Mt Whitney Zone Forums General Discussion PLB / SPOT / Delorme / Sat Phone

A couple counter points, Bee. Solo explorers might typically wander only a mile from a trail, but there are many peaks, gullies, and other formations along most trails. So a good itinerary may constrain the search within a 2-mile corridor (1-mile either way), but it could still be many square miles to search. And there's still a chance that a major route deviation occurred. A transmitter sending location data regularly would narrow it down very precisely. However, in the case of a sudden lethal fall, a PLB wouldn't help if the hiker isn't able to operate it.

Bee,

Like people at Mt. Whitney, things can be done stupidly and 99% of the time they turn out ok. It's the 1% that gets'ya.

I had a person glissade past me on Mt. Baldy with crampons on and the axe in a total weird postion. She got to the bottom without any injury. You can "wander" and not have any problems 99% of the time but if you step on a floating rock and break an ankle in a canyon that see little to no traffic, you are going to be in trouble...even with a SPOT. I severely sprained ankle doing just that last summer. I was with someone but if I broke and was by myself, I would have been screwed...big time. This is why I do not vary off an itinerary when I am by myself.

In light of the recent death on Mt. Whitney perhaps this topic is worth re-consideration.

While others offer very good alternative solutions (map and compass, entrance/exit plans, etc….) the reality is that had John Likely been using a SPOT/InReach he would have been located much sooner (IMO).

There are several options available that offer the option of sending out a “SOS”, and/or leaving tracking points, that could easily save someone’s life, or enable the finding of someone who is lost and (for whatever reason) unable to send out a “SOS”. For those of you that have been on S&R events I would think that you would appreciate any additional information as to the location of the missing hiker. While these devices are not "fail safe" they certainly would have been of immense value while looking for John (had he carried one). While the signals coming (or not coming) from a deep chute might not be consistent, those leading up to the event would have given S&R a time/distance limit as to his last (reliably) known position. In this case I believe the location of John's body would have certainly been known sooner.

We all use calculators today. Who does square root function by hand? Why not use today’s technology for location/navigation services? Sure, map and compass is fairly fail safe, but so are today’s electronic tools. We all use flashlights, wear boots with sticky bottoms, use advanced climbing tools (for those who do technical climbing). Why are we so slow to adopt electronic navigation and communication tools? I certainly understand that today’s electronic tools have their limitations (and do not advocate abandonment of map and compass) and need to be used with those limitations in mind, but that said, they do offer many advantages for those who are able to adopt newer technologies.

I appreciate the preference for a "wilderness" experience, but the user is in control as to how the device is used. Simply limit any intrusive activity (If you prefer, choose not to activate the emergency option, even in the face of death – at least S&R will be able to recover your body for your loved ones). Only allow outgoing tracking. There is no intrusion if used in this fashion (IMO).

Or, what about this hypothetical question: What if I come across you in a remote location, where you have broken your leg, and cannot move. Would you prefer that I not activate the SOS function of my InReach Satellite device, and ask only that I hike back to civilization in order to find a land line (no new fangled cell phones allowed) in order to call for help?

Anyway, my two cents.

Yet I was told by a SEKI ranger that he thought someone carrying a SPOT or similar communicator device was not having a true "Wilderness Experience". It was, of course, just his personal opinion, and I would disagree strongly.

John, we can't make people carry those units, but I carry mine, and think more people should.

"Or, what about this hypothetical question: What if I come across you in a remote location, where you have broken your leg, and cannot move. Would you prefer that I not activate the SOS function of my InReach Satellite device, and ask only that I hike back to civilization in order to find a land line (no new fangled cell phones allowed) in order to call for help?"

There seems to be a general misunderstanding as to what people mean by the quality of their activity.

We all seem to use analogies, so here's mine: a lot of people have been on a trapeze, but it is an altogether different experience to use a trapeze WITHOUT A NET. There are those people in the world who want to experience the outdoors on it's terms, not "made safer" or some might say "dumbed down". That is not how most people look at these activities, I realize, and are happy to use whatever makes the trip easier and safer. Personally, I think it is great to have a variety of ways to do things.

