You’re on a remote Munro. The wind whips up and before you know it, you’re swept off your feet and find yourself tumbling down a steep drop and land in a heap at the bottom of it.
Searing pain envelops your leg and you can’t even stand up. There is no mobile phone reception; you haven’t seen another soul all day, so the whistle is useless. What can you do?
Equine Ramblers want the Government to allow personal locator beacons
Advocates of gadgets known as personal locator beacons (PLBs) say this is exactly the type of situation where they come into their own. With the best will in the world and, even providing you’ve left a note of your route with someone, it’s going to be a long time before you’re found.
If only you could press a button and summon the cavalry. But at present, you can’t. PLBs are not permitted on land in the UK. If you’re found using one, it can be confiscated and you may even be prosecuted. They are licensed here only for use by boats and aircraft and their potential usefulness to walkers and climbers is the subject of some debate.
Oddly, the impetus for their legalisation comes from a source not normally at the forefront of outdoor issues. Jenni Miller of Equine Ramblers – an organisation for horse riders who undertake long-distance routes, often alone – started the campaign after an accident during a six-day trek through Shropshire which left her with a broken leg.
Jenni Miller is stretchered by paramedics after her accident
Fortunately, a riding companion was able to summon help by mobile phone, but it brought home to her the stark consequences of mishaps in territory where help couldn’t be summoned by phone.
Ms Miller has set up an e-petition to lobby the Government to legalise the gadgets, ranging in size from that of a mobile phone to a paperback book, which use an international system of satellites to receive and relay distress signals.
The petition, which when we last checked had 223 signatures, including at least one mountain rescue team member, is asking the Government to change the law so that walkers, climbers, horse riders, mountain bikers and anyone who ventures into the wilds can use beacons which send a distress signal.
Jenni Miller told grough: “I was astonished last year, after breaking my leg from a fall off my horse, to discover that we have a system illegal to use inland in remote areas as a last resort when there is no mobile phone reception.
“As an Equine Rambler we ride long-distance, often away from populated areas and a personal locator beacon would be the answer to our prayers should there be no other way of getting help. You never know when you will be taken ill or have an accident. It's amazing that it's the best kept secret from all outdoor users!
“I am assured by a good source that all it requires is a change in the law and the database enlarged to accept inland registration.”
Opinion seems divided among the people who would have to respond to these beacons. David Allan, chairman of Mountain Rescue (England and Wales), the umbrella body for search and rescue teams south of the Border, told us: “We have a distinct lack of enthusiasm for them.
“The number of false calls still exceeds the number of real calls by a large factor.
“If every walker gets these things, they will be going off all over the place. They don’t give a very exact location. We have enough trouble with mobile phones.”
Mr Allan said mountain rescue teams (MRTs) were adept at finding casualties when responding to emergency calls. “There are very few people we can’t find,” he said.
Another problem he foresees is deciding how to respond to a signal from a PLB. At present, when an MRT is mobilised, it is in response to a call which will have at least some information, such as the nature of the emergency, injuries and the number of people involved.
Mountain rescuers: would PLBs help or hinder their work?
There are often instances where ‘lost’ hillwalkers are coaxed down into safety by the relaying of directions and instructions by mobile phone, without the need to put a full team on the fells to mount a rescue.
In the case of a PLB signal, Mr Allan said, there is no information, other than the person to whom it is registered and contact details. He told us: “You are forced to respond [to the beacon] and you don’t know what type of incident you’re going to. You would end up having to respond.”
There has been a lengthy and, at times, vituperative, debate on the UKClimbing website forums, some of which has accused guest-house owner Jenni Miller of having a financial interest in getting PLBs introduced into UK use, a charge she denies.
She said: “Equine Ramblers UK is not being sponsored by any other organisation in this campaign and is acting entirely out of self interest.”
The problem of false alarms is raised by others on the forums. One member of an MRT said: “With the introduction of a wide spread distribution of PLBs, the already highly-taxed SAR [search and rescue] assets will be overrun with false alarms.
“If you look at the statistics now, a greater proportion of hits are caused by accidental activation.
