Communication options
- Thread starter Jeff Dodgen
- Start date
HI,
I opted for a PLB many years ago before the prices started to come down. I've never had to use it, thankfully. I do think it is the most fail safe method for emergency rescue. The system has an almost perfect success record. Spot? Well, it's record is much more spotty. Many folks choose Spot because the initial cost is lower than for PLB's. But really, we are talking about emergency rescue perhaps with a family involved. And that is ALL we are talking about. Is it wise to place a price tag on guaranteed success? I think not. The cost difference is not that great.
One more thing. Those that tout ham radio as an emergency strategy are at a significant disadvantage when it come to giving advice. THEY ARE HAMS AT HEART. Every other consideration comes second to their devotion to their HOBBY. They are not to be trusted (said in the most respectful way). Ham radio, especially 2 meter radio have the same problems with coverage as cell phones. Because of the high carrier frequencies, they are line of sight only. If they can't see a repeater you might as well be on the moon. And there are many locations that will cause 2m to fail because they can't see a repeater. If you can't get out, you may be dead. Not to be trusted.
Go with a PLB.
Sparky
I opted for a PLB many years ago before the prices started to come down. I've never had to use it, thankfully. I do think it is the most fail safe method for emergency rescue. The system has an almost perfect success record. Spot? Well, it's record is much more spotty. Many folks choose Spot because the initial cost is lower than for PLB's. But really, we are talking about emergency rescue perhaps with a family involved. And that is ALL we are talking about. Is it wise to place a price tag on guaranteed success? I think not. The cost difference is not that great.
One more thing. Those that tout ham radio as an emergency strategy are at a significant disadvantage when it come to giving advice. THEY ARE HAMS AT HEART. Every other consideration comes second to their devotion to their HOBBY. They are not to be trusted (said in the most respectful way). Ham radio, especially 2 meter radio have the same problems with coverage as cell phones. Because of the high carrier frequencies, they are line of sight only. If they can't see a repeater you might as well be on the moon. And there are many locations that will cause 2m to fail because they can't see a repeater. If you can't get out, you may be dead. Not to be trusted.
Go with a PLB.
Sparky
Mashurst
Adventurer
Sparky, I simply can’t let this go unchallenged. I see your point and yes I do enjoy Ham as a hobby but I got into it because I wanted access to the very valuable 2m band primarily for emergencies. I have been a ham for only a bit over two years. In that time it has brought one escalating dicey situation under control where it saved me from having to chose between two bad options. I’m sure I and other hams do bring a bias but you clearly do as well.
To say that 2m is not to be trusted is simply ridiculous. Does it work everywhere no questions asked? No. Is it unreliable? I would call that a gross simplification. I don’t think it is ‘the’ one and only right answer. But for some people and the type of travel they actually engage in, I think it is extremely valuable as a tool. The OP is a perfect example on this. Like any tool it has it uses but it not appropriate for every use.
To say hams should not be trusted to accurately reflect the uses and limitations of the modes they use… I would ask to whom you would recommend one turn for this information? Do you feel you or someone ells has a better idea of what kind of coverage to expect from 2m than say I do as a daily user?
Your facts are both inaccurate and misleading. While 2m is nominally considered a line of site band because it generally does not propagate it is MUCH lower than cell. The lowest cell stuff is around 800MHz ranging all the way up to 2600MHz. 2m is around 146MHz. These lower frequencies are better at “walking around” terrain and vegetation. This is just a fact. In addition you insinuate that 2m repeater coverage is similar to cell coverage and at least in northern California that is a ridiculous comparison. I barely get cell coverage at my home but I can hit dozens of repeaters up to 120 miles away with a 5w hand held.
Anyway I can concede that there are some that think ham is the end all be all of communications because they are ham zealots. But I think your comment is very over the top. There is a lot of good, true and useful information on this site about amateur radio and its uses that should not be discounted.
tikidollracer
Observer
one item i haven't seen mentioned, is that w/ a HAM you can talk in simplex mode - radio to radio - over some serious distance if you have line-of-sight. so it's more than just an emergency call technology. two teams can stay in contact in situations when CB fails.
