http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/260735/tramper-right-activate-beacon
A tramper accused of activating a personal locator beacon because he was running late and wanted a ride to his car has been cleared of any wrongdoing after an investigation.
Here's the original discussion thread: http://tramper.co.nz/?topicid=2206&view=topic&id=2206
Co-incidental timing – today I received a reply from AMSA (Australian Maritime Safety Authority) regarding an enquiry I made in March.
Basically, I asked if it was appropriate to set off a beacon if you were overdue (although not in immediate danger) and you knew that your responsible contact person would be notifying Search and Rescue that you were overdue.
My thinking was that an activated beacon would shorten the time needed to find you.
The response included the following :
"Only if the group is in a distress situation would it be appropriate for them to activate the beacon for AMSA SAR to pick up the detection."
In somewhat of a contrast to the conclusions of the MaritimeNZ enquiry.
Part of the problem here is that there's no clear and unambiguous message about what's acceptable. In some respects it's not clear if it's even possible to develop such a message, but I think the typical publicity around rescues often doesn't help itself.
Someone requests a rescue when their need is dubious, or when they did some seriously dodgy or un-recommended stuff to get into their situation, and an interviewed official states that they did "the right thing".
The next day someone in a different region requests a rescue as a consequence of a relatively small mistake compared with everything else they might have done right, and an official decides to jump on a soapbox and declare them a time and money-wasting idiot.
Very few people require a rescue without making *some* sort of mistake.
In any case, I'm ultra-cautious about wanting to see anyone billed or charged in a way that could create any confusion or doubt whatsoever for anyone else who might wish to request a rescue.
Looking back at @bernieq's comment, I can see some vague logic in what AMSA said, if you only asked about being overdue. SAR being notified about an overdue person doesn't necessarily mean SAR will decide it has to do anything.
If you activate a PLB, however, they really *have* to assume possible distress. There's less flexibility for an overdue report to be considered in context, which might have resulted in someone deciding you were unlikely to be in danger. If not made carefully, an official comment could result in people activating PLBs unnecessarily.
Without knowing exactly what you asked, I wonder what AMSA would say about a situation where you seriously overdue, or where you had already seen evidence of a search (like helicopters flying overhead).
Fair questions/comments, izogi. Here's the full text of the request :
I would like advice on the following question relating to activation of a PLB.
A group is walking in a remote area (no mobile phone coverage). The group has left detailed information with a reliable person, including date and time by which contact should have been made at the end of the walk (the drop-dead time).
Although no critical injuries, the group is overdue in contacting the reliable person as planned and the 'drop-dead' time has been reached.
Should the group activate the PLB?
1. no critical injuries, so immediate answer might be NO, don't activate PLB.
2. however, the group is aware that the reliable person will now be alerting authorities that the group is overdue and past the 'drop-dead' time. Presumably, activating the PLB would make it easier/faster for Search & Rescue to locate the group and receive the information that there are no critical issues. So, YES, activate PLB.
As a bushwalking club member and PLB owner, your considered response will be appreciated.
... and below is the full text of the response :
Please be advised that the use of a PLB should only be used if the holder/group believes they are in a life threatening situation/imminent danger and as a last resort after all verbal communication has been exhausted.
As you indicated you travel in an area out of mobile range, however leave your details with a ‘reliable person’ that has your contact details/details of your travel, then this ‘reliable person’ should be noted as your primary emergency contact in your registered beacon account.
A comment can also be noted in your online register that your first emergency contact has the details of your whereabouts and trip details.
You can also note trip details and upload a comprehensive itinerary in your online account on the AMSA website (www.amsa.gov.au/beacons)
When Bushwalking and travelling on land, also lodge trip details with the local Police in the area you are travelling, as they will be contacted and tasked by AMSA SAR if your beacon was activated.
The reason I mention this is in the event the PLB is activated, once AMSA SAR receive the satellite signal they can search the registered Beacon Hex Id and access your registered details to attempt to make contact with yourself or your listed emergency contacts to determine the distress situation, which is why registering trip details is of great assistance to Search & Rescue.
The Bushwalking group may find it of assistance to bring a Satellite Phone along with them if they need to alert the ‘reliable person’ when they will not be returning by drop-dead times, however as you mentioned the ‘reliable person’ would contact Authorities/Police to advise the group had not returned, this would be the most effective response to look for the Bushwalking group, as AMSA would task the same response.
Only if the group is in a distress situation would it be appropriate for them to activate the beacon for AMSA SAR to pick up the detection.
It seems to me that AMSA are saying that their role is to receive PLB alerts and pass that on to the search organisation ("they will be contacted and tasked by AMSA SAR").
If a group is overdue, the responsible person will "contact Authorities/Police to advise the group had not returned" thus tasking the same SAR as would AMSA but taking AMSA out of the loop.
I don't think AMSA is considering the 'benefit' of a shorter search. As it wouldn't involve AMSA, a shorter search is of no benefit to them.
I have followed up with AMSA, referencing the NZ enquiry results, asking “Perhaps the Maritime NZ investigation results should be considered as to it's relationship to AMSA policy.”
Tricky one , I can see your point,but from SAR perspective if they receive a beacon alert it means an immediate deployment as opposed to an overdue alert from your reliable person where police will take into consideration experience,possible reasons for being overdue ie rivers have risen,number in group ,weather etc before deploying,they will decide what your drop dead time is,they will normally fly the route and check huts etc before a ground search,so I would say only activate a beacon if you think you can't get out or are in danger.Open for debate though,interesting to see other opinions.
I think I'd still seriously consider activating one if a search were clearly in progress, and I had no other reasonable way of making myself obvious for searchers.
@bernieq: "I don't think AMSA is considering the 'benefit' of a shorter search. As it wouldn't involve AMSA, a shorter search is of no benefit to them."
It's interesting you should observe that, because my impression of the RCCNZ, which is mostly only responsible for PLB-activated incidents in NZ (similar to AMSA?), is that its view of back-country Search and Rescue, and safety in general, revolves more around PLBs and EPIRBs than it revolves around good preventative safety measures. If you spend any amount of time monitoring media output of the RCCNZ, it focuses almost entirely on PLBs, how people have used their PLBs during an incident, and how people should always carry them above everything else. At the same time it often ignores any reference about a person's conduct, or preventative safety, up to that moment. I think this is because by the time the RCCNZ is involved, it already has an accurate location, a strong obligation to go there and deal with it, and nothing a person did up to that point really affects its role.
It's a contrast to the NZ Police, who are primarily responsible for coordinating non-PLB incidents (like overdue people, cellphone calls, etc). A Police perspective would tend to involve much more analysis and search compared with the RCCNZ. Preventative safety is important because it affects everything the Police do in their operation. When the Police comment in media, they seem to spend much more effort pushing angles that focus on safety, survival and provision of information that makes their searches easier, and generally pushing NZ's outdoor safety code.
So you effectively get the RCCNZ telling all people to always carry PLBs everywhere, without pressing them with good safety advice at the same time. Then suddenly, as in the above-linked incident, the RCCNZ boils over because it's had a little too much of people activating PLBs when they might not have needed to do so.
I ended up writing a lot more about this stuff back in Feb when the above-linked incident occurred. I think the RCCNZ has spent a lot of effort simply telling all and everyone to carry PLBs without encouraging good safety practices at the same time, and things are now starting to gradually boil over with so many people having them and activating them improperly. http://www.windy.gen.nz/index.php/archives/2517