“I think signing this petition will have exactly the opposite result to the suggested increase of response. By diverting already limited resources for hunting for accidental activations, it will delay the emergency services.
“No land units have tracking equipment yet as far as I am aware and cost of such will probably make it prohibitive for civilian rescue teams to purchase and run.”
grough spoke to a knowledgeable source, with insight into how the devices work. He said: “The trouble is that many of these folks don’t know what PLBs can do.
“Most of the developed countries, Canada, USA, New Zealand, Australia, Switzerland, Norway, they all permit and encourage PLB use.”
Modern beacons incorporate Global Positioning System (GPS) units which quickly give an accurate position once activated. It can take as little as three minutes for a signal detailing the location and ownership of a beacon to be received at the UK’s co-ordinating centre for search and rescue.
Our source said: “Instead of more money being spent on search and rescue, it will save money.
“The GPS beacons will go down to less than 125m. How accurate do you want?
He admitted false alerts have been a problem, particularly for maritime distress beacons, but land-based units have the lowest instance of false alarms. Design of the units and the importance of ensuring their use only in true emergencies was the key.
“The manufacturers need to be lobbied so that they don’t go off constantly and people need to be educated,” he told us.
There is a misconception that as soon as PLB alerts are received, helicopters, Nimrod aeroplanes and a horde of rescuers are immediately dispatched. This is simply not the case. All PLBs sold would need, under international law, to be registered. The beacon’s signature would be checked against a database and then enquiries made, with next of kin, or by mobile phone or whatever other means possible, to determine the response.
Rather than sending full teams on to the fells to mount a major search, a smaller number of members could be sent to the exact location of the casualty.
grough’s expert said: “If they [MRTs] have to respond, they can go up with two or three people rather than a full team.
“Beacons could actually cut the work of the MRTs.”
Climbing forums may not be the best bellwether of usefulness of the emergency beacons. Latest figures from Mountain Rescue (England and Wales) show rock climbers account for less than five per cent of incidents involving MRTs, with snow and ice climbing adding only two callouts for the whole year.
Hillwalking and scrambling, however, were the cause of 79 per cent of the teams’ activities, so it is participants in these pursuits who stand to gain the most from use of beacons. Despite the lead coming from Equine Ramblers, the strain on MRTs from horseriders is negligible. Many UKClimbing forum posters spoke of the sense of danger that is at the heart of their sport. It is highly unlikely that most hillwalkers would put the chance of imminent death or injury high on their top ten of reasons for taking to the uplands.
In Scotland, there is, not surprisingly, a higher proportion of snow and ice climbing incidents, with research by Dr Bob Sharp for sportscotland indicating that 12 per cent of Scottish MRTs’ work was due to winter climbing. This is still heavily outweighed by hillwalking and scrambling, which together caused 80 per cent of the teams’ mobilisations, virtually the same as those south of the border, with even fewer, only three per cent, due to rock climbing.
The introduction of PLBs for the outdoors in Britain would need two things: legislation enabling their use, and the setting up of a database of registered keepers. The former is down to politicians, hence Ms Miller’s e-petition; the latter would need co-operation between the police, currently responsible for co-ordinating rescue and under whose insurance MRTs operate, and rescue authorities such as the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), which holds the database for marine beacons.
One solution could be to use the United Kingdom Mission Control Centre (UKMCC), part of the Aeronautical Rescue Co-ordination Centre based at Kinloss in Scotland. The UKMCC uses the joint Russian-American Copsas-Sarsat satellite system at the heart of all international distress beacons. This would seem the logical place for any such information.
Equipping the UK’s 52 regional police forces with the wherewithal to track beacon owners and mobilise the right teams would be expensive and a logistical nightmare.
Chief Coastguard Peter Dymond, who has overall responsibility for reacting to signals from the three different types of beacon, the maritime Emergency Position-Indicating Radio Beacon (EPIRB); the aircraft-borne Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELT), and the land-use PLBs, which can be licensed for use inland in the UK for use after an air accident, says the situation is under review.