-SM-
-SM-
HI Mashurst,,
Your points are well taken. But, at the same time, you reinforce mine. Whether you want to admit it or not, you are a ham zealot. There is absolutely no doubt that ham 2 meter is less effective, in all possible circumstances, to a PLB. 2m should not even be in the conversation. Remember, we are talking abut a possible life or death situation. This no place to be betting on repeater coverage or a ham operator which we all know is not perfect. But, we need perfection.
Furthermore, the quality of communication is at issue. With PLB's we are using the US Air Force facilities and personnel. These folks are trained to get things right. With ham communications, it's a crap shoot. Most of the time it will work fine but what about when it doesn't? Death?? Very possible.
My comments about hams were to a degree tongue in cheek. I did it to draw your comments and thought patterns out into the open. I have worked around hams for over 50 years. Most are very capable. But, they are zealots. Just as you have done, they would tend to veer off subject concerning emergency rescue. You tend to defend the ham band. They do too. Unfortunately, emergency rescue is a subject that requires absolute objectivity not a romantic attachment to a technology, clever as it is. You ask who would I trust for good information other than a ham. I would trust a ham about ham radio. I would trust an emergency rescue team to give advice about emergency rescue. I have done this and the unanimous opinions of those who know the facts is the PLB is the best system available. The PLB is the best answer, not Ham or Spot.
How would you advise your kids? Hopefully to guide them to a long and fruitful life. This can be best assured by a PLB.
Sparky
Your points are well taken. But, at the same time, you reinforce mine. Whether you want to admit it or not, you are a ham zealot. There is absolutely no doubt that ham 2 meter is less effective, in all possible circumstances, to a PLB. 2m should not even be in the conversation. Remember, we are talking abut a possible life or death situation. This no place to be betting on repeater coverage or a ham operator which we all know is not perfect. But, we need perfection.
Furthermore, the quality of communication is at issue. With PLB's we are using the US Air Force facilities and personnel. These folks are trained to get things right. With ham communications, it's a crap shoot. Most of the time it will work fine but what about when it doesn't? Death?? Very possible.
My comments about hams were to a degree tongue in cheek. I did it to draw your comments and thought patterns out into the open. I have worked around hams for over 50 years. Most are very capable. But, they are zealots. Just as you have done, they would tend to veer off subject concerning emergency rescue. You tend to defend the ham band. They do too. Unfortunately, emergency rescue is a subject that requires absolute objectivity not a romantic attachment to a technology, clever as it is. You ask who would I trust for good information other than a ham. I would trust a ham about ham radio. I would trust an emergency rescue team to give advice about emergency rescue. I have done this and the unanimous opinions of those who know the facts is the PLB is the best system available. The PLB is the best answer, not Ham or Spot.
How would you advise your kids? Hopefully to guide them to a long and fruitful life. This can be best assured by a PLB.
Sparky
Last edited:
cnynrat
Expedition Leader
Sat phones are OK, but have some downsides :
1. Cost. Sat phones are pricey, as is the service.
2. Who ya gonna call? 911? 911 is not a search and rescue agency. When you punch the button on your PLB your message is received by the USAF (at least in the U.S.). They know who to call to effect the rescue.
I've been trying to make the point that if your objective is to have a distress alerting capability with the absolute highest probability of getting you rescued, buy a PLB. Not SPOT, not inReach, not ham or CB radio, not any type of phone. All these can be very useful devices, and all offer some capabilities not provided by a PLB, but a PLB is a better distress alerting device.
I suggest all who are interested in this subject read the link I posted above about the standardization activities that are ongoing. IMO, this has the possibility of bringing a level of parity between the commercial services (SPOT, inReach ) and traditional PLBs.
In the end I think each person should think about where and how they travel, what their risk profile looks like, and make the best choice for their application. I simply think that for adventures with a high risk profile PLBs are at the top of the heap today.
1. Cost. Sat phones are pricey, as is the service.
2. Who ya gonna call? 911? 911 is not a search and rescue agency. When you punch the button on your PLB your message is received by the USAF (at least in the U.S.). They know who to call to effect the rescue.
