Gadd on communication devices

[Rad]

From his blog:

 

Now it’s going to get a little controversial: In both of the accidents above (Jack Tackle and Carlyle Norman) good communications might have made a difference to if not the outcome then certainly the process and speed of response. Maybe nothing would have made a difference, but risks were taken and decisions made that good communications would have helped resolve faster, or at least reduce risks. I think that if you’re out in the mountains today without a Spot/DeLorme InReach (which was supposed to show up around here for a review two months ago?), satellite phone, appropriate radio or cell phone then, bluntly, you’re making a serious error and being an ass. In today’s world rescuers are going to come for you; if you can give a clear location then they will waste less time finding you, and put themselves at less risk. A Spot declares an emergency and provides a location, a very good start to being rescued efficiently. that. Two climbers were recently rescued off the top of the Goodsirs; I spoke with the guy doing the rescue, a friend of mine, all he knew was a GPS location from the Spot; he flew in, there they were, boom, off the mountain. There are problems with Spots, mainly that the communication isn’t two-way, but as any SAR person will tell you, finding the person quickly is the start of a successful rescue.

 

A Spot weighs very little, and I don’t generally head into the hills without mine now. But if I do then I’m in an area with good cell service, and keep the phone well charged. If there is no cell service then the choices are a Satellite phone or a radio. Radios take more knowledge to use (repeaters, frequencies, etc etc), but have some strong benefits, mainly on-going communication with the rescuers when they are close. Satellite phones also allow two-way communication, work anywhere (or almost anywhere), and are getting increasingly cheap to buy and operate.

 

No one tool is perfect, but the ability to declare an emergency and give a precise location is essential not only to the victim but also to those attempting to do the rescue. Full stop. I don’t want to even hear arguments about ethics and rescue etc. etc., in today’s world a rescue will be mounted, let’s keep it simple so it costs less, reduces risk to the rescuers and cuts trauma time for the family and friends down even if the person is dead. And if it saves the victim’s life then that’s a bonus. Most of the arguments around not bringing communications centre on the victim; don’t be a selfish victim, communicate.

 

So, take care, don’t have accidents, but if you do have minimal but effective communication. I expect this will become the norm shortly, as basic as a headlight in any outdoor user’s pack.

[genepires]

read that also. Was thinking that PLB would be a good option as well. No annual fees but no "OK" function.

[CaleHoopes]

I just recently bought the inReach. I've used it once up on Rainier as a test - I bought the Android one and sent my wife a text message from Anvil Rock on the Muir Snowfield. So, I had a ton of problems trying to get the Android/inReach to pair over bluetooth.

 

On that trip, I busted my 5 year old GPS - so, I decided to return the Android version and bought the Earthmate/inReach and I like it much better. It pairs better with the inReach because they had control of the technology. The Earthmate soft-keyboard works great and the devices pair much better. The interface of the online map stuff for the inReach is still a bit mysterious to me.

 

I bought the device to use on Denali - expedition tracks and the ability to send text messages to my wife - worth the expense.

 

I'll be giving the whole system a really good test this weekend up at Rainier again - so I'll let you know how it goes.

 

Considering the 4-missing folks on Rainier last month in the sets of storms... I think this device is an absolute in my pack now.

[pcg]

Can anyone comment on the repeater coverage for amateur radio 2m frequencies in the PNW. Not the I-5 corridor, of course, but in the more remote areas. How does it compare to cell coverage?

Edited March 2, 2012 by pcg

[wetslide]

Just a little more than two weeks ago I used a cell phone to call 911 after an accident that could have been much more serious. I was glad to have it (and reception).

[mattyj]

read that also. Was thinking that PLB would be a good option as well. No annual fees but no "OK" function.

 

From what I understand, also more reliable, less likely to break in the field and better performance in the bottom of a canyon or through trees or whatnot. IMO, buying a spot primarily for the 911 feature is silly - $1k to leave it in a drawer or the bottom of your pack for 10 years, when with a PLB you'd just have to swap the battery once.

 

It's important to remember that all these communication methods have drawbacks. I often go in places were a cell phone is useless; I bring a 2m radio that can also (legally) transmit on the 155 public safety bands - but the signal only goes so far, and even if it reaches Joe Deputy, unless he's monitoring the law enforcement mutual aid channels, I'm just huffing and puffing. I've used a set phone in meadows and clearings and it's bad enough; break your leg at the bottom of a ravine it may as well be a paperweight. Same with the SPOT beacon - although if you have track logging enabled, you can at least get a feel for where it works and where it doesn't. A PLB is supposedly better than a SPOT, but you can't actually test it - so you'll never know how it works in dense terrain, and if you drop it, you can never be sure if you actually damaged it.