Different distress beacons, many of which are used at sea or on aeroplanes
Mr Dymond said: “Of course, UKSAR [UK Search and Rescue] Operators Group is aware of the advantages of PLBs for people who walk, climb and visit rural and remote areas in the UK and abroad.
“Also, with false alerts now reducing through better beacon design and operator training, the group is actively considering the use of PLBs for inland UK and the requirements for their registration. This work is part of the group's work on establishing a national UK Beacon Registration Database which will include EPIRBs, ELTs and PLBs.”
However, the Chief Coastguard recognises the misgivings of many within the search-and-rescue community.
He said: “When the maritime and aeronautical beacons were introduced, the search and rescue organisations found themselves stretched due to the high level of false alerts from such devices. Consequently, there has been limited support from within UKSAR and in particular the police services for permitting the use of PLBs inland due to the potential proliferation of false alerts.”
So the use of PLBs in Britain may yet be some way off.
How would they operate, if they were permitted? The most modern units, costing typically between £200 and £300 are similar in size to outdoor GPS units. The best have a GPS receiver, so as long as you’re not in a deep ravine, a heavily wooded area or some other place where a satellite signal would be hard to obtain, you will have an instant fix.
Registration would be required on buying the devices, with information including name and address, emergency contact number and other details.
The emergency button is usually under a cover which has to be raised to operate it. This then would send a signal up to orbiting satellites. For units which don’t have a GPS receiver, the satellites use the Doppler principle to give a location of the casualty. Although not as accurate as a GPS fix, it does become more precise with subsequent passes of further satellites.
The distress alarm signal would then be picked up by UKMCC, which would alert the nearest MRT and pass on the information to the ARCC (which is actually housed in the same room!) so that an SAR helicopter could be mobilised if required and if flying conditions permit.
It would be probable that the local MRT would attempt to contact the registered person’s mobile phone number and his or her emergency contact to verify the signal. Most PLB units broadcast the emergency signal for at least 24 hours.
MRT could then use the fix from the GPS-equipped beacon to find the casualty. If they had homing equipment, which none currently do, they could use this to narrow down the search even further.
Outdoor enthusiasts may baulk at spending as much as this for something that they hope they would never have to use, but the question must then be asked: what price a life? Also, with increased production of the units, prices might fall.
Understandably, companies producing PLBs are keen to see their introduction. Portsmouth-based McMurdo, which makes beacons, said: “There’s a Government-approved organisation in place to handle it, so it’s all the more frustrating that UK infrastructure doesn’t support it.”
Jeremy Harrison, the firm’s sales and marketing director, said: “We sell thousands of PLBs worldwide, particularly to countries like the USA and Australia, whose governments have fully embraced the technology that is available to save lives”
“Would be land-based PLB users often think it’s McMurdo’s fault that they can’t use PLBs in the UK, and that we just aren’t getting our paperwork in order.
“But it’s quite a lot more complex than that. The database registry currently being used by the MCA would have to be replicated and stored by the police.
“Since the police operate from 24 regional call centres this would mean installing equipment and people on a large scale, and they would be working with Ofcom, which controls the airwaves. So the cost of the new infrastructure would be considerable. Abuse of the system is largely avoided, since each PLB owner registers all his or her personal details when taking on ownership, but larger volume usage would need careful monitoring to avoid unnecessary call outs which often involve the expensive deployment of aircraft and helicopters.”
A final word on the matter goes to another mountain rescuer who posted his support of Jenni Miller on the climbing forums. He said: “There has been a number of incidents where the casualties have misread their GPS receivers.
A classic case was where one such casualty also activated a PLB, and this is what saved his party's lives. There are literally dozens of people who have died in the UK during my time on MR who, had they been equipped with and used a PLB, would have survived.
“The other thing that should be understood is that injured persons can be found and evacuated efficiently where otherwise, they would have had to be searched for and found, a process which can take a lot of people a long time – if ever.”
The petition, should you want to see a change in the law, can be seen on the Downing Street website.