There has been a tradition of some people to use an approach similar to the "old ways". I know a guy who trekked to Everest Base Camp wearing clothing that imitated that which Hillary wore. I wouldn't do that, but it was important to him.

My fellow professional sailing instructor, Yoh Aoki sailed the 21-foot sailboat that he built at home around the world. He had no GPS, no radio, no engine, no Sat Phone. It is not particularly rare for people to do this each year. They are typically in highly engineered 40-50 foot boats loaded with electronics. Good for them. Some make it. But they will NEVER, EVER be able to say they sailed around the planet "just like Yoh".

I don't quite understand the position that doing things a different way than the way that person prefers to do them is illegitimate.

And John, I'm sure that the trapeze user who has an accident without a net would like you to use your cell phone to call 911. Why would someone in the wilderness be different? The game is not carrying the electronics, but it does not extend to not accepting help from those you encounter. That would have been true in 1850. Whaddaya expect? We'll drag our sorry bodies out of the way so you don't know we're there?

Frankly, the refrain that people are stupid because they (don't carry a PLB, Sat Phone, water filter, use hot food, wear the "right" footwear, wear cotton, have accidents, are affected by lack of oxygen, die) just gets a little old.

Life is a terminal condition.

Well, I suppose the expression "Wilderness Experience" needs to be better defined. If it means seclusion and being "at one" with nature, then my point about these devices being non intrusive (if used appropriately) applies. If the definition is slanted more toward being in the wilderness without access to modern comforts and conveniences then those wanting that experience should discard their vibram soled shoes, down puff jackets, water proof shells, light weight cooking kit, etc..., strap on some leather soled or hobnail boots, canvas breeches, wool coats, oil skin slickers, etc....., and pray it does not rain.

Of course it is a personal decision as to the use of one of these devices, but like you, I will continue to carry my InReach when I feel the situation warrants it. Based on John Likely's experience I will most probably lower my "risk threshold" for deciding when to bring it along. For instance, in the past, I've not carried it for the Main trail. In the future I will.

Why aren't PLB's a more popular choice? It seems the discussion is usually between carrying a Spot (or DeLorme InReach) or nothing.

For hiking purists, I can definitely appreciate not needing or wanting a device for sending breadcrumbs or texting cheery messages to relatives. Heck, the point of these trips for many people is to be AWAY, not to live-blog their trip. If others want and enjoy that kind of connectivity, fine, but it's not for everyone.

But for that true emergency when your hiking buddy (or you) falls down a cliff and breaks his leg, why not carry a PLB? That's exactly what they're designed for. I view it in the same category as carrying an emergency whistle or building a signal fire.

My second analogy: free solo climbing

There are those who like to do this sort of climbing, which means that you are up on the rock with no protection of any kind. You are not attached to anything. They say the sensation of accomplishment is unbelievable, and that those who don't know the apex of living.

Many people find this insane, however I think it is a matter of degree. Is free soloing insane on 3rd class rock, like many of us do and have done? YES,THAT IS WHAT MOST PEOPLE THINK. Many people climb the MR unroped, in fact, most. The professionals all use ropes with their clients. Hmmmm.

It all comes down to VALUES. People value different things differently.

John wants to tell us how to hike based upon his values:

"those wanting that experience should discard their vibram soled shoes, down puff jackets, water proof shells, light weight cooking kit, etc..., strap on some leather soled or hobnail boots, canvas breeches, wool coats, oil skin slickers, etc....., and pray it does not rain."

Doesn't seem to be any room in John's world for people making their own decisions without derision.

Oh, the decision about PLB's vs the Spot, etc seems to be one primarily of cost. Same for Sat Phones, which is what the professionals use.

Hi Ken,

Really? I want to tell folks how to hike based on my values? Where did you see that? I clearly stated above that the use (or non use) of these devices is a personal decision.

I absolutely agree with you that people should be free to “do things as they like”. No requirement to carry electronic gizmos, or even map and compass of that is their preference.

My point is that these devices are reliable/useful devices, and can serve as an important tool for those who choose to use them. Simple as that. In my opinion Larry Conn and John Likely would have both been found sooner (in Larry Conn’s case up to 7 months sooner) had they been using one of these devices. I only mention this to illustrate how the devices can be useful. They both chose not to use them. Their decision, their fate. I do wonder if they considered their families points of view when they made their decisions.

