SAR delayed "because they have a beacon"?!

Personally I would rather have some time to get out. It'd save the embarrasment of a search starting when I am only running a bit late. Mind you, I don't usually tramp alone so if I had an accident there is usually someone to give the alarm, whether by EPIRB or not. Another point is that in backcountry emergencies it is usually the case that there is either a body to recover or the casualty is injured, but stable, and just needs to be evacuated. It is very unusual to have a medical emergency situation where a person needs to be in hospital within the golden hour. Another point is that starting a SAR operation is a relatively significant event. The helicopter time is perhaps the least of it. You will probably have 1 if not 2 Policemen tied up over it, plus having to call in a Search Advisor, who would probably be a volunteer who would have to get away from his normal job. Then there will be a debrief and paperwork afterwards. Another point, I would like to challenge chuzz's statement that "tramping is inherently risky". I believe that tramping is inherently safe. At least motorcars don't whizz around at 100km/hr in the backcountry. Sure there are rules, just like in the city where there are roads to cross etc etc. The difference is that in the city we all know the rules and how to survive. On the other hand people are growing up these days with less and less contact with the outdoors. ie, they don't learn the rules and how to survive. So we get this perception that the backcountry is dangerous. Human beings evolved over 3 million years in the backcountry. That wouldn't have happend if it was inherently dangerous.

Mountaineering on the other hand... http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4461584/Climber-dies-in-Mt-Aspiring-fall Anecdotal I know, but I think it says something when you fall 800 metres and the cliff rescue expert comes out without hesitation and says "There's nothing in my mind they did wrong ... that's just one of the sad parts of life, there's some risk when it's an adventure." It's a different breed.

Oh, and I agree with pmcke about the lessening awareness of the outdoors, likely due to migration to cities. When I've been involved in amateur astronomy, we noticed the same kind of thing with large numbers of people barely realising there's a night sky, or really care about it, because they simply never see it. (Light pollution fans itself in that way.) Especially with it now being easier to shift around the globe, I've met plenty of people who grew up in a metropolis, then shifted to New Zealand for one reason or another but have rarely stepped outside a densely populated area because they have all the comforts they want and need, and getting out of it is often expensive for little obvious benefit.

Excellent discussion. The only thing that I'd add is that this scenario arises only because of the inherent limitation of PLB technology (technically the devices trampers carry are actually called Personal Locator Beacons). The basic problem is that they are only good for a once only use and the only information they convey is "Help needed, and here is my position". There's no possibility of sending any kind of "I'm OK" message, as is possible with the alternative SPOT system. (Which has it's own limitations as well.) Which is a pity because the possibility of being overdue, AND yet not needed help is reasonably commonplace ... leaving searchers in a dilemma as to what course of action to take. This creates a very serious logical hole in the use of PLB's specifically when used by trampers/climbers/hunters and possibly yatchies... that really begs for a system upgrade/extension of some sort.

I wondered about that myself. You would think they could have designed the ability to handle short messages in the system, considering it can already handle GPS locations. I imagine they want to keep the system simple, robust and only for critical emergencys. If you had the ability to send messages, someone would be sending messages like "Please ring home and tell Mum I will be half an hour late for dinner". You'd suddenly get the poor old centre in France that handles the responses from the satellites having to decypher the critical from the trivial. Yeah, much easier this way, push the button if you are going to die, otherwise leave it alone.

I have to admit I can see the attraction of mountain radios now having been out with one.