Calandra
21 January 2008I live in Australia, where PLB's have saved the lives and limbs of many bushwalkers and other non-motorised travellers - not in the endless desert sands, or in the remote gorges of the Pilbara region, where radio contact is routinely used, but in the popular bushwalking areas and National Parks used by the residents of major conurbations. Here you don't necessarily have to own one. You can often borrow one in exchange for a returnable deposit at police stations or information offices in or near National Parks; walking/hiking clubs often own a few that can be "booked", too. That alone helps keep them OUT of the hands of the stupid and irresponsible, and enables the responsible, regular bushwalkers to try them out, learn to appreciate the feeling of a last-ditch backup, and invest in one of their own for the family or the group. We all hope that we don't need them, and to be honest we rarely do need them - but by 'eck when we DO need them it's good to have them! Calandra
Nick Owen
30 January 2008It would be nice to think that all future owners of beacons would be resposible & careful. Experience shows that there will be a significant number who use this device as a 1st resort, rather than a last, just as is currently the case with mobile phones. People need to accept that adventurous sports are potentially dangerous, and accept responsibility for themselves. I am not opposed to them in principal, just opposed to those who want all the thrill and excitement of an outdoor adventure, but none of responsibility. The MRT of which I am a member attended 105 incidents last year, over 40 of which involved no injury or medical problem. They were either lost, cragfast or benighted. They all remembered their mobile phones. Don't buy a beacon..get a weeks navigation course under your belt, buy a decent head torch, and bung the change in an MRT collecting box!
Calandra
12 February 2008Nick, although "a week's navigation course and a head torch" would help solve the problem of the idiot who gets himself lost, how on earth does it solve the problem for a person who has - for example - broken their leg or, as happens here in Oz, been bitten by a Brown snake? That's right - it doesn't, not an iota. Guess what DOES help? Yes, right again, an EPIRB (as we call them). You state that you are "opposed to those who want all the thrill and excitement of an outdoor adventure, but none of responsibility" as reason for your opposition to EPIRBS. Do you dare to imply that those who carry an EPIRB are, by reason of the fact that they [i]are[/i] carrying one, irresponsible? Have you read [i]anything[/i] about their licensing and registration requirements? You also said "Experience shows that there will be a significant number who use this device as a 1st resort, rather than a last," Can you point me to where I can find out more about this experience with EPIRBs, please? I would be interested to see in what country this has been the experience. I really don't think the general public of Australia are any more or less stupid/intelligent than that of Britain - yet we do not have the problem which you are so sure will occur.
jenniwren
12 February 2008I would regard someone carrying a PLB as being more responsible. As an MRT you should know that when searching for a missing person you have to send many more people out than when a person has a locating beacon - such as a transponder for a casualty stuck in avalanche/snow. A PLB would be an improvement on a transponder in other situations.
Keith Waddell
27 February 2008Nick's post above raised some excellent questions of what happens after a locator beacon is activated: - Who monitors them (presumably a 24hr job?) - Who buys and maintains the monitoring systems? - How much will the monitoring system (& staffing) cost? - Could that money be put to better use by MRTs? (Running education & first aid courses) - How many incidents per year would benefit from a PLB? Nick says that in all the 105 incidents he attended a mobile phone was enough. - Who trains volunteer MRTs on their use? How long does it take? I worry that allowing folk to take these devices will put a burden on the volunteers who will have to respond to them.