 

I think it's inevitable that these devices cause us to alter our risk assessment when we're in the field. That's not good or bad, it just is - and I'm guilty of it too. Pushing the envelope more because you expect them to work, and then finding out that they don't, can put you in a real bad situation.

[Rad]

I think it's inevitable that these devices cause us to alter our risk assessment when we're in the field. That's not good or bad, it just is - and I'm guilty of it too. Pushing the envelope more because you expect them to work, and then finding out that they don't, can put you in a real bad situation.

 

We wrote about that in the Northwest Mountaineering Journal recently.

 

Climber 9-1-1 article on communication devices

 

[yellowlab03]

I am a radio guy by trade and never leave my truck without one, usually two. I go way overboard on the emergency signaling arena. Usually will have a radio, plus my garmin rino, VS-17 panel, cell phone, strobe light and a mirror. Looking at borrowing a sat phone from work and also looking at purchasing a PLB or Spot device. I have never taken off into the woods and thought to myself, "Eh I have enough emergency sig stuff, if I get into trouble someone will find me."

 

I don't know about you guys, but I have been in an emergency situation where I didn't have my stuff handy and a damned rescue helicopter flew past me. Had I had my mirror or my radio or my VS-17 panel handy I probably wouldn't have had to make a mad dash back to the truck, then drive an hour down to a ranger station so I could make the call to start a rescue which took an additional 3 hours.

[markwebster]

There are several ham radio repeaters south of Mt. Rainier. And you can find the rangers frequency if you do some research, though it is illegal to transmit on that frequency...rumor has it they will ignore you unless it is a real emergency.

 

In an emergency, it is legal to transmit on ham bands, even if you don't have a license.

 

My friend Todd (owner of edgeworks) told me that my ham radio:

 

http://www.powerwerx.com/wouxun-radios/kg-uv3d-dual-band.html

 

should reach a Portland repeater from Paradise. I've just recently programmed in all the repeaters south of Rainier. I plan to test it out. A $100 ham radio is a lot cheaper than the alternatives. 7 year old girls have passed the license test, it's easy.

 

From Gig Harbor, I've talked to a guy in Spokane, via the Tiger Mountain repeater with that radio. They are 5 watts, which beats the heck out of those little "20 mile" radios at REI. Cell phones transmit at a maximum power of 3 watts.

 

I've sold all my long range ham gear...but I'm keeping that little Wouxan...that thing is cool.

 

[jmace]

WEAK!!!

 

Might as well take a helicopter everywhere too...there is something to say about going on a big adventure where its you and only you.

 

Thats a hell of a lot different than just being able to press a button and get rescued.

 

Wills getting old

[DPS]

My experience with various comm devices including satelite phones, cellular phones, and Spot devices is they have all failed nearly 100% of the time. Perhaps me and my partners are hopeless Luddites, but the devices seem so hit and miss.

 

If I am going to spend the money and weight I want something that is going to be nearly fail safe. Is there any one device that can make this claim, or should climbers now be expected to carry a cell phone, satelite phone, Spot, flares, mirror, and a Ham radio? Unfortunately, the excellent article in the NWAJ does not answer this basic question.

 

Mark Webster's suggestion for the radio seems to be the best alternative, yet isn't it still bound by line of sight like all radios and cell phones or is it powerfull enough to broadcast out of say the bottom of the Luna Cirque?

Edited March 2, 2012 by DPS

[mattyj]

Mark Webster's suggestion for the radio seems to be the best alternative, yet isn't it still bound by line of sight like all radios and cell phones or is it powerfull enough to broadcast out of say the bottom of the Luna Cirque?

 

If you're down in a canyon and can't see a repeater, your radio is probably going to be useless at reaching anyone else on the ground. I've been in areas where a whistle blast practically went farther a 5W ham radio due to terrain.

 

Aircraft are a different story, but you'd have to know what frequencies the pilots are listening on and a stock ham radio probably won't do the trick unless it's able to broadcast outside the ham bands - some are, most aren't.

[wfinley]

My experience with various comm devices including satelite phones, cellular phones, and Spot devices is they have all failed nearly 100% of the time. Perhaps me and my partners are hopeless Luddites, but the devices seem so hit and miss.

 

YMMV but I have used the Spot Device and sat phones all over Alaska from remote rivers 200 miles SW of Anchorage to the Arctic Ocean. The sat phones always work (sometimes it takes a few tries) and the Spot has worked 80% of the time. I've never used neither during an emergency but I would trust both of them.