While my hypothetical question was (and still is) a bit “tongue in cheek”, let’s assume for a moment that the found party was of the type that likes to hike “in the old ways”. In that case, wouldn’t he/she expect to get the same help he/she would have gotten 150 years ago? Wouldn’t they prefer that I not violate the sanctity of their “Wilderness Experience” and that I not use a modern convenience, and prefer that I only make haste to hike out and contact S&R.? Even though that would likely mean no help for 24 hours, and so what that mountain lions do inhabit the area? Of course if this (unlikely) situation did arise I would “ring up” S&R. I certainly would not want to feel responsibility for the fate of the injured hiker if I did not do all that I could, but I might enjoy watching the individual reconsider their point of view about the use of these modern conveniences.

Honestly, I do not consider those who choose not to carry one of these devices as stupid. I never use it to walk down to the local 7-11 to pick up a six pack. In fact I only carry it for 5% of my hiking activity. I only carry it for those hikes that I think represent a sufficient risk that warrants the use of the device. I fully recognize that different people have different thresholds for acceptable risk. I could never do what Alex Honnold or Yoh Aoki have done, but then again, I do not care to.

Clearly I am an advocate for the adoption of newer technology. Why not? It works, and in light of some of the risks presented does not cost much. Just my point of view.

John, that's fair to advocate for what you believe, certainly I'm guilty of that.

To me, though, when you cross over into using the word "SHOULD", you are now telling people what to do, not what you do.

there are those who would say that you are not using the device correctly, if you don't use it on each and every hike. "you should" defines what THEY think that YOU should be doing, and it clearly implies that if you are not doing what you should, then you are doing what you should NOT. That is a criticism.

By the way, it was thought that Larry Conn had a heart attack. Interesting that you think you are immune to those on 95% of your hikes. I find my confidence in that has gone down with time.

As for your hypothetical, I don't think that people asking for help for a severe situation are in a position to tell the rescuer how to do things.

I also think it is disingenuous to say that simply having such a device on one's body will help recoveries.....they will not.
You have to have the right subscription for the device to be able to have it monitor your steps. But of course, I guess one "should"......

"I do wonder if they considered their families points of view when they made their decisions."

Have no doubt that is the sentiment cast upon every hiker, with or without a SPOT, who requires a rescue. It was the exact same criticism leveled 100 times against the climbers on Mt. Hood who DID have a SPOT who died, anyway.

Society considers us in a risky pursuit of fun, whether they "should", or not.

My my, but you do take things literally

Do you use either a SPOT, InReach, or some other satellite communications device?

Interesting that you are now recommending how I should or should not use my InReach.

Do you understand the concept of "tongue in cheek"?

Although what I have to say on this topic has nothing to do with the debate currently going on, I will say that I carry a SPOT with me most every hike I'm on. In an emergency, I'd rather have a shot at getting help than no shot at all.

That being said, I just thought I'd tell you all that a friend of mine just today finished the 211 mile hike on the John Muir trail at the Whitney Portal. He carried his DeLorme In Reach, and he and I were able to communicate throughout his entire trek. I was able to get him weather, look up routes for climbing peaks that interested him, etc. It was actually pretty impressive.

Just thought I'd throw that out there for y'all.

There is no point in quibbling over the differences in the meaning of "should". Just stop.

Answering Steve Chamberlin's q, "Why aren't PLB's a more popular choice? It seems the discussion is usually between carrying a Spot (or DeLorme InReach) or nothing":

Because leaving bread crumbs tells family and friends (and SAR if necessary) that you are moving and ok, and gives a last known location. LKL would have saved a few $100K in the search for Larry Conn, and lots of anguish for family and friends. A lone hiker with a PLB who has a sudden accident as Likely probably did cannot use a PLB. Sat phone doesn't help a SAR if one is incapacitated, either. Bread crumbs are the most effective tool in that situation. If not incapacitated, then any of those tools would work.

In Likely's case, IF he had been using a bread crumbs feature, rescue or recovery would have been completed in less than 24 hours.