Nick Owen
01 March 2008Keith, as I understand the beacons will be initially detected by satellites and passing aircraft. The activation will be referred to RAF Aeronautical Rescue Coordination Centre (ARCC) based at RAF Kinloss, who will then follow up with checking the authenticity of the signal, and will then activate the appropriate resource to deal with the information they gather. As I said in my previous note, I am not opposed to in principal, but have major concerns about their misuse and the drain these may present on the resources of volunteer rescue teams. With a mobile phone you can have a two way dialogue (usually, even if only by text) with the 'victim' and deploy the appropriate resources. In the case of those who are lost, it's true, we may be able to gather much a better idea of their location, but if we can't speak to them and ascertain the problem, then we may be forced to over-react and send a whole team to recover someone who just needs a guide! Military helicopters are only deployed inland to the Lake District at present when injuries are thought to be life threatening, so (wo)man-power is the most likely response under the current setup. Air ambulances can't fly at night. If the victim is a stretcher case then [u]at least a dozen people [/u]are required. As stretcher carry from the far side of Bowfell can take 5 hours or more. Current, early falling back on mobile phones has led us to have to nearly 50 rescues with no medical problem. PLBs in the hands of the same people will be activated before reasonable attempts to sort themselves out have been completed. In terms of additional equipment for MRTs, I don't think there will be a need for any. Just lots of patience. Cost, the monitoring is already carried out, but I imagine there will be a cost if usage increases. Not my field of experience, sorry. A rescue for LAMRT costs about £250 per hour, with labour given free. For supporters of these devices, don't worry, you'll get them. It's just a matter of time. For those who will have to deal with the consequences of their use, we'll just have to wait and see, but in the same way as mobile phones are being used as a 1st resort, instead of a last, so will PLBs. In a medical emergency, with two way communication, they will be a bonus. In the hands of someone who went up a mountain they never had a chance of getting down unassisted, they will be a 'get out of jail free card'. This is where the 'weeks navigation course and a torch' is the appropriate course of action...before getting lost! PS. They will not replace avalanche trancievers, but may suppliment them. Avalanche trancievers are passive devices that require companions or rescuers to switch theirs to a search mode to detect the passive signal emmited by the victims. They only work over short distances. LAMRT already have experience of one PLB rescue. In October 98 a group of three men went up a mountain they weren't equipped to complete. They had no waterproofs, torch, whistle or map. They did take a mobile phone and a PLB that belonged to one of them who was a pilot. They became benighted and very cold a wet, which was no surprise. They gave us a location, which we searched, but couldn't find them. They then revealed that they had the PLB, and once we found out how it worked, they activated it. ARCC located them about three kilomteres from where they thought they were on th e other side of the mountain and they were recovered. An argument in favour of PLBs if ever there was one, surely...or an argument for going up a mountain with the means to get down un-aided. Hundreds of people do this every day, go up and come down. We love them. Some go up and have an accident. We rescue them. Some should never have set foot on the hill in the first place. I have no problem with someone making a mistake, but we are currently on the verge of an epidemic of not thinking things through. I stand by my ealier comment that hill-walking, mountaineering and rock climbing are adventurous sports, and part of the pleasure is in the isolation, self-reliance and some degree ...
Peter
25 March 2008Have enjoyed reading the discussion above. There is one thing which does worry me though. In our increasingly risk averse/nanny state society, I wonder how long it will be after they become legal (assuming that they do) before we will be obliged to carry them. It could be the thin end of the wedge that would only allow you on the hill if you had been checked out and issued with a ticket for the level of route that you wish to tackle. There are people who would institute such a system given half a chance. We would then have another situation where the lunatic minority had scewed it up for the majority of us.
before your car can be licensed, you must have insurance. Perhaps a solution might be to have an annual registration of PRBs conditional upon valid insurance to cover the cost of all activations, and every such activation resulting in a charge - liability for which without demur to be an explicit condition of the insurance. No tickee, no washee! Not only might this discourage the sort of clowns who currently want MRT attandance merely because they have fallen behind schedule on their charity office three peaks weekend or somesuch, it might also help reduce the stress of the financial hand to mouth suffered by MRTs! As to Peter's musing on the likelihood of beng forced to carry them, don't be too quick to dismiss the idea - the free flight community already face the probable introduction ere long of compulsory carrying of mode S transponders on paragliders and hang gliders!
Nick Owen
08 April 2008While I agree that being 'forced' to carry any item of safety equipment isn't such a great thing, you'll almost certainly not find much support for compulsory insurance either. The only people who would benefit from that would be insurance companies. It's likely that the admin involved in recouping the insurance would be too onerous for a voluntary organisation. Genarally safety equipment should be a personal choice, while accepting the risk in deciding not to carry any particular item is prsent. As long as this is an informed choice and not one based on ignorance of the consequences, be they personal or on voluntary emergency services. Efforts are best aimed at education to reduce the number of dangerously incompetent people from Britain's wild places. Happy flying, walking, boating or what ever else lights your candle.