I've been trying to make the point that if your objective is to have a distress alerting capability with the absolute highest probability of getting you rescued, buy a PLB. Not SPOT, not inReach, not ham or CB radio, not any type of phone. All these can be very useful devices, and all offer some capabilities not provided by a PLB, but a PLB is a better distress alerting device.
I suggest all who are interested in this subject read the link I posted above about the standardization activities that are ongoing. IMO, this has the possibility of bringing a level of parity between the commercial services (SPOT, inReach ) and traditional PLBs.
In the end I think each person should think about where and how they travel, what their risk profile looks like, and make the best choice for their application. I simply think that for adventures with a high risk profile PLBs are at the top of the heap today.
I agree with you overall, but if I may pick a nit...
The SAR groups I am aware of / served on (US/CO) are under the auspices of the Sheriff's department, and are called to action by that department. So it seems to me a call to 911 or a call to the USAF are both going to result in info being passed to the Sheriff. Using your argument above, the USAF is not a search and rescue agency either. However, they will assist the SAR once the Sheriff (or Incident Commander under his direction) requests.
I think implying that a PLB message to the USAF is faster or more direct than a 911 call to the LE dispatcher is arguable.
Mashurst
Adventurer
I am glad to now have real PLBs on my radar and I am grateful to those that have pointed them out here. I think they are a much better option for me than SPOT. I will be adding one to my wish list.
That said I think Sparky and Dave have redefined the scope of the thread. The op was about a breakdown in the back country. This is not a life and death SAR scenario.
Under this limited scenario I guess I can't argue, but I think that is very reductive.
Thinking back over my life, a few sticky spots come to mind. In one case a climbing buddy was critical injured. Fortunately a cell call to 911 was possible. Had cell not been available it would have been bad and could have resulted in a fatality from profuse bleeding and a spinal injury. This was back in the 90s so cell was not as ubiquitous as it is now. We were lucky. One guy had borrowed his mom's phone for the day. Lacking cell, a PLB would have been great… but of course PLBs as we are talking about did not exist at the time.
But again this is not a scenario that parallels the OPs scenario. In the OPs scenario his truck suffered a mechanical failure of some kind, immobilizing it in a remote area. Let us examine the value of a few communication types under this scenario.
My first choice would be a cell (as was Jeff's). It has the advantages of being versatile in terms of being able to call his BIL to come to the rescue. A normal full duplex conversation could take place. Details about what is needed in terms of rescue capability were able to be fully communicated rescuee to rescuer… A big truck and a flat bed. Details such as the nature of the road that the trailer would need to traverse could be conveyed in plain person to person speech involving only those persons that were involved etc. The rescuer would have been able to pick up on subtle cues to evaluate the sociological state of the rescuee that could have informed his decision making process.
I propose that this is the ideal in any situation; full direct voice communication between involved parties. Now the question implicit in Jeff's post is what if cell coverage had not been available? What if ideal were not available? It doesn't sound like Jeff had a plan B so what would he have been looking at if there were no coverage. Walking out? Stay put and wait for a passerby? How long are you prepared to wait? Splitting up with family? Abandoning vehicle? How do you meet up again? While none of these constitute an acute emergency they all represent taking on additional risk in the face of an already bad situation. They bring up questions like how prepared are you for a long hike out? Can you physically make the trip? Do you have food and water and appropriate clothing? What is the weather doing? Very hot… very cold… Chance of rain… Snow... all add to the risk.
Let's look at the modes that have come up in the thread: SPOT, ham, PLBs, Sat Phone. I don't claim to fully understand the capability of ether SPOT or these 406MHz PLBs but I will dispense with what I do know and let other fill in where needed.
SPOT: Might have kinda worked to get the BIL rolling. It depends on how cleverly setup the preconfigured messages were. In this case, given charged batteries and a view of the sky I think it would have worked more or less.
Conclusion- I think SPOT would have been a workable solution but it is clearly a BIG step back from our ideal. Also the ongoing cost is a down side that can't be ignored. If you don't pay the bill it can't help you.
