatory use, I live by the old standard of never give an inch because tomorrow they will want the rest.
I'm not vested in the outcome at to whether locator beacons will be required since I figure that if they do become a requirement and I develop a strong opinion against using them, it would be a simple matter to make them inoperable by inserting the batteries incorrectly.
While I don't have a strong opinion on locator beacons, I do regarding the ferocity of weather systems in the northern Cascades due to their latitude, proximity to the ocean, and weather patterns. I've been in some weather on Hood where I've wondered about the wisdom of walking from the parking lot up to Timberline Lodge, and can only speculate what it might be like 3K' higher.
I'm no expert on cell phone technology and their "tracking" capability, particularly since that technology evolves rapidly. However, at a bare minimum, your carrier "knows" where your cell phone is, at least to the nearest tower, as that's the way calls to your cell phone are resolved. And, my hunch is Admiral Poindexter has access to it as well if he so chooses. Who else does I can only speculate.
Finally - the quote from Helen Keller is one to ponder, at least briefly, for me. Where I begin to trip is her use of "danger", almost as an absolute, when in practice danger is relative. Without a detailed explanation as to how she uses the word I'm left rather frustrated by her actual meaning. Obviously, YMMV.
I'm not vested in the outcome at to whether locator beacons will be required since I figure that if they do become a requirement and I develop a strong opinion against using them, it would be a simple matter to make them inoperable by inserting the batteries incorrectly.
None of the current locator beacons transmit while being carried in the backcountry until you decide there is an emergency and turn it on. For PLBs the turn on is interpreted as the request for rescue. Higher priced PLBs can send out your GPS location when they are turned on. Once started, PLBs emit a locator signal for 24 hours. The Mt Hood MLBs are also carried inactivated. Activating the beacon does not start a search. A call of some kind is required to start a search. The start of a search does not turn on the beacon, the person carrying it must do that.
The SPOT unit is not a locator beacon. It is a signaling device. It operates in the mode set by the user (including OFF). It can send out your GPS location if you choose. It also has message types to signal request for different levels of assistance.
...
I'm no expert on cell phone technology and their "tracking" capability, particularly since that technology evolves rapidly. However, at a bare minimum, your carrier "knows" where your cell phone is, at least to the nearest tower, as that's the way calls to your cell phone are resolved. And, my hunch is Admiral Poindexter has access to it as well if he so chooses. Who else does I can only speculate.
...
Cell phones only transmit and become locatable when you tern them on. In backcountry areas without reception, many people choose to carry the phones turned off to preserve battery life. With some systems you can expect shorter battery life in areas at the edge of coverage than you achieve in cities. Where there is no coverage there is no tracking even if the cell phone is on.
Whatever device you might carry or why you might carry it, there is not transmission until you choose to activate it. The only candidate for required carry is carried unpowered until you want someone to be able to find you and even then the activation does not trigger a search.
The Alaska experience with PLBs is an interesting case. Devices have been used on all means of transportation including airplanes, boats and snowmobiles and by hunters, fishermen and anyone traveling in remote areas, not just mountaineers. It's a lot like the auto club except for the paid service providers.
Dale B. Dalrymple
http://dbdimages.com
Are we going the way of the former Soviet Union, which had government mandated mountaineering courses to qualify students as "Master of Sport" before to allowing them to climb the hard stuff?
The idea of a Nanny government doesn't sit well with me. Unfortunately...
Are we going the way of the former Soviet Union, which had government mandated mountaineering courses to qualify students as "Master of Sport" before to allowing them to climb the hard stuff?
We're not going that way, they provided government support to the expeditions for their qualified Masters.
The idea of a Nanny government doesn't sit well with me. Unfortunately...
Worse than that, even the non-profits are into it. I understand that the US Olympic committee only allows those who have passed 'qualification' to participate in the 'hard stuff' every four years.
Dale B. Dalrymple
http://dbdimages.com
Are we going the way of the former Soviet Union, which had government mandated mountaineering courses to qualify students as "Master of Sport" before to allowing them to climb the hard stuff?
We're not going that way, they provided government support to the expeditions for their qualified Masters.
The idea of a Nanny government doesn't sit well with me. Unfortunately...
Worse than that, even the non-profits are into it. I understand that the US Olympic committee only allows those who have passed 'qualification' to participate in the 'hard stuff' every four years.
Ah, but Dale, they were good at dominating the Olympics too! In fact, if the USA wins the most gold medals, we are literally going the way of the old USSR.