I very much agree that the outdoors are safer than the cities. It may be counter intuitive, but it's a much more predictable environment, if for no other reason but for the sheer lack of thousands of unpredictable people around you. As you say, different rules apply there than in the city, but if you know and understand them, it's safer to be outdoors than in town - with the exception of unusually risky trips. The reason people say "the outdoors are dangerous" is probably because for many if not most people they indeed are, as they don't know enough about them; and it's also a reminder that despite being quite safe, it's never a good idea to get slack in the outdoors even for experienced people. I also agree it is a good thing to have a certain amount of time to get out even if you're late - but I myself want to be the one who sets that time, since I am the one who, despite all unquestioned expertise of rescue parties, knows by far most information about what I and my party can do, what our trip plans are in detail etc. That's why I set a "chopper time"; it is the time by which I am reasonably certain that if I haven't made it out by then, I am in trouble and need help. It is NOT the time at which I think I will be out if things go to plan. Now when I set that time, that's reasonably late already as just described. If then SAR adds their own idea of what they guesstimate from looking at the comparatively little information that they have - as opposed to all that I myself know when I decide my "chopper time" beforehand - these times add up, and that unnecessarily delays a search that is necessary anyway. This is not about any misguided notion of entitlement to anything; I am merely pointing out what I consider a less than optimal strategy to make a decision. I am saying that if a rescue party wants to provide the best possible help, if they delay a search because of good equipment despite the party being reported as clearly overdue, that's flawed. There is a lot of talk about taking responsibility - that's exactly what I want to do! I prefer to have as much responsibility for myself as possible, so I set these times accordingly late. It may be that the vast majority of people only tells their backup contact - if they even have one - the time they expect to be out if all goes well, and then of course it makes sense for SAR to add a little time depending on circumstances, because otherwise the slightest delay would lead to a search. That's everyone's own choice, but I think it would be only professional of search parties to clearly differentiate between being given the information that someone is "late" (meaning didn't come out when they expected to) and someone is "overdue" (meaning the time that the trampers themselves, based on their detailed knowledge of trip and people, decided beforehand to mean that they definitely need help). I don't think it is ok for SAR to just add their own delay regardless. I don't care about embarrassment, and I certainly don't want SAR to second guess that I would like them to "protect" me from embarrassment by delaying a search for me. Like everyone else, I want help when I need it, and the way I am setting the times already makes sure that no unnecessary search will happen because of me. If my backup raises an alarm, that means we do need help, and a search is necessary. It's that simple. By the way: That goes ESPECIALLY if we are carrying a beacon! Why? Because if we are so much later than planned that the "chopper time" has passed without us reporting back, we do need help AND most likely are in a situation that does not allow us to activate the beacon. Anyone can work out that that is very most likely not a good situation. Do you have a source for the statement that in the majority of cases, the tramper is either dead or stable? I think at the very least that excludes beacon alarms, and may mainly be based on pre-beacon statistics. I have the feeling that might be a common point of view, but not necessarily based on much (up to date) evidence. The fact that the expression of the "golden hour" even exists seems to tell me that there are indeed quite a few cases where quick help makes all the difference - although that may not apply for alarms raised by "overdue", since in that case, a lot of time may already have passed, depending when the incident happened. For beacon alarms, that's a different story. Just as one of many examples: If someone has a serious allergic reaction to a sting or whatever, I can stabilise them with an adrenalin injection to prevent them from dying within minutes, but I still need help and medical care very, very soon, and would expect that to be arranged as soon as the beacon signal is picked up. Aside from that, even if we assume that in 90% of all incidents the tramper is either dead or stable, if you're one that falls in the other 10%, a delayed search might just kill you. A lot of discussion, the practical bottomline still remains: From any individual tramper's point of view - who is first and foremost interested in getting help quickly if and when they need it, and rather less interested in anything else - it is the best strategy to represent yourself well underequipped through your friend who is raising the alarm; and most certainly not tell anyone that you are carrying a beacon. It is the strategy that results in the earlier start of a search, and therefore the better one to choose. Understating your equipment and skills basically results in more responsibility about setting suitable "chopper times" ending up in your hands, and therefore, more control over the start of a search. It will make it more likely that your friend is taken seriously right away, and that action will follow immediately. Any experienced tramper would want that to happen. It's a slap in the face of a routined tramper if, despite an alarm being raised based on a clear and well balanced agreement that was set beforehand between you and your backup, SAR management decides to wait "because they are well equipped". I wouldn't even be sure if that reasoning would hold up in a court case if there was one in the aftermath. Finally, no professional search party will react negatively if they find that you are better equipped than they were told, as long as you have a real emergency and need their help. They will be rather pleased that for a change, someone took care of themselves properly and was able to hang in there until they arrived. Cheers, Matt PS: Yes, a mountain radio would make most of this debate unnecessary for most situations, agreed. For groups and depending on what you do, it might be a wise idea to carry one, although I personally still find them too heavy and bulky. I would probably be more likely to go for a SPOT.

So you think that you are late they automatically expect help, what if the rivers are up and unable to cross, do you want a chopper ride out..? im a member of LandSAR and we are not deployed until the police launch the alarm, we have no decision in it at all. It costs $1500 AN HOUR to use a chopper to search for someone, so if you get caught at a hut due to rain and dont walk out and your family or friends raise the alarm its $1500 that will eventually come out of your pocket...

Philip, I couldn't agree more. If you want to have it all, at this point in time a combination of an PLB and a SPOT fits the bill. Cheers, Matt

No offense Kieran, but you don't seem to really have read my posts. This is not about entitlement at all. I also don't care - for the purpose of this thread - who makes what decisions in an SAR operation. I am simply pointing out a flaw in the reasoning to delay a search for an overdue party "because a party has a beacon". The fact that an overdue party has a beacon should not delay the search compared to the time it would be started if they didn't have one. It's plain unlogical. It basically sends the message "if you carry a beacon, don't even bother to have an emergency contact, because unless your beacon signal is picked up, a raised alarm won't be taken very seriously anyway, at least not in a timely manner." If beacons would never fail or get lost, if parties would never be in places where the beacon can not make contact with satellites, and if there would never be incidents where no one in the group is able to activate the beacon, the reasoning to "delay the search because they have a beacon" would make sense, and it would be unnecessary to even have a backup contact to raise the alarm if the group is significantly overdue. If you start to look at money - which is fair enough - please be honest and put the numbers in relation to what SAR for non-outdor-activity related incidents costs every year. It's not ok to bring money into the equasion where outdoor activities are involved, and never mention it for all other SAR activities, like rural emergencies, for example. That's applying double standards. It is also a very slippery slope towards an impossible to solve question of which activity, decision or behaviour "deserves" help, and which doesn't. Matt