Ham: Almost certainly would have had access to a repeater under the scenario as described. He had cell coverage so I can't imagine no repeater coverage. Of course we are examining a scenario where there is no cell coverage because we have already established cell as superior when available. I have no first hand knowledge of Georgia but being a fairly dense state, I guess repeaters cover the vast majority of it. My guess is, pick any spot in Georgia at random on a map and I would give it only maybe a 5-10% chance of not being covered. Just taking a wild stab at putting some conservative numbers on it... So let's say he couldn't get into a repeater from the breakdown site. He could give simplex a shot. Again Georgia is a dense state there are likely other people around. With a 50w mobile, I think there is a very good chance (maybe 50-75%) that a distress call on 146.52MHz would get you in contact with someone that could relay a call or otherwise help bring help. With only 5w on a hand held that falls off to maybe 20-40%. Late at night that would fall further. With a hand held it would be approaching 0 late at night. …so no contact on ham from the breakdown site. You are still in a better position to deal safely with the scenario than without, as you could climb to higher ground nearby, call for help as you walk out and importantly stay in contact if you had to split up (given a mobile and an hand held).
Conclusion-I think ham would have been a workable solution approaching that of the ideal. Its biggest downfall would be no 100% guarantee that you could raise help from the breakdown site.
406MHz PLB with GPS: The big question here is had Jeff had one but no cell coverage would he have chosen to use it? As I understand, it only sends one message and that message is HELP! EMERGENCY! RESCUE ME! That does not fit the scenario here. There was no eminent peril to life or even property. Would it have been an acceptable use of this high level system? I ask those of you touting its superiority? I don't actually know but that is my impression.
Conclusion-I don't think this would have been much help to Jeff. …a comfort to know it was there? I think yes. If things got out of hand he would have had it as a last resort.
Sat phone: For Jeff, I think this would have worked just fine, given a view of the sky and charged batteries. I my limited use of them battery life is a problem They are not great but they can be charged from the vehicle so there is that. The biggest down here is cost. They are moderately expensive to buy and very expensive to use. For most I think the cost is prohibitive. The FCC requires all sat phones used/sold or serviced in the US to have 911 capability so while you would not get a local 911 office you would get a professional if need be.
Conclusion-Would have worked very nearly as well as our ideal, with the only real down being the cost.
In the end I can see a place for each, given the right scenario. I'm going to pursue a PLB as a measure of last resort. But I also think a cell and PLB only plan is very weak and opens one up to risk in the space between no cell coverage and a dire emergency. Clearly it is an improvement over a cell only plan, but I would recommend some kind of interim solution for the more nuanced “I need help” not “HELP!” scenarios.
A cell is a no brainer we all have them anyway why not carry it. If it works you are golden.
I think SPOT or ham is advisable for covering the gap between no cell coverage and an outright emergency. One or the other should do. I think ham has the advantage for most recreationalists for a number of reasons. The exception being, if you plan to travel into the few dark area in the country where repeaters can't be counted on were SPOTs sat uplink would be better to hang your hat on.
PLBs do seem like a great system in a really bad situation such as my fallen climber. I think I would turn it on and then attempt better communication with cell or ham.
I would love to hear more about them and how they are used. Anyone ever turned one on? Is there some kind of way to test them without calling out the cavalry or using up the battery? I take it the battery is not meant to be used or replaced regularly but rather of the type that can last for years in storage.
That said I think Sparky and Dave have redefined the scope of the thread. The op was about a breakdown in the back country. This is not a life and death SAR scenario.
Under this limited scenario I guess I can't argue, but I think that is very reductive.
Thinking back over my life, a few sticky spots come to mind. In one case a climbing buddy was critical injured. Fortunately a cell call to 911 was possible. Had cell not been available it would have been bad and could have resulted in a fatality from profuse bleeding and a spinal injury. This was back in the 90s so cell was not as ubiquitous as it is now. We were lucky. One guy had borrowed his mom's phone for the day. Lacking cell, a PLB would have been great… but of course PLBs as we are talking about did not exist at the time.
But again this is not a scenario that parallels the OPs scenario. In the OPs scenario his truck suffered a mechanical failure of some kind, immobilizing it in a remote area. Let us examine the value of a few communication types under this scenario.