Seriously, I don't see this action by the Oregon Legislature sending us down the USSR road. And if you want a nanny state, check out Texas. A couple of weeks back, a 4-year old was booted out of school in the Dallas area because his hair was too long. Now only a nanny would do that!
Speaking of the Olympics, I can't resist sending a couple of quotes. The first, from Baron Pierre de Coubertin, in 1908:
"The important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part,
the important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing
is not to have conquered but to have fought well. To spread these precepts
is to build up a stronger and more valiant and, above all, more scrupulous
and more generous humanity."
And the second, from the US Olympic Committee Overview Commission, in 1989:
"Winning medals must always be the primary goal."
It seems that with the Olympics and the Soviet Union coming into the discussion, this topic is migrating toward Chat Room quality. So I feel ok writing more...
> Winning medals must always be the primary goal
Seems to be the sentiment more than ever these days: All for the winner, nothing for anyone else. Just ask those Big Banks how they justify their top exec salaries.
But back to the topic at hand: Citing Slippery Slope / Camel's Nose / Thin-end-of-the-wedge / Give-em-an-inch... arguments is using logical fallacy to make a point.
Regardless, I am sure we will see more and more rescues (or recoveries) aided by locator beacons or gps signaling devices.
... Regardless, I am sure we will see more and more rescues (or recoveries) aided by locator beacons or gps signaling devices.
I think that's a safe bet.
... Regardless, I am sure we will see more and more rescues (or recoveries) aided by locator beacons or gps signaling devices.
I think that's a safe bet.
Sure seems like a safe bet. I can understand objections to being forced to carry beacons (or almost anything else). I can certainly understand an aversion to people using these devices for no good reason -- pushing the rescue button for the equivalent of a stubbed toe. I have more trouble with objections to the devices themselves. It sure seems like they will end up saving a lot of SAR time and effort in cases where SAR is truly necessary. At least that's how I hope it turns out.
I don't doubt at all that more lives would be saved, it's practically a certainty, but liberty is more important than life, and I have to respect the choices people make for themselves, if you enter the mountains without a safety line you are making the decision to accept death if you find yourself in a situation you cannot get out of alone, for all my care of people I cannot force a choice upon them, you can always recommend a course of action but no matter if it is from complete stupidity the choices some make I still will let them walk that path.
When it comes to people that love you well they made that decision, they choose death over rescue in disregard for their families and that is a matter that is none of my business.
When it comes to cost of looking for or rescuing someone, perhaps we could sign a form that clearly states if you go missing no SAR operations will be conducted.
I cannot pass up an opportunity to insert a Benjamin Franklin quote -- one of my favorites:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" -- Benjamin Franklin
I've been watching this topic without comment for a while and can understand both sides of the argument. It would be great if Oregon (and Washington) could just blow off the SAR for those taking excessive risks on these ultra-dangerous mountains - sorting the fools out, as Bee suggests - but we all know that will never happen. Anyone missing or in trouble in the wilderness is going to be searched for, regardless of how they wound up in that situation. Signing a waiver wouldn't stop that - it's just not how government agencies work.
I've spent time hiking some of the big boys in the PNW - Rainier, Hood, Baker and Adams - and I can personally attest that they are in a different league than most of the trails I've hiked over the years in the Sierra or Rockies. Aside from the fact that they are glaciated, which increases the You're-Gonna-Die factor substantially, the weather is just brutal. The day I did a section hike of the PCT on Hood - just above Timberline Lodge at about 8500 feet - was the scariest hike of my life. It started out in traditional PNW fog/mist (I've yet to actually see Mt. Hood in all its glory), then turned into sleet, snow and howling winds - while still remaining foggy! At no point during the hike was I able to see more than 60-70 yards ahead. Also, this was in mid-September. Two days before this I was enjoying a hot, clear hike on the Fremont Lookout trail of Mt. Rainier, which was one of the most beautiful treks I've ever taken. A day before that, I was hiking in cold, foggy mist on Mt. Baker. The last day of my trip I returned to Rainier - where it was warm and beautiful a few days before - and I couldn't even get to the trailhead at Paradise because almost a foot of snow had fallen the night before.