[DPS]

Had problems with a sat phone in AK. Ran into Dr. Bill Straka on his way down Denali and he asked about my phone. I told him it wasn't working well. He explained that the satellites orbiting over the poles 'dropped' the signal as the signal switched from one satellite to the other. He knew this because he designed the satellite system. It was the Iridium system. Maybe they have improved now.

 

Used the Spot once on a week long trip to send 'we're ok' messages to our spouses. Not one message went through. Again, it could be because I'm a Luddite, but they didn't work for me under non emergency situations so I don't trust them to work when I really need them. Not to mention the expense to buy the equipment and the fees for the network are for a just in case type of thing.

 

Seems that a cell phone has just as much chance of working and since I already have that, I may just as well stick with it.

Edited March 2, 2012 by DPS

[Alasdair]

As far as radios go they do tend to be the communication of choice for a lot of the guiding community in the NW and elsewhere. They are very complicated to learn to use, and also require a ham radio license. Radios will work in an emergency pretty much anywhere in the north cascades, but if you dont know the frequencies, or how to use the device it is as good to you as a brick. The small hand held ham radios have the ability to transmit on many different bands so you may not need repeaters in range if there are other people who use radios nearby. In alaska these give you the ability to communicate with your pilot if he is flying by for example.

 

That said, for most people the best option is a spot.

[DPS]

I'm very interested in the radios, like the one mark Webster mentioned. What makes them so complicated to use? Are there classes one can take? As I mentioned, I am bad with technology, I can barely remember how to use my cell phone.

[Rad]

One problem with a radio is that you need someone listening on the other end. So in each area you enter you need to know what frequency to use to reach someone.

[wfinley]

In alaska these give you the ability to communicate with your pilot if he is flying by for example.

Actually many of the pilots these days are requiring that you have a sat phone with you -- especially if you are traveling to some spot of the beaten path (i.e. not the Ruth or Kahiltna). That way you can communicate to the pilot what conditions are around you.

[DPS]

In alaska these give you the ability to communicate with your pilot if he is flying by for example.

Actually many of the pilots these days are requiring that you have a sat phone with you -- especially if you are traveling to some spot of the beaten path (i.e. not the Ruth or Kahiltna). That way you can communicate to the pilot what conditions are around you.

I've done AK expeditions where the single largest line item expensive was the rental and pre paid minutes for the satellite phone. Now with fuel prices being so high and sat phones being less expensive I'm sure that is not the case. But that cost had us change our objectve from a FA in the Luchania/Mt Steele area to the Ruth Gorge where a sat phone was not required.

Edited March 3, 2012 by DPS

[Mtguide]

Radio transmission can sometimes benefit from "bounce", where radio waves can be reflected by heavy cloud, or by ice crystals in the upper atmosphere, and there are other causes as well. It's not always completely dependent on line of sight or repeaters.

[wfinley]

I've done AK expeditions where the single largest line item expensive was the rental and pre paid minutes for the satellite phone. Now with fuel prices being so high and sat phones being less expensive I'm sure that is not the case. But that cost had us change our objectve from a FA in the Luchania/Mt Steele area to the Ruth Gorge where a sat phone was not required.

Not so bad these days. There are a number of online companies that will mail you a phone and charge roughly $50/week for rental. On the other hand a flight into the St Elias region will cost you minimum $800/person.

[DPS]

Not so bad these days. There are a number of online companies that will mail you a phone and charge roughly $50/week for rental. On the other hand a flight into the St Elias region will cost you minimum $800/person.

Back then the sat phone would have been $400 and the flight was somewhere in the $600 range - combined too expensive. Ruth Gorge was just $350 plus we didn't need that sat phone, a much cheaper trip.

[Buckaroo]

"reduces risk to the rescuers and cuts trauma time for the family and friends down even if the person is dead."

 

How does a dead person operate a spot, cell phone, or radio? Is it in the instructions?

[Rad]

"reduces risk to the rescuers and cuts trauma time for the family and friends down even if the person is dead."

 

How does a dead person operate a spot, cell phone, or radio? Is it in the instructions?

 

Partner.

[NoahT]

Thats a hell of a lot different than just being able to press a button and get rescued.

 

 

As if it's that simple.

 

Maybe those who choose to forgo making the most modicum of efforts to aid S&R (should it be needed), like a locator/beacon/cell phone/etc, should also formally opt-out of any publicly-funded rescue assistance.