My first choice would be a cell (as was Jeff's). It has the advantages of being versatile in terms of being able to call his BIL to come to the rescue. A normal full duplex conversation could take place. Details about what is needed in terms of rescue capability were able to be fully communicated rescuee to rescuer… A big truck and a flat bed. Details such as the nature of the road that the trailer would need to traverse could be conveyed in plain person to person speech involving only those persons that were involved etc. The rescuer would have been able to pick up on subtle cues to evaluate the sociological state of the rescuee that could have informed his decision making process.
I propose that this is the ideal in any situation; full direct voice communication between involved parties. Now the question implicit in Jeff's post is what if cell coverage had not been available? What if ideal were not available? It doesn't sound like Jeff had a plan B so what would he have been looking at if there were no coverage. Walking out? Stay put and wait for a passerby? How long are you prepared to wait? Splitting up with family? Abandoning vehicle? How do you meet up again? While none of these constitute an acute emergency they all represent taking on additional risk in the face of an already bad situation. They bring up questions like how prepared are you for a long hike out? Can you physically make the trip? Do you have food and water and appropriate clothing? What is the weather doing? Very hot… very cold… Chance of rain… Snow... all add to the risk.
Let's look at the modes that have come up in the thread: SPOT, ham, PLBs, Sat Phone. I don't claim to fully understand the capability of ether SPOT or these 406MHz PLBs but I will dispense with what I do know and let other fill in where needed.
SPOT: Might have kinda worked to get the BIL rolling. It depends on how cleverly setup the preconfigured messages were. In this case, given charged batteries and a view of the sky I think it would have worked more or less.
Conclusion- I think SPOT would have been a workable solution but it is clearly a BIG step back from our ideal. Also the ongoing cost is a down side that can't be ignored. If you don't pay the bill it can't help you.
Ham: Almost certainly would have had access to a repeater under the scenario as described. He had cell coverage so I can't imagine no repeater coverage. Of course we are examining a scenario where there is no cell coverage because we have already established cell as superior when available. I have no first hand knowledge of Georgia but being a fairly dense state, I guess repeaters cover the vast majority of it. My guess is, pick any spot in Georgia at random on a map and I would give it only maybe a 5-10% chance of not being covered. Just taking a wild stab at putting some conservative numbers on it... So let's say he couldn't get into a repeater from the breakdown site. He could give simplex a shot. Again Georgia is a dense state there are likely other people around. With a 50w mobile, I think there is a very good chance (maybe 50-75%) that a distress call on 146.52MHz would get you in contact with someone that could relay a call or otherwise help bring help. With only 5w on a hand held that falls off to maybe 20-40%. Late at night that would fall further. With a hand held it would be approaching 0 late at night. …so no contact on ham from the breakdown site. You are still in a better position to deal safely with the scenario than without, as you could climb to higher ground nearby, call for help as you walk out and importantly stay in contact if you had to split up (given a mobile and an hand held).
Conclusion-I think ham would have been a workable solution approaching that of the ideal. Its biggest downfall would be no 100% guarantee that you could raise help from the breakdown site.
406MHz PLB with GPS: The big question here is had Jeff had one but no cell coverage would he have chosen to use it? As I understand, it only sends one message and that message is HELP! EMERGENCY! RESCUE ME! That does not fit the scenario here. There was no eminent peril to life or even property. Would it have been an acceptable use of this high level system? I ask those of you touting its superiority? I don't actually know but that is my impression.
Conclusion-I don't think this would have been much help to Jeff. …a comfort to know it was there? I think yes. If things got out of hand he would have had it as a last resort.
Sat phone: For Jeff, I think this would have worked just fine, given a view of the sky and charged batteries. I my limited use of them battery life is a problem They are not great but they can be charged from the vehicle so there is that. The biggest down here is cost. They are moderately expensive to buy and very expensive to use. For most I think the cost is prohibitive. The FCC requires all sat phones used/sold or serviced in the US to have 911 capability so while you would not get a local 911 office you would get a professional if need be.
Conclusion-Would have worked very nearly as well as our ideal, with the only real down being the cost.