What I took away from that hiking trip was that the Cascades are a different breed of animal. ""Good weather" is a very relative term in that part of the country, and I was always below the snowline (which is ridiculously low compared to the Sierra or Rockies). Visbility constantly sucked, and I never knew from one day to the next what Mother Nature was going to throw at me. Again, this was September - theoretically one of the two or three best weather months of the year for that part of the country. I'm not sure what the annual weather statistics are for Hood, but Mt. Rainier averages about 500 inches of snow per year. Think about that. An average, run-of-the-mill year brings over 40 feet of snow to that mountain. The year I was there (2008), it was over 1000 inches - and that was not a record.
Having experienced 9 hiking days of the PNW's "good" weather, I have a healthy respect for what winter mountaineering must be like on Hood and others in Oregon and Washington. I personally would not like to be mandated to wear a PLB if I was heading up Hood in the winter (completely theoretical, 'cuz it's never gonna happen), but I have the greatest empathy for what SAR personnel must have to go through on those mountains in winter.
BobR, I have taken a considerable amount of time to respond to your post, as I wanted to give it deep consideration.
My tendency is to defer to the SAR experts, but people who are intimately involved in things occasionally get "group think" on a topic, so I would explore a little further.
I think your points about the number of deaths of climbers and SAR have great merit, although deaths of either is unfortunate.
I have been profoundly impressed by the SAR people in the marine environment, who have made their jobs tremendously simpler, through the use of technology. Their point, of making the process simpler, seems to have merit. Their popular phrase is "take the SEARCH out of Search and Rescue".
I would grant that the number of lives saved would be small. (although some would argue, what is that worth?) However, the amount of effort involved in the typical winter SAR in bad weather, would seem to be hugely simplified, if you knew where the person was.
However, the marine and mountain environments are very different, and what applies to one, may have no relevance to the other.
Hmmm. Seems like much of this is missing the point. The risk for the climbers is not hugely relevant. Everyone here is right, the much cherished right to get hurt or even be stupid is still intact. It's the risk to the SAR people -- their right NOT to get hurt or injured trumps everything else. As was noted above, someone is going to come to find you, that's just the way it works. Anything that helps pinpoint the location of someone in trouble is a major help to a SAR and reduces the risk to the people responding.
I'm still mulling over the use of PLBs or SPOT devices in general, but Mt. Hood in winter (or Rainier etc), which is the only place this is proposed as a requirement, is a special case. The problems have been in having no clue where the person is because they're buried by snow but, not inconceivably, in a snow cave and quite possibly alive. Narrowing a search area and looking for clues is the most frustrating thing about a search. I'm definitely not convinced that because "only" one SAR person had died there that requiring locator beacons is not justified. If ANY SAR team injury or death can be prevented by a pretty simple gizmo, then I'm for it.
Arguably, having a winter ranger hand you the thing and giving you explicit instruction on how and when to use it as well as what may or may not happen when you do so, seems like a major improvement over just pulling it out of a box, tossing the instructions and heading off to the mountain.
Hmmmm. Too much thinking: I'll spin this a step further, before you even carry one of these things on your own, you've got to listen to a short pep talk on respective responsibilities: yours and the agency who may come to look for you. That would even be a question when getting your permit -- do you have a PLB or SPOT device with you?
Some of you might also remember the case of the kids who dug in in the mid-80s. Nine people died -- including 7 kids. Since time was lost trying to locate them, I think some might have been saved had a beacon been in use.
George
I disagree on that point because just as we take the risks to go into the mountains SAR personnel accept and take the risk of getting injured or killed to go and look for people.
Across the whole spectrum of jobs and activities, "if your not willing to die, don't do it".
I disagree on that point because just as we take the risks to go into the mountains SAR personnel accept and take the risk of getting injured or killed to go and look for people.
Across the whole spectrum of jobs and activities, "if your not willing to die, don't do it".
Well, let's see. My main point remains that the risk is reduced by carrying a tracking/signaling gizmo. Surely we can agree that, even for manly SAR people who "accept" the risk of dying, a reduced risk is better than a greater risk... .
But I also strongly disagree with your "not willing to die, don't do it." I have been on an uncomfortable number of body recoveries over the years -- for both friends & co-workers and visitors. For me, there is absolutely no romance or comfort in the oft-used rationalizations that the person "knew the risks" or "died doing what he loved." You've still got a bloody rag-doll body, bones or whatever; a grieving family and friends; and, not to get too heavy, an emptiness that follows you forever.
Again, anything that reduces that risk is a darned fine idea by me... .
g.
I acknowledge that people don't think of such realities so plainly, I don't think anyone really gets into a car thinking I accept that I am engaging in an extremely dangerous activity to get me some where faster and I am lazy enough or have urgency enough that I accept my fate shall it come to me.