"My my, but you do take things literally whistle

Do you use either a SPOT, InReach, or some other satellite communications device?

Interesting that you are now recommending how I should or should not use my InReach.

Do you understand the concept of "tongue in cheek"?"
----------------------------------------------
Well, I'll be the first to testify that joking, irony, and sarcasm often do not translate well on the 'net. If I've misunderstood you, I apologize if my responses seemed inappropriate to your meaning.

I have never used a communication device, although I have been on hikes where others did. When I am on a trail crew, I am required to carry a USFS radio, that generally work everywhere, using the USFS system of repeaters. I hate them, but am required to have them. I see the utility, and agree to their need in that setting, but I am not on a recreational hike, either.

I'm not sure if you are serious, but I am not recommending IN ANY WAY how you should use your devices. I am putting forth the argument that many members of the public would make, and do make. I consider them just as irrelevant to you, as yours is to others....about what you "should" do, or any other hiker "should" do.

Steve:
I started using SPOT these past 5 years and my family is very happy after I got it. Previously they used to worry about my once in a year wilderness disappearances and were always grumbling when I excitedly tell them about my upcoming adventure.
Last year during my JMT trip SPOT did not work for 3 days and it really thru a scare and my daughter started calling police and rangers in Lone Pine and Innoyo NP and also called Banner Packers (whose name and tel no are collected from my emails). Finally one Ranger assured her that SPOT is having issues. SPOT really did not acknowledge their outage (which in my opinion they should have done immediately at least to all those email addresses they have on their servers) and the families were left in dark.
Actually my daughter is asking about any alternative I found to SPOT or am I carrying something else just in case SPOT does not work!
I am still planning on carrying SPOT but is there any way we can force them to acknowledge any server failures immediately to the families? Just wondering.

I was watching saltydog last summer when that happened, too, so I understand the trouble it caused. It was caused by a back-end software upgrade that failed. The computer techs tried the upgrade, and it failed. But they never informed their customer support side of the company. Some techi-geek was clueless about the number of people who were depending on the service. There is no way customer service / helpdesk people can do anything if they don't even know there is a problem.

Here's the link to last summer's issue:   Spot Satellite Messenger problems

Note that John Sims' InReach was working fine during that time.

Personally I don't carry any of these devices. My one experience using a SPOT mirrored Krishna's. On the JMT I had agreed to send an OK message every evening when I made camp. Several times the SPOT message didn't get though, making my family much more worried than if I hadn't carried the SPOT in the first place. When I later aborted my trip on day 15, I pressed the HELP (not SOS) button, which I had previously agreed with a friend would be my way of signaling an early exit. But my mother didn't know this, and when she started receiving emails every 5 minutes that said "HELP!" in all caps, she panicked and called the forest service, sheriff, and everyone else she could think of. It took me almost 24 hours to reach a phone, during which time she was worried sick. The experience convinced me that in some cases, poor communication is worse than no communication.

As I understand it, the advantage of a PLB is that when it comes to the all-important task of summoning an emergency team to save your life, it's far more likely to succeed than a SPOT or InReach. It uses a different, reportedly more reliable satellite network (COSPAS/SARSAT rather than Iridium or Globalstar), transmits to satellites with much stronger radio power (5 watts vs 1.6W on the InReach and 0.4W on the SPOT), and also emits a local area homing beacon at 121.5MHz in addition to the satellite signal. The ResQLink PLB even has a strobe light, weighs less than both InReach and SPOT, and costs less over 2-3 years when you factor in the subscription costs of the other two. Unless I'm missing something, the choice between these three seems like a no-brainer as the PLB is clearly best, unless you value messaging more highly than getting rescued in an emergency.

With the recent events on Whitney, my wife is encouraging me to look into one of these devices again.

I like the looks of this:

http://www.inreachdelorme.com/product-info/inreach-explorer.php

Does anyone know, does tracking points and intervals refer to what is posted on a website, or what is recorded on the device itself?

If I read it on the website correctly, it does both. I was just doing some reading on the screen edition In Reach.

I'm very tempted to go with the In Reach, but the monthly costs are very prohibiting.