Daz Hagan
25 April 2008Hi folks, saw this on Hansard watch web site. Transport. Personal Location Beacons: Licensing All Written Answers on 24 Apr 2008 David Jones (Shadow Secretary of State for Wales, Wales; Clwyd West, Conservative) | Hansard source To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration her Department has given to the merits of a licensing regime for personal location beacons for land-based use. Jim Fitzpatrick (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Poplar & Canning Town, Labour) | Hansard source The UK Search and Rescue (UKSAR) Inland Consultative Committee is currently looking at the use of personal location beacons on land and is in the process of gathering views from interested parties which will be discussed at their next meeting on 11 June with a view to ultimately making recommendations to the UKSAR Strategic Committee—an inter-agency national forum, chaired by DfT, with responsibility for advising on the structure, scope and framework of the organisation of UKSAR.
Guest
16 May 2008It is interesting that all those mountain walkers could already use the SPoT satellite messenger (www.findmespot.com) which does not need legal approval. The relevant search and rescue authorities would be contacted via the GEOS coordination center based in the US. So the end effect for MRT would be the same, the sole difference being that there is a possibility of sending OK and help (but not danger to life) messages.
grough editor
19 May 2008grough has reported the first use of a SPOT device in the UK: http://www.grough.co.uk/content/view/924/
Adi Floyde
18 October 2008Some of the comments above are very interesting but show a complete lack of knowledge of the PLB use, even by the Mountain Rescue teams.
Firstly there needs to be some understanding of the differences between EPIRBs, ELTs and PLBs. Basically in operation once activated there is non. An EPIRB is normally mounted on a boat or ship and often tethered to the life raft and is activated automatically by submersion in water by means of a plug that dissolves although many modern versions can be activated manually and many sailors also carry a PLB on there body just in case they end up in the water. An ELT is mounted in the tail of a plane and is activated automatically by the force of an impact over a given G force, interestingly there are a lot of cases were activation has not happened so it is advised that pilots in remote regions carry PLBs. A PLB is a hand held unit which is manually operated.
The system used is protected by international law and is the system is world wide. The system has been in place and up and running for many years and works. There would be no extra cost to the system by allowing land based activation in the UK. The international law states that all PLB activations should be investigated, so if a PLB is activated over land in the UK legally there would have to be some sort of response. It is a matter of UK law to whether you would be prosecuted for activating one after they have event and providing you can justify your actions in a court of law then you would not be prosecuted. I.E. if you are on a side of a mountain with a broken leg slipping into hypothermia and activate the PLB someone would do the necessary checks then send someone to help. The authorities are not likely to prosecute you.
The law states that all PLBs have to be registered but this is a self registration system meaning you buy the PLB and then register it by post or online, this is a world wide problem as some people don’t bother registering them. There has been moves in other parts of the world to make registration at point of sale, if this was adopted more would be registered.
The problem in the UK is you can only register PLBs if you’re using them for sailing or flying as with EPIRBs and ELTs, you can’t put hill walker on the registration form, this is the only way the law needs to be changed.
In the early days much activations were down to the fact that people did not understand the equipment and most activations where from EPIRBs that were activated automatically by submersion into water. Sailors were not placing there EPIRBs correctly which allowed the plug to dissolve over a period of time. The registration system has been improved so now any activation is first checked by trying to contact the owner or his next of kin.
One problem is second hand units do change hands one way around this is by using the law to put the honest on the person selling the system to change the register database to the new owner.
The argument comparing PLBs to Mobile phones I feel is a mute one. A large percentage of the population own mobile phones and use them with no regard. PLBs are specialist equipment that cost quite a lot of money the most useful ones cost around £600, the people buying them will be those that feel they need them to do there sport safely. The average Joe that goes out on a mountain in Tshirt, jeans, a mobile phone in his pocket and not a lot else will not buy a PLB. The people that do buy PLBs will more likely have the equipment, skills and knowledge to be in there chosen environment.