I don't engage the notion of family grievance because sure anger comes to mind for me, the thought of the consideration of what my family "might" feel and that my rights should be taken from me more or less by them involuntarily is very angering, now I admit that I have no family which I love or have any connection to at all so I regard my life very personally, but I am far from a selfish person, in fact I live in misery because I am just the opposite, but should I actually have someone be it family or not that I care for and they care for me I would carry a PLB for their sake, but as I said before that is my choice and one I make for myself and those I would love, to force a choice to be made for me or anyone else crosses a line that shouldn't be crossed, in fact I feel doing so takes us yet another step further back in an evolutionary standard of moral or enlightened living within a societal structure, and yes I am making a point that spans the whole spectrum of the concept of a nanny state but any transgression into our lives must be taken into consideration on a larger scale because of where it might lead and what effects it may ultimately have on us and the lives of others such as has been mentioned about clouding our judgement and growth in proper skills because of false security.
These days it hardly is a joke anymore in saying if you don't commit a felony before breakfast your doing good, we don't need more laws we need people to learn to take care of them selves!
And once again with SAR I disagree because you may say someone is going to come looking for you, that is just how it works but as far as I know it's not the law that anyone must come and it certainly is reasonable to tell someone not to come and that you don't want help and I question the merit of someone that loves you that has no respect for your personal decisions.
. . . now I admit that I have no family which I love or have any connection to at all so I regard my life very personally, but I am far from a selfish person, in fact I live in misery because I am just the opposite . . .
Dude, it ain't Ozzie and Harriett, but you have a "family" here.
As was noted above, someone is going to come to find you, that's just the way it works. Anything that helps pinpoint the location of someone in trouble is a major help to a SAR and reduces the risk to the people responding.
And anything that unnecessarily sends SAR teams in
increases the risk to the people responding. Here is something that is currently making the rounds of the mountain rescue community:
"Yuppie 911" The link was sent to us by Matt Scharper, Deputy Chief State SAR coordinator, Office of Emergency Services, Sacramento.
He is quoted in the article with "There's controversy over these devices in the first place because it removes the self-sufficiency that's required in the backcountry. With the Yuppie 911, you send a message to a satellite and the government pulls your butt out of something you shouldn't have been in in the first place."
In his email, he added "There have been various reports of sporting goods stores in California marketing PLB's and SPOT's in place of avalanche transceivers."
-----
"If you build it, they will misuse it." (Apologies to
Ray Kinsella.)
Over the holidays I watched a rerun of one of the old black and white Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes movies. The cursed pearl is stolen from a museum protected by a new high tech security system. After the usual sequence of murders and the recovery of the pearl, the good doctor asked Holmes how the security system had been supposed to work. The response was:
"Electricity, Watson, the new high priestess of false security."
Dale B. Dalrymple
"There have been various reports of sporting goods stores in California marketing PLB's and SPOT's in place of avalanche transceivers."
Why do I find such a statement, on a politically hot topic, by a government employee, problematic. The smartest govt operatives spread the rumors to a tight group, who actually do the spreading to the public.
"CLMRG has had various reports of links to Al Queda". Please prove this statement is not true.
Maybe we are going the way of the Soviets........
And anything that unnecessarily sends SAR teams in increases the risk to the people responding. Here is something that is currently making the rounds of the mountain rescue community: "Yuppie 911"
The link was sent to us by Matt Scharper, Deputy Chief State SAR coordinator, Office of Emergency Services, Sacramento.
Hmmmm again. Yes, that's a good point and, if looked at strictly from a statistical evaluation, it's not impossible that the risk to SAR people is increased from an increase in (bogus) responses vs. the benefit of risk being reduced by narrowing the search area and the time in the field, as well as the number of teams and flights that respond. In spite of several very hyped unnecessary activations, I'd say there isn't enough data to make a determination. I actually talked to a tech today at GEOS/SPOT response center and asked if he had an estimate of bogus activations. He said they're very few.
Also, such an evaluation would make my head hurt. They're two different groups: people who really need help and people who don't. We're still in the early stages of these gizmos and, with luck, will figure out some way of reducing their unnecessary use.
Although the "Yuppie 911" quip is pretty good, it's definitely not a yuppie thing. In my experience, all age groups and income levels have been misusing them (I speak here as a slightly offended member of the Yuppie cohort, though not income...). As such, I prefer "mommy button."
g.