In the end I can see a place for each, given the right scenario. I'm going to pursue a PLB as a measure of last resort. But I also think a cell and PLB only plan is very weak and opens one up to risk in the space between no cell coverage and a dire emergency. Clearly it is an improvement over a cell only plan, but I would recommend some kind of interim solution for the more nuanced “I need help” not “HELP!” scenarios.
A cell is a no brainer we all have them anyway why not carry it. If it works you are golden.
I think SPOT or ham is advisable for covering the gap between no cell coverage and an outright emergency. One or the other should do. I think ham has the advantage for most recreationalists for a number of reasons. The exception being, if you plan to travel into the few dark area in the country where repeaters can't be counted on were SPOTs sat uplink would be better to hang your hat on.
PLBs do seem like a great system in a really bad situation such as my fallen climber. I think I would turn it on and then attempt better communication with cell or ham.
I would love to hear more about them and how they are used. Anyone ever turned one on? Is there some kind of way to test them without calling out the cavalry or using up the battery? I take it the battery is not meant to be used or replaced regularly but rather of the type that can last for years in storage.
Last edited:
cnynrat
Expedition Leader
You may want to take some time to review and listen to Doug Ritter's presentation on commercial distress alerting services vs. PLBs (linked a few posts back). It's from a couple years ago, so his reference for commercial service was SPOT (inReach didn't exist at the time). He makes a case that the USAF guys on the other end of the line will be more likely to know who to call for a specific type of rescue in a particular area than 911 will. It's the difference between someone who does something full time, vs. someone who mainly gets other types of calls such as a report of an auto accident, a heart attack or other critical health issue, or (from a recent news item) a sandwich not being made correctly.
There is also a story (I believe discussed here on ExPo somewhere), about someone who called 911 in an emergency. As I recall, they had a SPOT, but managed to make contact with someone at home with a cell phone first. The person at home called 911 with the relevant details, including a set of Lat/Long coordinates. In this case the 911 operator didn't understand what the coordinates were or what they were for. It worked out OK in the end, but it's kind of a scary story. I personally do not think 911 is the best place to call to initiate/coordinate a backcountry rescue effort. Once all the relevant information is in the hands of the local SAR agency I think you are probably good to go, but there is a question of the people in the 911 center who have to serve as a relay for that information.
The standardization efforts that are underway may lead to an improvement in how the commercial services work. Time will tell.
In a sense yes, but in a sense I'd argue we've redirected it in a proper direction. The decision about what emergency comms you want to take into the backcountry should not be taken lightly. I think there is a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding about what the various options are, how they work, and what the pros & cons are of each. PLBs never really made it into the mainstream before SPOT came along, so many don't even know that option is available, or how it differs from SPOT or inReach. In the end I simply argue that each of us should take the time to think about the probable scenarios we are preparing for, do your due diligence about the various options, and choose a solution that best fits your needs. That may be ham radio, or one of the commercial alerting services that provide some interesting messaging capabilities, or it may be a PLB that provides a high assurance of quickly getting a rescue underway, or come combination of the above. I don't think there is a single right answer for everyone.
Nothing against Mr. Ritter, but I'm more inclined to read the FCC rulings, which mandate that inland beacon distress calls be routed to the local SAR management, normally the Sheriff's office. My arguement is that going through the dispatcher contacts the Sheriff faster than having the USAF do it for you.
Having served on SAR teams, and in the USAF, I disagree with some of your other points, as well. However, I'll not further the hijack.
For me, I'm going to call 911 if I can. All the other options come after that.
HI Mashurst,
I can give my experience with PLB's but it is very embarrassing. When I first got my PLB I was fooling around with it at home. I noticed a self test mode that could be instigated at the push of a button. So I pushed it and pushed the wrong one!! Instead, I accidentally instigated a genuine emergency call and there was no way to back out. There was nothing to do but to let the drama play out. Within 5 minutes I received a phone call from one of my contacts I provided when I registered my PLB. Red faced I explained what happened. Then about three minutes later my second contact called me. I was getting a little better explaining that I was an idiot and nothing was actually wrong.