One law that should be changed is one to the international law, that all PLBs manufactured should include the GPS abilities.
It is interesting someone has mentioned the SPOT which has muddied the waters because it uses the same authorities to raise the alarm, but the SPOT is not a substitute to a PLB. The SPOT has been proven by many users around the world to only work in around 40 to 60% of cases and is reliant on the satellite phone system which has been dogged with many problems over the years and it is subscription based, no subscription and you hit the button no one is coming to help you. Don’t waste your money on the get a PLB.
Even with PLBs being illegal for land use in the UK if I have one and I hit the button because its life or death I would prefer to be judged by 12 instead of being carried by 6!
Dave Currie
16 July 2009I'm writing in support of Personal Locator Beacons. My decision is based on experience gained whilst involved in the emergency rescue of a friend - who'd suffered a heart attack.
My companion and I were heading for Scafell Pike summit. He suddenly stopped - and I realised he was having a heart attack. I needed help quickly. No one responded to my emergency whistle...and I was unable to get a mobile signal at the site of the incident.
So,I had no alternative but to leave him - alone - and climb higher until I got a signal. Thankfully, I eventually did...the air ambulance arrived...and my companion was treated on the spot by a doctor...then flown to hospital. Thanks to the emergency services' prompt response he suffered only minor heart damage.
At the time of the incident I praised the fact that - with no one else around to help - I'd been able to call the emergency services on my mobile (even though I'm the sort of guy who makes £10 of airtime last for several years!).
When I got back home I started thinking:
If I'd been out walking alone and I'd had a heart attack I'd have been unable to climb higher in order to pick up a mobile signal.
The CROW Act means more keen walkers are heading 'off path'to explore new terrain...so are less likely to meet fellow walkers...if they get into difficulties.
Then I read about PLB's.
Firstly their use means there is no need to litter the hills with phone masts in order to ensure you can get a signal. So, maybe organisations like The Friends of The Lake District and National Park Authoritites might be more ready to support legalisation to allow the legal use of PLBs on land?
Secondly, I believe that as you can't use them as a mobile phone it's likely that only keen walkers will buy them. Therefore, once triggered it's unlikely that the emergency services will turn out to find that it's not a heart attack victim they are attending - but someone who can't find the holiday cottage they've rented!!
Food for thought:
If I couldn't have got a mobile signal that day my friend might well have died. If I'd been on my own and I'd had a heart attack...well I'd probably have died.
Yes, I believe a registration system for PLBs makes sense. And as there's no subscription payment for their use (unlike sat phone) why not introduce a low cost insurance scheme to refund the costs of call-outs deemed to be frivolous by the emergency services.
A mobile phone does have the advantage of enabling one to report the victim's condition. So, does a sat phone - but that's an expensive alternative.
Until China starts using its satellite network to market sat., phones at pay-as-you-go subsription prices I believe PLBs are the answer. If China does...well the problem of frivolous call-outs will once again be top of the agenda.
Thanks for reading.
Dave C
Outdoorsman
17 November 2010Unfortunately, I missed this string in 2008 and would have liked to contribute. There is a lot of sense and accurate comment above but unfortunately, a considerable amount of misleading and inaccurate information too A disappointing proportion of this has been from 'the authorities' who I can only believe have quoted statistics and stories about the old analogue 121.5 MHz beacons, which were a problem, but were NEVER envisaged for use on land in the UK. The UK SAR agencies have NEVER been stretched at any time as a result of the introduction of 406 MHz EPIRBs, ELTs or PLBs. Quote dates and cases if you further insist, please ?
In the meantime, the legal use of PLBs is in hand and it is hoped that they'll be permitted for use sometime soon.
It is a great pity that the process has quite unnecessarily taken so long.
Meanwhile, and to hopefully reorientate past critics, there have been some 5,000 SPOT Messengers bought/registered in the UK over the last 3 years or so. WHERE ARE ALL THE FALSE ALERTS, folks? Well, there have been virtually none. At least two people have been located and evacuated in the UK through their correct use. So that effectively knocks on the head the fiction of the overload on teams because of numerous false alerts.
So why is it OK for so many to carry and use SPOT Messenger and not permit the carraige and legitimate use of PLBs in the UK? Why have the PLB critics NOT been so vociferous with SPOT Messenger? The simple reason is that they didn't have the opportunity to intervene and to spread similar misinformation to block these, too. SPOT Messenger has not fallen foul of the obstacles placed in the way of UK PLB land use and therefore there has been no effective outcry from the above PLB critics. One would have thought that to maintain their credibility and even self-esteem they'd have been lobbying the authorities on SPOT Messenger, but no.
So why not?
To dismiss the fiction about there not being a process for many years for informing the police, MRTs and other SAR agencies, here is a worst-case story that actually used the old analogue beacons.
A light aircraft with pilot and a few passengers got into difficulties over the Scottish hills in winter conditions. They crash-landed at over 2,000 feet altitude. By great good fortune they were relatively unhurt. The wind was so strong that they feared they would be blown away in the wreckage so they started making their way downhill - my recollection is, in the wrong direction. Fortunately, the beacon had been detected by the UKMCC at RAF Kinloss, the Aeronautical Rescue Coordination Centre informed and they in turn informed the police who called out the local MRT. An SAR helicopter homed to the beacon's signal and found the wreckage and most fortunately a short time afterwards, the walking casualties. They were safely evacuated.
Essentially, there is no different process now with 406 MHz PLBs than there was then, other than that a much more accurate position is now usually provided, particularly with the beacons with internal GPS. The other big advantage now is that the beacon and its owner can be individually identified, and through the details on the registration form, the nominated point of contact should be able to inform the authorities of the number in the party, the route, the timings, etc, etc. That is not to say that there won't be any false alerts, but nearly all of those that do occur will be intercepted at the UKMCC stage. The advantages will outweigh the disadvantages. Since 2008, the Republic of Ireland has beaten the UK to legitimising PLB use on land - Well Done !
Yes, this has perhaps been a bit provocative; that is because of the misinformation given out above by those who should know better, but have chosen to jump on the wagon they thought had the biggest and most popular following.
I participated in the UK Climbing blog mentioned above - and the level of abuse and misinformation from responders was immense. Thank goodness there were some voices of reason and fact.
Well, PLB use in the rest of the world has proved them wrong - and so has the use of SPOT Messenger in the UK.
mountain bike holidays
03 February 2013Its such as you read my thoughts! You seem to know so much about this, such as you wrote the e-book in it or something. I believe that you just could do with some % to pressure the message home a bit, but other than that, that is great blog. An excellent read. I'll definitely be back.
toms shoes sverige
13 July 2015to get discovered.SAN DIEGO, Sept. 3, 2013 /PRNewswire/ Technologies, the leader in quantum cyber
Bordeaux 7s
13 July 2015these comments. BUT if you really want to know who Obama is read his books especcially "Dreams of My
Bordeaux 7s 2015
13 July 2015the virus at its source..
michael kors klocka
14 November 2015Vi tjänar pengar, säger Marcus Wibergh. Alla pengar som vi tjänar använder vi till att bygga nya varuhus. Ingen aktieutdelning till ägarna utan allt går tillbaka till verksamheten för att vi ska kunna fortsätta den här fantastiska resan med att bygga fler varuhus, anställa fler människor och utmana marknaden.
michael kors skor
17 November 2015Tilbake i byen kan den nye Mystic håndtverkeren 'transmogrifisere' utstyret ditt for å gi det et mer sammenhengende utseende, samt 'rerolle' en enkelt stat på utstyret ditt slik at du får akkurat det du har lyst på, dog for en dyr pris. Dette håndteres veldig intelligent, slik at du kan se hva de mulige utfallene er på det du velger, og deretter lar deg velge ett av to nye resultater. Dette etterlater akkurat nok til at det fles spennende når du får det perfekte utfallet, men samtidig kontrollert nok til at jeg aldri flte meg lurt når ting ikke fungerte optimalt.