Within 5 minutes of that call I received a call from the US Air Force. By now practiced, I explained the situation and the mistake I made with all the appropriate apologies. The Airman was very nice as he explained the reason for the contact numbers is to specifically avoid sending Search and Rescue out on a false alarm.
I was impressed that all this activity occurred within 15 minutes of my button push. Had the Air Force not been able to reach me, my contacts would have been called and if there seemed to be a real problem, Search and Rescue would have been on the move to rescue me in my bedroom (that was my GPS location). This would have at least tripled my embarrassment. But, because of the checks and balances built into the system and the training of the personnel, a real rescue was not initiated.
The Search and Rescue supervisors I have talked to said their goal once a PLB rescue was under way was to effect a rescue within 24 hours or less.
One last thing. You sound inexperienced with really out of the way places. Believe me, some of the places I visit are so remote that the possibility for help is nil. It's not just the fallen climber that needs help. It's anyone who is out of action, for what ever reason, and in danger. Summer heat, winter cold, broken vehicle, injury. These all, and more, can result in a life threatening situation that requires emergency services.
Sparky
cnynrat
Expedition Leader
Do you have a link to the relevant FCC rulings you could share?
I could very well be wrong, but I believe the commercial distress alerting services are not currently subject to FCC regs with respect to the service (obviously the devices themselves are). For example, while there is an FCC rule that every cell carrier must alert 911 in response to a 911 call, even if the account associated with that phone isn't current, there is no similar requirement for commercial distress reporting services.
Speeling miseaks
I don't pretend to be an expert, but the most succinct summary I'm aware of comes from FCC Order FCC 02-271, the document establishing (legalizing) PLB use under Part 95.
In a nutshell, PLBs communicate with a satellite system called SARSAT. SARSAT is monitored by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), who pass inland distress calls to the United States Air Force Rescue Coordination Center (AFRCC), who pass the alerts to 'points of contact designated by the various states.' Typically the Sheriff's office.
Where the commercial services tap into that data stream I'm not sure, but I am sure that the Air Force tasking doesn't come from them.
As a side note, if you can stay awake while reading the legaleze, you'll see that initially the AFRCC didn't even want to be part of the chain. Since PLB beacons are effectively a missing person report, they thought NOAA should contact the state POC directly.
So you push the button on the PLB and a signal goes from the PLB to SARSAT to NOAA to AFRCC to the Sheriff (probably via the dispatcher) who calls out the SAR teams, and who may request help from the Air Force, Army or National Guard (e.g. helicopter support),or whoever, typically after coordinating with the Incident Commander of his SAR team.
On the other hand, you can call the dispatcher who notifies the Sheriff who does the rest.
AFIK The USAF isn't going to do anything unless the Sheriff requests it. Same way the National Guard isn't coming into a disaster area until the Governor asks.
Also, germane to this thread, the FCC describes intended use in the above-referenced document:
I don't pretend to be an expert, but the most succinct summary I'm aware of comes from FCC Order FCC 02-271, the document establishing (legalizing) PLB use under Part 95.
In a nutshell, PLBs communicate with a satellite system called SARSAT. SARSAT is monitored by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), who pass inland distress calls to the United States Air Force Rescue Coordination Center (AFRCC), who pass the alerts to 'points of contact designated by the various states.' Typically the Sheriff's office.
Where the commercial services tap into that data stream I'm not sure, but I am sure that the Air Force tasking doesn't come from them.
As a side note, if you can stay awake while reading the legaleze, you'll see that initially the AFRCC didn't even want to be part of the chain. Since PLB beacons are effectively a missing person report, they thought NOAA should contact the state POC directly.
So you push the button on the PLB and a signal goes from the PLB to SARSAT to NOAA to AFRCC to the Sheriff (probably via the dispatcher) who calls out the SAR teams, and who may request help from the Air Force, Army or National Guard (e.g. helicopter support),or whoever, typically after coordinating with the Incident Commander of his SAR team.
On the other hand, you can call the dispatcher who notifies the Sheriff who does the rest.
AFIK The USAF isn't going to do anything unless the Sheriff requests it. Same way the National Guard isn't coming into a disaster area until the Governor asks.
Also, germane to this thread, the FCC describes intended use in the above-referenced document:
Last edited: