UKH

Among the mountains mobile reception is quite often un-obtainable and this impairs any prompt rescue an injured outdoor pursuiter will receive. Jenni Miller learned of Personal Locator Beacons from a member of Equine Ramblers UK who lives in Australia where they have been legal for use on land since 2003.

She is running a campaign and petition to change the law and the Search and Rescue system so that they can be used legally in the UK. For more information visit the following webpage. Sign the petition accessible from that page. http://www.equineramblersuk.co.uk/personal-locator-beacons.php

If successful it will significantly effect rock climbers and others in the event of an accident or sudden ill-health. She needs as many signatures as possible as the end date of the petition is 18th March 2008. Don't go round thinking it'll never happen to you - that you'll never need SAR. Please sign the petition so you have the choice of a more rapid response from the emergency services. Also tell your friends about it and encourage them to sign.

In reply to jenniwren:
Why do i get the feeling this one could be a long one?

In reply to shingsowa:

Oh yes...

In reply to Ridge:
And............................ let the arguments begin...

In reply to Ridge: I've got a flask and sandwiches

In reply to jenniwren:

What do the Mountain Rescue teams think of this? Seems much of the investment and overheads will fall on them.
Who will train, implement, monitor and maintain the system?

In reply to KeithW:
From what their website says, a lot of the burden of infrastructure etc falls on either the Police, the MCA etc.

In reply to KeithW:

Agreed. They are obviously valuable in maritime situations where you've got hundreds if not thousands of square miles to search. Also the searchers are funded by the government (RAF and Coastguard), not voluntary donations.
Not saying it doesn't have it's place, but imagine hundreds of beacons being activated in a small area by people who are a bit lost and want a taxi home. Mobile phones are a big enough problem for MRTs.

In reply to jenniwren:This is not the point! How long do you want to wait up a mountain for SAR as now when they could pinpoint your location with a GPS locating signal with the PLB system? The investment will pay for itself in time not spent searching for you!

In reply to jenniwren:
I'm not disputing that it is perfectly possible to have a serious accident in the UK in an area not covered by mobile phone reception and that individuals should equip themselves to deal with this but this seems a little OTT. If you have the spare cash to blow on a PLB then buy a blizzard bag, tell a friend your route, take a little extra food and water and give the cash you've saved to Mountain rescue. If this was legalised I'd give it 2 years before the system is overloaded with people setting off beacons when they get a flat tyre in the Welsh valleys or run out of petrol in the lake district. IMO giving people a perceived failsafe backup just encourages under preparing.

In reply to jenniwren:

Firstly you're assuming every climber and walker will be carrying a beacon to activate in the first place, and then that volunteer MRTs, on very tight budgets, will have the kit in place to track them. I'd assume that RAF choppers might have the kit, but you're assuming that it's going to be universally adopted by everyone.

In reply to jenniwren: Also it is illegal to misuse a PLB and anyone doing it could be fined or jailed and have their unit confiscated. They are registered with the PLB registry and have to have a license with OFCOM so they know who owns each one! Using them as a taxi service won't happen as the SAR services will report the misuse. The funding of the SAR services won't change...they will stay as they are now. What needs to change is the equipment used and that is the investment. It already exists but the police don't have it.

In reply to jenniwren:
Also assuming that the UK SAR services will have the cover to manage this? The helis they have at the moment are way beyond the hours they should have been used for, and they already have a large inland area to cover. Surely this will be another strain on the system?

In reply to jenniwren:


Some classic understatement there^

Interesting idea, seems sensible in much the same way avalanche trancievers do. Could also provide an awful lot of false alarms in the hands of a hoard of untrained 'consumers'.

Can't say I'll be geting one for the hills but It's made me wonder about getting one for the jetski.

jk

In reply to jenniwren: The campaign. is to change the law so that you can choose if you want to own one...I certainly will and the more that do the cheaper they will become to purchase. You miss the point. I don't assume that everyone will want to own one, but they will become more popular and if you are in a group you only need one PLB owner or shared ownership.

The US and Aussie have had this system since 2003 and it works very well. They made the investment. As usual the UK trails in technology!

In reply to jenniwren:
Intentional misuse may not be likely, but what about those who believe they are in a life threatening situation, but could as easily find another way around their current problem if they had either been better prepared or better trained?

How would those who misuse the system be prosecuted? What is the punishment? Maybe we should also then have insurance to cover the cost of a rescue... oh wait we've done that one before haven't we?

In reply to jenniwren:

In Australia you have huge tracts of land with no trails and where taking a 4x4 is hard, if not impossible, and you can be days from the nearest road, never mind nearest 'phone, so plb's are very very useful, and I know of quite a few people that have carried them.

However, as I understand it, even using a plb, it takes 24 hours before a rescue attempt is launched, because the satellite that receives the signal is on a fly-by once every 12 hours, so they wait for a second signal in order to ensure that the plb wasn't set off by accident. Now I can't think of any area of the UK where a walk out will take 12 hours (assuming you don't get lost), let alone 24, so really you'd be better off making the cas. as comfortable and as safe as possible and legging it to a phone/reception. If you're doing remote big mountain routes then you should know how to self-rescue and do fun things like tandem abseils,so you should be able to get you and your partner to the ground safely, and then leg it to get help.

Josh.

In reply to jenniwren:

Surely a bit of overkill. I considered getting a PLB when I went on an unsupported trip to the jungle with no comms at all. Decided against it in the end for various reasons. In the UK I just can't see the need.
MR can already (with permission from the police) ping your mobile to get a position, and there is a very good locator system already in use that can find a casualty over a large area. It's usually black and white, quite furry, with a red jacket saying "SARDA" on it

In reply to jenniwren: Given the size of the USA and Aus PLB's work fine, however the manner in which the satelite location method works it is not suited to our V small land area and would take considrable time to locate any becon set off and that is not accounting for any false alarm type incidents that would have rescue helicopters and Nimrod aircraft circling houses up and down the country! For what its worth I cannot help but think that telling people where you are off too and taking a little extra kit is far more effective than carring around an expensive box that will lull you into a false sense of secutrity and no doubt let you down when you need it!

In reply to jenniwren: The issue here is not one of misuse because they could be closely administered. Its that it gives no information to the rescuers. An emergency at sea is wildly different to one on land in that to access the emergency a helicopter is invariably required unless it is close to land. With a land rescue the resucers may need to administer first aid on the spot or it may be an emergency which could be easily deblt with by land based resuers. A PLB does no tprovide information about what might be required for the resuce - e.g. if a chap has broken his neck half way down a cliff, then a helicopter rescue in the immediate minutes after the incident is wholely inappropriate as the victim needs to be accessed and stabilised, a job best done prior to the helicopters arrival - i.e. by land services. I think you are presenting the case in a very black and white light when it is far from it.

In reply to jenniwren:

It might sound as if I'm being deliberately obstuctive to what in essence sounds like a good idea, but I'm still concerned on what it would cost to implement the system of control centres. If it's a large investment, could it be better spent than on funded what would be a very 'niche' group of users?

The US and Aus have large area of sparesly populated wilderness, the UK, with the exception of Scotland, doesn't.

My other concern is perhaps best summed up by one of the letters on your site:

"I am a Safety Consultant, and as a safety professional I wholeheartedly support your campaign to make these devices legal for use on land.

In fact I would go further and make them mandatory for climbers, walkers, etc in some areas, as their use would make the search and rescue operations much easier."

If you are really concerned, carry a beacon anyway. If you find yourself in a life-threaten situation - use it. I wouldn't be all that bothered about a fine if in imminent danger of death.

In reply to shingsowa: You are looking for excuses not to do something that would be of minority value. How many people would go to the expense of owning a PLB if they are not responsible people? The PLB has to be sent for resetting once it has been used (...not sure if this incurs a cost) which is inconvenient to the owner....it can't be used in the meantime The benefit is to the majority of responsible PLB owners. Woud you prefer to be rescued by snail mail?

The punishment is potential imprisonment and fine.

The GPS positioning signal wouldn't go straight to the heli's but they'd mostly likely have a reasonably accurate OS reference.

In reply to jenniwren: Sorry, totaly disagree with your thought on this one. Currently on a mrt, working reguarly with the various SAR heli's in Scotland and the UK. SARSAT response is dictated by satilites getting the beacon hit after it being set off. There is then two potential hits recieved by the UK mission control located at the ARCC Kinloss, each hit being oppostite side of the satilite passing route. A second pass will then identifiy the actual site, this can take up to ninety mins for a second hit. Aircraft passing overhead can also recieve the signal.

Due to the licencing in the UK area, only currently marine and aviation plbs can be bought and sold. Each one registered and controlled.

With the introduction of a wide spread distrubution of plb's the all ready highly taxed SAR asset's will be over run with false alarms. If you look at the stat's now, a greater proportion of hits are caused by accidental activation.

I think signing this pettion will have excatly the opposite result to the suggested increase of response. By diverting already limited resources for hunting for accedental 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 propably make it prohibertive for civilian rescue teams to purchase and run.

In Australia due to the huge size, limited population and extensive light aircraft carrage of plb's make perfect sense, in our croweded island, a mobile phone with an inbuilt gps facility would be a far better option to dramticaly ease the burden of searching for injured climbers or walkers. Neither electronic kit will help find missing personel if they arn't either turned on or run out of batteries.

We can argue about personal responsability for actions, but carrying a plb around again increases the perception of safety, allowing potential victems to push that little harder when common sense and self reliance would have prevously stopped and turned them around.

In reply to stumc: Hi stu, can I have your job yet?

In reply to jenniwren:

As Mike Kann rightly said, the signal is just that, a signal. No differential between a fallen climber stuck three pitches up, requiring stabilisation then a technical rescue way before an ambulance/heli gets anywhere near him and a hypothermic hillwalker out on an open moor.

The SAR/MR system we have in this country works damned well, especially considering a good portion of it is run by volunteers and charitable donations.

As for expense/responsibility, last time i checked money didn't directly relate to good sense.

In reply to shingsowa: Point taken about the type of casualty. This doesn't just affect Climbers. (There are are others that go out into and enjoy the country.) The claims made about the response time averages 90 minutes. If you didn't have SIM card reception it would be a long time before any one missed you! With the PLB it is stating you are in trouble which is a start particularly if you are alone or with one other who needs to stay with you.

In reply to jenniwren: You are just totally avoiding the issue here! How you fine people for misuse is a question best left to penpushers. The real issue is one you've not addressed. What are you planning on doing? Have the MR teams go out with 600ft of rope to every call because they might need to get down a cliff, or a stretcher to carry somebody with mild hypothermia off the hill? ASll rescues are different and require an appropriate response which is not what PLB's provide a solution for. What is actually required is better and more accessible training for walkers, climbers etc and a true understanding of how MR works. Not another box which can a/ go wrong b/ costs lost of money c/ is not that useful as it only provides limited information. Now where's my compass...

In reply to jenniwren:


Plenty of people have more money than sense, it's something that can't be bought.

Look at all the 'all you need to be a <insert sport here>' kits that are advertised in outdoor shops. 'All the gear and no idea'... It's a cliche but one with a ring of truth to it, you only have to wander round Ambleside on a summer weekend to see it.

That said I actually think there's some merit in the idea if the pitfalls can be avoided.

jk

In reply to jkarran:"That said I actually think there's some merit in the idea if the pitfalls can be avoided." Thankyou. There will always be idiots out there that aren't prepared...they will be the ones without proper walking shoes or thermal underwear or a PLB!

I do appreciate the SARs and Air Ambulance very much and so do many others. They do sterling work. The systems are in place for mis-use of PLB's for marine users and I can't see why these couldn't be applied to in-land use if it works for the mariners. It's purely a signal that you're in trouble....an announcement that you need help and where you are. I'd prefer to have that than nothing at all, languishing either ill or incapable of walking anywhere for help.

In reply to jenniwren: Firstly will you answer my question? Secondly no its not just a signal to let people know you're in trouble. In the UK it means that Helicopters are put in the air very very quickly.

In reply to timmy-ts: Not up to me mate but if you want me to say yes then, Yes. How is the sunny porta cabin and Baskin Robbins?

In reply to mike kann: If you are referring to "What are you planning on doing?" etc I sure that there are many occasions the SAR/MR's don't know what they are rescuing because there is no ablity to communicate (prior to them leaving base) due to no SIM card reception. Their equipment must cover a wider spectrum of eventuality.

Surely prompt action by a PLB signal will bring the emergency to the location much quicker than by the present conventional methods now used.

There are so many variant possibilities it is mind boggling! The SAR teams deal with them every day and their equipment must cover this.

I'm sorry but must leave the discussion as I have to go to work. Please be generous and sign the petition.

In reply to jenniwren:

If they have no SIM card then yes they have to raise the alert by leaving the scene. However this could be performed by somebody from outside the party leaving somebody else to deal with the casualty. Yes ML teams carry lots of stuff to deal with a spectrum of situations but it is simply not as simple as saying that the ML teams goes to the scene and deals with whats there. They usually have some sort of information to help them decide what sort of scale rescue is appropriate.


Yes. The Helicopter would be there in minutes. My understand of it is that if a PRB is activated EVERYTHING ELSE is dropped on the spot. If its somebody with a broken back who need to be stabilised as per the example above, you've just pulled a helicopter away from attending an RTA in which somebody may need immediate evacuation. This is why PRB's over land are only licensed to Aircraft because if they are activated it is genuinely a very serious situation, where the victims of the accident will be dead in minutes.


How is the PRB going to help them deal with it more effectively? By getting a helicopter there quickly when it may not be the appropriate response thereby wasting 1000's which could have been spent funding MR's?


I certainly won't be. Sorry.

In reply to jenniwren: I think its a very silly thing. as stated, Britain really isnt that big. Far better to let people know where you're going and take a mobile phone and go equiped for emergencies than to carry a "panic button".
The web page says "When the maritime and aeronautical beacons were introduced, the SAR organisations found themselves stretched due to the high level of false alerts from such devices." I really cant see why this shouldnt be even worse.

In reply to jenniwren: Is there really a need for this? After all, how many people die in the hills of the UK as a result of not being able to get help?

Surely there are much simpler things one can do to prevent an incident like informing someone where you are going.

I hate the thought of having to have some sort of beacon like this. The whole point of getting out into the hills is to do away with connections to the outside world and get back to a way where ones own abilities are the difference between getting by and getting into trouble.

In reply to jenniwren:


You describe me well, have we met


<genuine question> Why not carry a couple of distress flares like most small private boats do then if you're genuinely concerned for your safety in the hills?

jk

In reply to jkarran:


Or better still, stay completely safe by not venturing into the hills at all. The hills are potentially dangerous. Has life become so bland that we have to have a back up plan for every eventuality?

In reply to Ridge:


The quote that got me was "Jeremy feels strongly that adventures on land are being discriminated against."

How perfectly beastly for poor Jeremy. How perfectly beastly for us.

I'm trying to think whether it has ever crossed my mind, in 20 years on the hill, that I was being 'discriminated against'? Or did I just go to the hills to (inter alia) escape such whining.

In reply to jenniwren:

Personally, I wouldn't want to see this until both the Mountain Rescue and the RAF say that it will make their life easier rather than overburden them with false alarms meaning they miss genuine emergencies. Meanwhile carry a whistle if you are worried.

In reply to jenniwren:

I think possibly it's worth looking at the origin of this petition. Horse accidents are usually quite serious and specific - either falls or crush injuries from horse falls. Typically the faller is either ok or imobilized. This makes a "panic and push" type distress device very attractive, but I don't think it is appropriate or neccessary for the majority of terrestrial accidents.

Marine incidents where large areas of featureless terrain need to be searched rapidly for a casualt invisible at sea level are a different matter, however this is very much horses (if you'll pardon the pun) for courses. In many ways the US or Australian position of vast areas of uninhabited terrain are similar to marine situations, but in the UK they just aren't appropriate, even for horse riders.

In reply to Not Remotely Foz:
'There is now a petition running, through http://www.equineramblersuk.co.uk/personal-locator-beacons.php and everyone who thinks they would like to get rescued anywhere in the UK at any time should seriously think about signing it.'

Its obviously a new hobby.

In reply to Andy Say: I'd like to get rescued. Always fancied a ride in one of those helicopters. Now, if they could rescue me from this hospital and dump me in the contry that would be great...

In reply to toadwork: Does anyone know if Glencoe Mountain Rescue support this? Their photos are used on the site, but I'm getting the feeling from here that this is not something UK MRT's seem to be in favour of.

In reply to toadwork: It is interesting that every single photo is of a rescue in the mountains rather than one involving a horse...

In reply to ceri:
Normally works the other way - they normally dump you IN a hospital after evacuating you FROM the countryside

In reply to toadwork:

Pass a sandwich would you?...

I'm pretty much in agreement. As well meaning as the petition is, it sounds very much like the technology is wholly unsuitable for the intended use.

As it stands, if you activate one of these you'll get a massive AIR based response, Nimrods, Helicopters and probably fast jets too - none of which is going to be any use to you. Despite what some people think, it won't send a MRT to you or give road directions to ambulances. We're talking of rescue opertions that cost millions of pounds potentially being initiated every couple of days.

To the OP.

Much as I appreciate your concerns, the system isn't designed to cope with what you intend it to be used for.
For the time being your best course of action is to leave details of your route, when you intend to be back, and try and plan your route so it takes in either areas of phone coverage or passes public phone boxes so you can call in home so they know where you are.
As mobile networks expend it'll become less of a problem anyway.

In reply to jenniwren: Being a MRT person this would not help us,for various reasons ,not least being accidental setting off of the device as often happens with the maritime ones which often result in Helicopters hovering over houses when a beacon goes off in a loft.
I seem to detect you have personal interest in this ,do you sell them ?

In reply to Caralynr:
It's usually black and white, quite furry, with a red jacket saying "SARDA" on it

I thought Dodge's jacket was great, flashing lights n everything

In reply to Ridge:

Agree with your comments.

We carried an PLB in Australia when we were trekking in Kakadu national park. We were told, in no uncertain terms, to not even think about using it, ever, never, in no circumstances, except certain death, and only then if we were all dead already.

The tiny, miniscule likelihood of a serious accident on land in the UK at a location or in a situation where no other form of contact is possible - and a PLB is the only hope for rescue - does not justify their use. So sorry, won't be signing the petition.

In reply to jenniwren:

If you're that worried about not being able to tell anyone that you're stuck/hurt/lost - buy a Satellite phone. A nice shiny Irridium will cost you $35 a month and you can speak to someone.

You may be interested in this site, which is hosted by Teesdale and Weardale SMRT and allows people to leave details of their planned trip for use by Mountain Rescue teams in the event of a problem.

http://www.mytrips.org.uk/

The site only covers the North East at present, but MR teams are invited to join to widen the coverage.

As a member of an MR team and a search controller I would encourage people to continue to support teams and SARDA search dogs by making donations and ensuring that they are properly trained and equipped before going into the hills.

I believe that there are thankfully very few fatalities in the wilderness areas of these islands where a rescuer arriving in less than an hour would have made a significant difference to the outcome.

Land use of PLBs appears to be a complicated and expensive solution to a relatively small problem.

These views are mine and not necessarily those of MR E&W.

In reply to jenniwren:
Hmmm. I see that some people like this sort of thing. I refuse to take the phone with me when I go into the hills. Sitting on top of the Ben a while back , I was horrified by the number of people phoning home and saying" guess where i am". Perhaps thats to be expected there I suppose.
My point is that I go into the hills for a release from "normal" life. I take some risks but isn't that part of the sport? What worries me is that this will become yet another requirement of those who try to control our lives.

In reply to mike kann:


From personal experience when I had quite a serious accident in the hills a couple of years back the first thing on the scene was a helicopter. The helicopter crew assessed the situation and then left to pick up members of the mountain rescue team before winching them down the crag to help me out. So I would have to say that having a chopper on site within minutes and the chopper crew assessing what additional support is needed is probably going to help with the efficiency of a rescue.

Having said that I am still not convinced that a PLB is the way forward for land based UK activities.

This won't help MRT's at all. We do not have the geography or volume of shouts to justify this at all, let alone involving horse riders.

Mobile phones are already being used as "beam me DOWN Scotty" devices, without having to worry about another piece of kit to make the hills "safer". How about worrying about the basics like a proper working torch, compass, common sense and some basic hillcraft before buying the latest Muppet 3000 Personal Locator Beacon. The MRT's are busy enough with silly people - just see Langdale and Ambleside MRT's website!

I completely disagree with them. Despite the best intentions and genuine users, they will be outnumbered by the ill equipped and ill experienced, gadget and SAR reliant liabilities that trudge into the hills on a regular basis.

End of rant

In reply to Alan M: I may have a different out door pursuit to you lot but it doesn't mean to say I'm any less safety conscious than you. Of course I let someone know where I'm going and I don't deviate the route. Hi-vis gear is worn and this has done me in good stead with Air Ambulance earlier this year . I take my mobile phone with me, but there are many areas that have no SIM card reception and are unikely ever to have it due to the lack of demand (population). A PLB would be my last line of defence should I come a cropper on my own or with one other. I often ride alone. It would be some time before I would be missed if was taken ill. I ride long distance, not round in circles in a menege nor do I do jumping.

I have no hidden agenda or deal with any other person and my interest is purely to give others as well as myself the choice of this last line of defence in favour of their welfare. At this time there is no other option open to us that already has a system in place. The costs incurred in expanding it is justified. Quicker rescues means more can be acheived with the money the SAR teams have. The reduced time for SAR will also save lives and you cannot be against that.

As you said Mike the chopper in your accident was able to assess what the MR required which saved time in your own rescue. By the way there have been improvements in protecting the buttons on PLB's against accidental activation.

The other comment about the UK not being a big enough country for PLBs is rubbish. There are many places to get lost and when a mist suddenly fall's on a mountain it's very disorientating, accidents do happen and people do become ill suddenly.

I am surprised at the attitude on this website. Derogatory comes to mind and an unwillingness to discuss sensibly.

In reply to jenniwren:

Jenni, as I said earlier I looked into a PLB for a remote trip. The level of response is WAY above what most people would need. It's not a case of alerting a local MR team, or dialling 999. If a "lower grade" beacon could do this, then maybe, just maybe you'd have a point. I still wouldn't agree with it, but that would be a personal viewpoint not an objective opinion.
If you fell from your horse while riding across, say, Dartmoor, what would you need? A SAR team, and either a heli evacuation or a land ambulance at the roadhead. If you activated a PLB in this country, what would you get? A response VASTLY OTT for the incident, Nimrod search planes, major depts on alert etc, etc. Sorry, but using the existing PLB system for your use is nonsense.

In reply to jenniwren: The reason that some of us go climbing is to escape to a simpler world where we are wholly responsible for our actions. 'There's no bad luck in mountains - only good'.

And what you don't realise is that many posters here routinely solo climb or climb difficult routes with marginal protection, (not me, as it happens!) or in the Alps on routes with high objective dangers such as avalanches, loose rock etc etc. The possibility of dying is an integral part of that experience. If the point of climbing was to avoid that possibility then no one would ever move out from a climbing wall. In that sense it has precious litle in common with sailing or - ahem - horse riding. It may not be sensible but it is what we do.

Alot of mobile phones will provide a 999 call even if the "host" network has no signal.

No-one here is doubting that there is a market here for "genuine" emergencies, we all just know that most of the activations won't be. We know this from experience of mobile phones. If someone got lost, they had to get off the fell to tell someone before mobile phones were invented, thus resulting in them finding themselves (and incurring a big old taxi fair!)! Now it's all too easy to hit 999 requesting a personal guide service in the form of an MRT to get them off the fell again.

I know and accept this is a different situation though, but the reality is very similar.

It won't be that much quicker and I'd like to see some of this money that these SAR teams are supposed to have, because personally, I'd rather be putting £100 in a MRT collection tin than "investing" in a PLB. A better petition to sign would be the one on the government website trying to get funding for the MRT's.

In reply to jenniwren:
There is a great deal of experience on this site, much of it gained through extreme (in the truest sense of an overused word) mountaineering in very remote locations. Many people here have much more experience in rescue than you or I (as a self confessed low grade punter) will ever have, gained over many years in harsh and remote locations. Rather than consistently hammering away at this hobby horse (I'm sorry, another equine pun), take a moment to read through some of the other threads on this site, get a handle on what some of these people have seen and done, take a deep breath, and consider that they might have a point, and that you might have missed it.

On a seperate note, as a bit of a bumpkin, I've had a lot of experience with riders, and I've noted a worrying tendency to haul out the air ambulance as soon as someone takes a tumble more than a couple of hundred yards from the roadside, "to be on the safe side, you can't be too careful". Rightly or wrongly,climbers tend to be more self reliant, indeed the mountain rescue ethos was, and still is, that of walkers and climbers helping walkers and climbers.

Putting aside the discussions about the inappropriateness of the technology, I think you've hit rather more of a difference of ethos than perhaps you expected, that's not wong it's just different.

In reply to jenniwren: I'd like to contribute my thoughts on this ridiculous idea - it's ridiculous.

People complain a lot these days about the amount of packaging on the food we get from supermarkets - "too much plastic" "too many plactic bags"...

I think bubble wrap and excessive safety measures are just as bad - whatever happened to laisez faire and all that...

And the idea that it is optional and wouldn't be required doesn't mean it should be an option as everyone knows that it will become another treny accessory for people who can afford one and make the mountains seem that bit more accessible than they already do - perhaps resulting in more incidents and therefore negating any "cost saving" you claim they would lead to...

If people can have - people will eventually want and I think its a daft idea.

In reply to chembhoysh: Quote "a world where we live in bubble wrap so that we can't hurt ourselves..."

In reply to chembhoysh:To all posters-With respect you have a very blinkered (pardon the pun) view of horse riders. We are very responsible people caring for our horses....no foot no horse and we have a wider view of the outdoor world than looking at a rock face! This campaign is aimed at all those that enjoy some sort of outdoor risk sport not particularly macho in your terms. You are missing some of my message ....we don't wish to bubble wrap ourselves but merely to have that last chance. The Vyrynwy area for example is a vast dead spot for moble phones and very difficult to SAR because there is so much of it. Lower powered "PLB"'s use a SIM card which renders them useless to SAR in areas like that.

In reply to jenniwren:

Some useful advice on getting a mobile signal here:

http://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?t=272249&new=4030030#4030007

The people posting on here (mostly) don't mean to be derogatory, just pointing out very large flaws in your proposed idea. Interestingly the greatest objections are from MRT and other people with practical experience in SAR.

As I said earlier, if you really believe this is practicable, and the system will work as intended, go down to your nearest purveyor of PLBs and purchase one. They are freely available. Should you, God forbid, find yourself in genuinely life threatening situation with no mobile coverage - trigger it. Yes, it's illegal, but if the situation is really that bad I wouldn't be too bothered about a potential fine - would you?

In reply to toad:
I've been following this thread and don't have anything to add to the main line of it, but just wanted to pick up on one thing you said:

" I've noted a worrying tendency to haul out the air ambulance as soon as someone takes a tumble more than a couple of hundred yards from the roadside"

A two-man ambulance crew is going to have major difficulties carrying a casualty on a spinal board more than a couple of hundred yards over rough terrain. My understanding is that this is one of the reasons the _ambulance_service_ requests the attendance of a helicopter (or the attendance of MR as I believe happens in the Peak)

Apparently 97% of EPIRB (locator beacon) activations are spurious. While the idea that you can flick a switch and a helicopter will appear to whisk you away might be appealing, it seems more likely that the rescue services would be completely overwhelmed.

In reply to mike kann:

Not actually true. The vast majority of rescues at sea involve the RNLI, or a number of similar boat-based rescue services, all of which, like MRT, are charities rather than government-funded.

In reply to jenniwren:
Iguess that you are new to this site, as opposed to a regular user posing under a different name. If so, the following may be informative for you. I mean this in the best possible way,not as any kind of derogatory or patronising statement, so please don't take it as such :-

1) The majority of 'climbers' on here also participate in other outdoors sports/pursuits. A few are horse riders, myself included. We often are to be found on our own in what classifies as a remote area in this country.

2) There are also a lot of Mountain Rescue, Lowland SAR, Police, Ambulance and other relavent agencies/organisations.

3) Because of the number of people posting on this forum, we have a wide range of skills and experiencesin the outdoors. They range from complete novices ('Wot's a rope?') to world class mountaineers. A good few of us have been rescued or called upon MR/SAR for others. I know that a few of the people who have given some good responses in this thread are members of either an MRT, SARDA or ALSAR.

4) Your intentions are good,and in an ideal world it would be a good idea. But it is an unwise and unworkable idea in our country for many of the reasons stated by others. But it may be a good starting to point to improve things, such as educating novice riders/walkers/climbers in how the emergency services work, how to prepare for an accident and what to/not do to deal with it.

The last one is my opinion, but other UKC bods feel free to pick apart everything else i said!

In reply to jenniwren:

You haven't answered my last post - do you have ANY idea of the huge fuss that's caused when activating a PLB??? We're not just talking an alert to an MRT or a 999 call you know. Totally disproportionate response and waste of resources.

In reply to jenniwren:
Question, when was the last time you saw a SAR helicopter flying in mist.....NEVER! Without visual reference the SAR crews will not fly into an area. With the best will in the world the best they could offer is a taxi ride for MRT troops in to the locale.


I know for a fact that at least seven members of discussion are members of Mountain Rescue Teams, including two team leaders and a search manager. I think that sort of blows your statement above apart.

Your unwillingness to listen to the open and professional opinion of rescuers and other out door enthusisasts once they fail to support your well meaning attempt, at least on this website should highlight the strengh of common sense of the members of this forum.

In reply to jenniwren:

The audience you have here is a large cross-section of the outdoor community, so quite a good sample of potential users of a PLB system. The consensus seems to be that we don't see a need for it. The device will not replace proper training and preparation and may encourage folk out who should not be there.

This is not elitism, we all had to start somewhere many of us put back into the outdoor community by becoming ML's and instructors. We are already seeing this to some extent with people relying on GPS and mobile phone technology to replace navigation and hill skills.

The system then becomes self fulfilling, it is used to rescue people who wouldn't otherwise have needed rescueing because they wouldn't have been in that situation without the technology making them feel safer.

I won't be signing.

Steve D

In reply to jenniwren:

There was a topic mentioning PLB type things on a bike forum recently (US) and this was mentioned

http://www.findmespot.com/default.aspx

Has facilities to either 1) call for assistance / rescue via police, 2)let friends / base mambers know where you are (so they can just keep track of you) or 3) send an alert to friends / family with position, but not calling a rescue as such.

Although its an american system, the website says works in europe too, and uses some satellite system to broadcast lactaions.

This would seem a better system than PLB's as it has options for varying degrees of alert.

In reply to jenniwren:

I think the likelihood would be on busy weekends that the casualty who really needed the helicopter would suffer delay because it was away on another alert, with no way of prioritising (except that alerts from sea would take priority I assume)

Where the environment itself is a threat (Australian Bush, sea or Remote jungle ) I can see the reason for the beacons and simply to call for help is enough. In UK prioritisation info is required as the locality itself is not necessarily a threat.

And I'm not sure how a beacon would help me as I don't own a mobile phone and would thus not be affected by sim card failure - Hardly likely to buy a beacon if I don't own a personal phone.

I suppose I could carry an HF radio and call Kinloss myself!

In reply to jenniwren:

People aren't being derogatory. They are simply disagreeing with you. There is a big difference.

In reply to red1200:

There you go jenniwren, the systems all ready available. Seems to be far more suitable for the type of service you require.

In reply to Anonymous:

You mean you don't already have a Ford Escort FFR? I always drive one in case f loss of mobile signal.

In reply to jenniwren:

You say discuss sensibly but you have made up your mind as to what you feel is appropriate and have come here to tell us to agree with you. I have given examples of why PLB's are the wrong piece of kit for the job, and you seem to want to ignore its shortcomings. Yes the case Alan has stated obviously it had benefits, but it does not include any background on whether the chopper was already in the air. If it was simply a case of diverting it away from an exercise then of course it is quicker to send it - after all the majority of cost in putting a chopper in the air comes from it taking off and landing and its no big deal. However activating an alarm which will bring every emergency service running is simply not the right thing to do. What is so odd about thinking that each case should be assessed according to whats actually going on? As I previosuly stated - you may be pulling them away from an incident which is more urgent than yours and it should not be left to the individual on the hill to assess this situation - after all it is in these situations that people panic and don't know how to react - whether they are responsible, sensible person or not.

In reply to Ridge:

you'll see me tootling around with an NVIS array ...

In reply to jenniwren:

You could get one of these

http://www.findmespot.com/

In reply to jenniwren:


I haven't seen one post above that's "derogatory" and virtually all are putting forward "sensible" opinions. You appear to just not want to listen to them, because they in general disagree with your own pre-judged conclusions.

There are horse riders, MTBers, climbers, walkers, long-distance runners, mountain marathoners, kayakers, etc, etc on this site.

There are many people posting who are involved with MRTs and similar organisations. Over the years I've been posting here I've seen that most people will discuss most topics senibly (OK, exclude top-roping and similar perversions).

So possibly, just possibly, instead of dismissing those who disagree with you as "blinkered" or "being derogatory", perhaps you could consider that with such a strong weight of opinion from such an experienced cross-section of outdoorsy-people, they might have a point and you might be wrong?

In reply to Rob Naylor:

from the linked site

"and everyone who thinks they would like to get rescued anywhere in the UK at any time should seriously think about signing "

is what worries me!

In reply to jenniwren and others: Firstly, as has already been pointed out all mobile phones have access to all network operators to make 999 calls. This effectively eliminates most of the 'dead-zones' associated with just one or some of the network operators.

Unfortuantely unless you have a foreign mobile (on roaming) most people can't see this, so by default have a pessimistic view of the real number of 'dead-zones'. Some phones do allow you to track multiple networks to find this out but not many.

Secondly, again as has been pointed out, you can buy a satelite phone if you regularly engage in a solo pursuit that could leave you stranded in the middle of nowhere and you're that worried about it.

I've carried EPRBs in the Canadian Rockies but have never, and still don't, see the need in the UK.

In reply to jenniwren:

Not that we get paid anyway, but that's another grumble...

In reply to mike kann:

Completely agree with you there Mike, it would be very dangerous to have an emergency beacon activiated without knowing what kind of emergency it was. There are enough incidents of 'I'm tired can I get a lift down' etc as there is, this could just confuse matters, and as you say divert from other more important incidents. If you class yourself as a recently competent hill user then you should know roughly where you are at all times anyway, if not, you could always spend money on a GPS to help!

In reply to beermonkey: et all: The idea of a PLB is a last ditch attempt at getting help when you seriously need it when all else fails. You carry it, but don't use it unless you are really desparate. With all the map reading skills in the world, knowledge of where you are, whistle (when there's no one to hear it!),un-obtainable mobile phone network (when 112 doesn't work either!) are you going to say that you would prefer not to have the technology to save your skin?

Having watched the comments through this thread I am amazed at how much ignorance there is. Since PLB's were first designed they have improved in design enormously so that the buttons are protected against accidental activation. With the registration there are records of the owner and misuse can be traced.

I do respect that some of you are involved in Mountain Rescue and know your stuff....brilliant, congratulations! Others are just nit picking and not respectful that there are responsible outdoor adventurers that do go very well equiped and would welcome a PLB to just cover their back should they become seriously ILL or have an ACCIDENT. Without a PLB it would take a hell of a lot longer to search for someone like this even though their nearest and dearest had some idea of where they had gone. By the time the alarm was raised this could be too late.

Other styles of 'PLB's require additional funding either on a monthly or yearly subscription...this is not what is required. One comment was to get away from it all and taking a PLB would still link them to the "world". With a tracking system this would still link them but with a full blown PLB it's there as a last resort. The tracking type can still lose sight of you.

I've found it intensely annoying and angry about the disrespect shown to other sports and working people that may find it a comfort to have a choice of owning a PLB. Farmers work alone and I have known some that have been badly injured or crushed by a tractor. Forest workers work in small groups and sometimes alone in non-receptive mobile phone areas that may need urgent help.

The beginning replies to this thread was very childish. I am surprised!

I'm interested in the response to this:

OK, in the UK riding alone, 'middle of nowhere' no phone reception. if your horse was seriously injured as opposed to the person riding it, what do you do?

If you had a PLB would you use it for potentially getting some form of help for your horse or do you know people that in the same situation certainly would do so?

In reply to jenniwren:

But at the end of the day that decision is with the end-user, and as such there is nothing to stop them using it even if it isn't a life threatening situation.

>are you going to say that you would prefer not to have >the technology to save your skin?

This is one of the problems devices like this create, an over reliance on technology, when core skills such as map-reading and simply letting someone know where you are going and when you'll be back. Also, to assume that if you set it off you'll be whisked away by helicopter in a few minutes is dangerous thinking. Helicopters are not always available, and the signal from a PLB is by no means guaranteed, much like that of a GPS.

Looking at a list of call outs for the past year I can think of very few in which the end casualty was the type of person likely to own a PLB if they were available.

In reply to beermonkey: You keep citing horse riding which I can understand but I am putting this forward for all that go outside in the country for some purpose or other. As regards to my horse being injured I honestly cannot answer that question as an individual....depending on the severity of the injury, I would attempt to walk the horse to the nearest place to get help which wouldn't require PLB activation. It also depends on the rules of use.

"Also, to assume that if you set it off you'll be whisked away by helicopter in a few minutes is dangerous thinking. Helicopters are not always available, and the signal from a PLB is by no means guaranteed, much like that of a GPS."

Having had an accident already, I know that getting whisked away in a heli doesn't happen like that ...what do you take me for? The fact that if I HAD to activate a PLB would at least alert someone that I needed urgent assistance and also my location. If that's the best that can be done it must be better than nothing at all rather like increasing my chances with taking a mobile phone with me as well.

The people that go ill-equipped and have to be rescued aren't likely to have a PLB. Not every one will own one.

In reply to shingsowa:

Coming late to this, but I get a groundhog day feeling about this and the person posting. Someone with a very similar posting style tried to galvanise opinion on here a while ago about...oh I don't know, use of bridleways or some such. A long thread ensued during which she took much umbrage, and she seemed to mention horses a lot. We didn't see her again after the thread galloped off into people not giving a toss anymore.

Well, here we go again. Haven't some people discovered the many benefits of talking to the opposite sex whilst drunk yet?

T.

In reply to Pursued by a bear: That's a rather cheeky reply! It certainly wasn't me.

In reply to jenniwren:

I still see two unanswered problems people have asked:

1) PLBs are currently used for extremely serious incidents, such as a vessel sinking at sea, or an aircraft making a crash landing, requiring a response disproportionate to a single lost or injured climber. Do you suggest reducing the response to a PLB activation to a level more appropriate to a single climber?
The crux of this point is that PLBs cannot be used for walkers as they are already in use for something else.

2) In a climbing or hill walking incident, information about the type of incident is as important as it's location. It is also rare that a climber would be injured to a point where he could activate a PLB but not use a phone, so surely a satellite phone (a LEO one, you probably wouldn't get a connection to a geostat one from a gully bottom) and handheld GPS would be a far more useful combination.

These questions have been asked before, and you have not answered them. People may continue to discuss the ins and outs of misusing them, or the ever-popular topic of making the hills safer and giving people a false sense of security, but these two points are likely to be the real hurdles if you want support from the climbing/walking community, and MRTs in particular.

Regards
Jack

In reply to Pursued by a bear:
the thread galloped off into people not giving a toss anymore.
Love it!


Some of us have even discovered those delights while sober...

In reply to jenniwren:

Umm, no I never mentionned horse riding.


I think you're taking this all a bit too personally, people in this forum have many wide ranging views, and at the end of the day some people are on here to have a bit of a laugh. Many very good points have been brought up above, and I feel you're being a bit blinkered in your views. Many people are involved in MRT's, have you thought about contacting teams to gather their opinions?

In reply to jenniwren:

Having watched *your* comments throughout this thread, I'm amazed at how unwilling you are to consider for a moment that your pre-judged position may simply be wrong.

I've been working in the explotration industry for 30 years and I have a pretty good idea of the design history and current designs of PLBs.

Whether you "wish" it were different or not, the fact is that the majority of PBL activations are *still* accidental.

As others have pointed out, the triggering of a PLB brings into play a very resource-heavy response.

Whilst the use of land-based PLBs somewhere like Australia, where distances are vast and resources very thinly spread, might be justified, is there really any sensible justification for the UK?

How many people die annually in the UK due to being injured in remote locations while working or "playing" solo where the alarm is not raised, who would have been saved had they triggered a PLB? Do you know this?

You appear to have a one-track mind on this, and, rather than evaluating the critical responses sensibly, you just keep "going off on one", accusing the skeptics of being "old fashioned", "ignorant", "narrow-minded" etc. If there are derogatory comments on this thread, most of them are coming from *you* and directed at people who have the "gall" to disagree with something that you appear to be uncritically evangelical about.

In reply to Jack B: Getting to grips with the way this site works I have replied to others collectively before!

1) "currently used for extremely serious incidents" This is the inntention and I have answered this most recently and what is the porportionate difference in the need? The petition is to change the law on the use so that they can be used in-land.

2)The reason for using a PLB is the a phone does NOT have reception where the casualty is. The PLB gives the location. Have you looked at what you would have to carry if you had a Sat.phone? A normal GPS would only give YOU the position you are at not inform others of your need.

This is not about giving people a false sense of security, just a last line of defence should they need it! The arguments put forward don't outweigh the reason for legalising PLB's for in-land use.

In reply to beermonkey: No but someone else did and I was using the term "you" in a collective sense.

Of course my experience was a personal and I was lucky that we were in an area (I was riding with a friend) that had mobile phone reception and it was close to a populated area. The Air Ambulance still had to be used because it was inaccessible by road. They were absolutely brilliant! I support them whole heartedly!

I have looked at other options and had to think very seriously about going this route....it's a lot of hassle but one that I beleive is worth it for EVERY person that ventures outdoors for work or play. I can assure you that I have contacted others including Peter Bell president of Mountain Rescue (.org.uk) whom has said will meet with me next time he visits my area for other business.

In reply to Rob Naylor:

I think there is justification in the UK otherwise I wouldn't have put myself in this position. If it is not sucessful then I cannot say that I didn't try!

"How many people die annually in the UK due to being injured in remote locations while working or "playing" solo where the alarm is not raised, who would have been saved had they triggered a PLB? Do you know this?"

Do you?

I have not accused anyone of anything merely pointed out that some were childish in their response at the beginning of the thread and the derisory attitude to other sports outside climbing. ALL parties have the right to put their opinions including the originator of the thread.

In reply to jenniwren:

The point is, it's not good enough to say "I think there's justicfication". If you're proposing a change like thios, you should have:

a) Done some kind of rough costing on it

b) Done some kind of benefit analysis.

ie: be able to put some quantitative figures on the cost/benefit.


No...but I'm not the one trying to "prove" a need. I *suspect* it'll be in single figures. If you want to make a radical change like this, you should *at least* be able to give a reasoned estimate of how many lives it could save. If you can't even do that, it does bring into question whether your idea is based on a real need or is just a solution looking for a non-existent problem.

What do you think the potential is for saving lives on land with PLB s in the UK? And how have you estimated the figures?


You commented separately about some of the childish posts...but you have also dismissed perfectly well-reasoned posts in a derogatory manner merely because they disagreed with your own stance. You're not doing yourself any favours with this attitude: rather than answering the points raised properly you just get dismissive and defensive.

If you can't back up your strong feelings with at least a bit of quantitative research, you'll find that most reasonable people will be reluctant to take you very seriously.

In reply to jenniwren:

Jenn,
I think you are right to look at alternative ways to raise the alarm when out in the wilderness and out of range from mobile signal. The PLB is one possibility, but as you see from here, many mountain users simply won't want to use them, as it takes a level of freedom and self relience away.

Being an active member of the Llanberis Mountain Rescue team I have dealt with lots of incidents, some very nasty and lots less serious. The incident rate in mountaineering activities is very low on user numbers (around 0.1%), and horse riding being around 1%.

Most people who I have been involved with on rescues, who were solo and sustained serious injuries generally would not be able to press a button, due to the serious nature of the injuries.

I think a time for PLB's will come in time, when they get built into hand held gps devices maybe, but feel that now is not the time for mountaineering activities. As an example, a good winters day in Scotland sees nearly 50,000 heading out over a weekend, avalanche is a problem in Scotland with rapid changes in daily weather, yet only a handful of folks at most will be wearing an avalanche tranciever.

Bryn

A couple of points concerning some of the remarks made against the proposal (I'm not sure I've made my mind up about this one way or the other. I do lots of solo trips in the Highlands, summer and winter, wild camping in hard to reach places, on seldom used routes. A broken leg might mean death, on a typical trip of mine. It's a risk I'm prepared to accept and I don't particularly want people to risk their lives on a chopper flight to save mine anyway.):

--- the argument about false alarms: 999 calls get a very high proportion of false alarms. Clearly that is not an argument in favour of abolishing the 999 facility. By parity of reasoning, it shouldn't be an argument against introducing land-based PLB facilities. Disanalogy: 999 calls don't involve the same level of resource deployment as a PLB distress call. But see my next point:

--- PLB distress calls do not generate an automatic response as some forum members seem to imply. It's not that as soon as a call is located helicopters and Nimrods are scrambled as a matter of course. An assessment is made as to the location, weather situation etc. and then the appropriate resources are deployed. It seems quite likely that a PLB distress call originating from a land location would trigger a different reaction than a sea-based call. How close is the location to the nearest MRT team? Would a Land Rover be able to get there before a helicopter scrambled from the nearest RAF base? And so on. That is to say, the response of the rescue services would be tailored to a different situation than sea-based rescues (no need for jet planes, as someone suggested!).

So, it seems to me that two of the most frequent points made need some qualification.

Clearly enough, there is potential for abuse. But the prospect of a jail sentence might be deterrent enough against abuse. A mistaken self-assessment of one's predicament wouldn't constitute an excuse. I suppose nothing short of a broken limb/advanced hypothermia would qualify for rescue status. Slippery slopes arguments could be made, but a few exemplary cases could sort out the time wasters pretty quickly. Wasn't that guy who every time he went sailing he activated his PLB dealt with pretty severely not that long ago??

As I say, the difference with 999 calls abuse is that with PLB the Polis know who you are...

I actually came into this with an open mind when the first idea was banded out over a year ago at UKSAR level (the link to government that looks at SAR issues and coordination), but feel that this very single minded approach by jenniwren has put me off a tad. Comments like "some of you are involved in Mountain Rescue and know your stuff....brilliant, congratulations!" I don't really know how to take... "CONGRATULATIONS", erm nope, how about actually listening to what we're saying.

Yes there could be an application but it needs to be presented properly, with evidence and infrastructure. I can't imagine the government accepting a non-evidence based petition, and if it were to be accepted, it would be through the UKSAR channels and not a horse rider on a mission.

It could be useful, we have established that. There will also be problems, we've established that too. I anticipate that proportionate responses would often be made by the SAR agencies, however a lot more work needs to go into this. MRT's will take the brunt of this so perhaps a few coffers wouldn't go a miss too.

I would like to see hard evidence first to be convinced. Education to riders who are by themselves, in an area away from a road head, likely to be missed, AND have no phone reception could be done in the meantime, but for such a combination of factors I wonder what the MRT/SAR would say when they rescue them?

In the meantime, anyone fancy signing a petition to the government for keeping the law the same....?!

; )


Joking of course.... ish

In reply to jenniwren:
(in reply to me)

1) I think we have a misunderstanding on our definition of an extremely serious incident. I am considering a single climber being injured or killed to be much less serious than an incident which (under current law) permits use of a PLB, as there are only one or two casualties involved. In the case of PLB use by aircraft, the potential casualty count is likely to be in double or triple figures.

The second type of incident merits a high response; all nearby helicopters, all MRTs and probably RAF aircraft. It would also possibly involve (as caralynr mentioned) pulling helicopters off RTAs or other rescues, potentially killing other casualties.
This is worth the risk for a light aircraft with 50 passengers making a crash landing in the mountains.
The proportionate response to the first type of incident is a single helicopter (if available), and a turn out of MRT personnel to assess the casualty and then call for appropriate equipment.

Doing the first, when the second is needed could result in deaths at other incidents, which loose their air support, not to mention the waste of tens of thousands of pounds which could be better used training and equipping MRTs.
Doing the second when the first is required could result in a large number of deaths, as a single helicopter cannot evacuate this number of casualties.
A compromise would have to be found, depending on conditions and location, which is probably not ideal for either incident.
As there is no way to tell the difference between these incidents from a PLB activation (mountainfox's point about telling the difference based on location does not apply for aircraft/walkers, as both may be in the same area), this presents a serious, though possibly not insurmountable, problem.


2) As I understand it the PLB transmits to a LEO (Low Earth Orbit) satellite, there are currently two satellite phone vendors (Iridium and Globalstar) who use LEO satellites, so if the PLB can connect out so can the sat phone.
Sat phone handsets are also no longer the suitcases they used to be:
http://www.techshout.com/gadgets/2006/10/gsp-1700-the-worlds-smallest-satel...
it's not really much bigger or heavier than a standard mobile, or a PLB.
If you also carried a hand-held GPS, (or better yet, improved your* map reading) you could phone 999, ask for the police, and tell them where you were (just like a PLB), and also tell them if you needed any particular medication, the nature of your injuries, if you were accessible by helicopter, the size of your group etc. All this extra information would make the rescue much quicker, as time is not wasted bringing say, a selection of leg splints to a hypothermia casualty.


I would conclude therefore that an in-land PLB is:
1) Difficult to implement as PLBs are currently used for more serious incidents.
2) Unnecessary, as a globalstar + GPS would be much more effective for marginally more weight, and is already legal.

I think that, as a better alternative exists, and introducing PLBs for inland use would cause other problems, they are not a good solution.


*I do not mean to imply you are incompetent, and unable to navigate, take 'your' to be a general casualty.

Regards
Jack

In reply to jenniwren:
Sign the petition accessible from that page. http://www.equineramblersuk.co.uk/personal-locator-beacons.php


Dear Ms Miller; like others who have commented on this debate I came to it with an open mind. I have previously been involved in UK mountain rescue. I have also climbed/mountaineered in the more remote parts of the world and currently climb in a region where there are no rescue services and infrequent mobile phone reception.

Having read the thread and much of your website I make the following comments:
From your website, "adventures on land are being discriminated against"; the whole point of adventure is embracing an element of risk and an understanding that you should be self reliant. This risk and self reliance has been reduced by mobile phones and if it is reduced any further it will be taken to a level compatible with shopping in a busy high street.

PLBs will provide minimum benefit to the rescue services and probably induce further feelings of false security in the those that are carrying them.

You have not considered the cost of this scheme and the benefits.

I have concluded the following:

PLB in the UK are not a good idea and any self respecting climber mountaineer who believes that they are should stick to going to the indoor climbing wall.

Sat phones have far greater benefits than PLBs in a rescue situation. This is not an argument for carrying them.

If there was a petition for not allowing PLBs in UK I would sign it.

If the Equine Ramblers can not cope with the risks of riding in the remote areas of the UK without the comfort blanket of mobile phone reception
then they should stay back in the stables and find some alternative amusement.

In reply to petealdwinckle: One other thing to add that I've not seen anyone post yet is that plenty of mountaineers don't even carry a mobile into the hills with them. This isn't because they don't have one but because they go into the hills to be self reliant and escape all the technology in their every day lives. For people like this (who also can quite often be out on their own) then a PLB would be absolutely no use because they wouldn't be carrying one.

In reply to jenniwren:

As mentionned above by others it's the cost/benefit part of this I think will be the problem, let's say it might cost £1000 per year per team to have a PLB system in place that might benefit a couple of rescues per year, I think that money would be much better spent on SARDA training that will assist in a much much higher percentage of call-outs.

In reply to jenniwren:

I think you've shot yourself in the foot here. Your Equine Rambler members seem to have an entirely different attitude to risk and self-reliance than the average climber.

I think you can depend upon some serious resistance to your proposal from this demographic. I expect a counter petition will be created in due course.

PS. Thank-you for bringing this to our attention.

In reply to jenniwren:

jenniwren, you are simply wrong. It's a gadget that will appeal to the otherwise ill-equipped and perennially ill-prepared. Just like carrying a phone instead of a torch. Just like carrying a GPS instead of a map, compass and the knowledge of how to use them. If they ever become available and widespread, reviewed in Trail magazine and can be bought off the peg in Cotswold, they will be the curse of MRTs all over the UK.

In reply to Rob Naylor: How can anyone know how many lives can be saved? I'm not tryng to prove anything and don't need to. Who knows the real need as you cannot look into a crystal ball because we haven't got one that works. You cannot quantify how many lives a fireman can save, for example, yet he is sitting in his fire station being paid waiting to save lives. I am being factual/logical not flippant.

If you read back you'll notice that I have taken note of the more constructive replies and responded looking at and remarking on Satphones which are too cumbersome and other tracking devices which have a service charge cost making them too expensive.

In reply to jenniwren:

I think you are on thin ice arguing in terms of cost. At present rescue in Britain is free. How long do you think that would continue for if PLBs and the associated cost of the large-scale resucues they promote were to become widespread? Why not just accept there is a risk if you go off the beaten track and either enjoy that aspect of things or alternatively stay on well used ground and be confident someone will find you?

In reply to petealdwinckle: We are all entitled to our own opinions. I have replied about the Satphones.

The Russians and Americans put up the Cospus-Sarsat group of satellites and this is what current countries use for PLB's. The Europeans have the Gallileo project (a group of 23 satellites are supposed to be launched) but this is short of funding and only one Satelite has been put up so far.

If this country can give billions to a bank to stave it off going bust then the equipping the country with up to date computers capable of dealing with the information required with PLB's is cheap by comparison.

We all like to feel that we are independant and can fend for ourselves , but I suggest that faced with a serious predicament where all else fails most would welcome the comfort of a PLB in their rucksack or bumbag. I have answered posts about responsible use.

In reply to The Crow: The minute you hit the ground and break a boneor become medically ill whilst out you are no more immortal than someone else working or playing in the country.

Of course we are different we see a wider view when we ride long distances.

In reply to jenniwren:

Yet this country (Well, England and Wales), doesn't give any money (in a governmental sense), to fund it's rescue teams. I would be very unhappy if funding was given to set up PLBs for on the hill use before it started funding MRTs. I truly believe a much better idea would be to get all those people signing the petition to donate £5 to the MRT area that they use the most.

In reply to jenniwren:
1) The money is not given but lent. 2) Do really think that safeguarding the life savings of thousands and possibly the entire UK banking system should be considered in the same way as a rescue system that would be of marginal benefit at best and probably counterproductive?

In reply to jenniwren:
You cannot quantify how many lives a fireman can save, for example, yet he is sitting in his fire station being paid waiting to save lives. I am being factual/logical not flippant.

Err yes you can actually, which is how they establish how many fire stations, the manning levels and no. of appliances etc against a number of criterion including acceptable losses.
...another vote against I'm afraid

In reply to jenniwren:

after many posts of convincing all of us mountaineers that we are at such a great peril travelling into the great wilderness of the UK that we need an emergency transponder you now tell us that we don't go as far as you horse riders. you say this in a deprecating manner to mountaineers.

you have no internal consistency to your 'argument'. you have no credibility.

buy a mobile phone and don't ride your nag outside of the phone range. it will keep you relatively safe as long as the beast doesn't land on you.

ps. i rode horses out across the moors way before i ever became a climber and mountaineer.
i don't think anyone i ever rode with would have signed up to your desperately misguided plea.

In reply to jenniwren:

We can look at how many lives are lost, how they were lost and make a reasoned estimate of how many of those lost might have been saved had "procedure X" (whatever that is) been in place. That's how risk analysis and cost/ benefit analysis works, and if you're going to propose something like this, at the very least you need to have done some groundwork along those lines, unless you're one of those unrealisitc people that believes that the expenditure of £ 50 million is worth it if it saves one life.


Yes you *do* need to prove something. You need to prove (or at least make a very good case for) the need for this system before you go asking people to allocate taxpayers' budget to it.

And for you to be campaigning hard for this and at the same time to be able to say "who knows the real need" (for it) is just astonishing.

In reply to jenniwren:

OK, doing for you some of the basic research you *should* have done for yourself:

From easily available (5 minute google) MTR stats: in England and Wales in 2004 there were a total of 25 fatalities in mountainous areas where MRTs were called to assist.

These included the following categories:

Hill walking 18
Rock climbing 3
Scrambling 0
Parapenting 0
Fell running 1
Hang gliding 0
Orienteering 0
Mountain Biking 1
Search 2

"Search" being activities not included in the category breakdowns above, where subjects not engaged in any of the above activities had strayed, become lost or whose whereabouts were unknown.

Of the 3 rock-climbing fatalities, none of them were in situations where a PLB would have saved lives.

Of the 18 hill walking fatalities, a few seem to have been slips resulting in almost instant death. Most of the others (8 of them) were heart attacks, again with the onset of death either instantly or within minutes of the attack.

I can't see any instances in the stats where solo walkers/ climbers/ bikers etc died at all.

I can't see any cases where those (non soloists) who *did* die would have had a chance of living had a PLB been triggered.

MRT teams were also called out to assist in more remote areas in "non -mountain" rescues

Total "non- mountain" fatalities, were 64, but those stats were skewed by the 23 Chinese cockle-pickers who died in Morcambe Bay in 2004. Categories included:

Fishing 23 (cockle pickers)
Civil aircrash 1
Search (non mountain) 31
Local Incidents 8
Water Sports (non-ocean) 2

"Search" again covers categories for which no separate category was specified. Not been into the details of these incidents, so I can't say how many (if any) might not have occurred if those affected had had PLBs. I suspect virtually zero.

So it looks as if the benefit of legalising PLBs for England/ Wales at least would be to save somewhere between 0-5 lives per year, pobably edging towards the lower limit! It's looking more like a solution in search of a problem than something for which there is any real need.

That's just 5 minutes with a search engine. With another couple of hours work you could add in the stats for Scotland, and go back 5-6 years to see what the trends and averages are.

It's dead easy to campaign for all kinds of "nice to have" things, but *responsible* campaigners actually do proper research to prove to themselves (and to give themselves ammunition to convince others) that something is worth putting resources into before they go off at half-cock. there's only so much cake and if you want a slice of it you have to show the need.

In reply to Rob Naylor:

Bravo Rob - hopefully she will shut the feck up now (it's a technical term.... apparently)

In reply to jenniwren:

Totally different things. Galileo is a Euro-equivalent of GPS and the Russian GLONASS. It's not a system for tracking PLBs (other than in the same way that GPS can be used to fix the location of a suitably-configured PLB internally, but it'll still need to broadcast its location to Cospus or Sarsat units).

In reply to Rob Naylor:

damn, beat me to it. There are a host of good reasons why we should be supporting Galilleo, (enhanced accuracy, non dependence on US military, etc) but PBS isn't one of them.

In reply to dinkypen:

I just can't believe that on the one hand she can campaign long and loud about the "need" for this and then quite glibly post that she's got "no idea if there's a real need".

If I want to spend £5,000 on a new plotter at work, I've got to at least put in the leg-work to convince the other shareholders that a new plotter will be a good place to invest $5k. I can just imaging the reception I'd get if I went into a meeting proposing to buy the plotter and then quite casually say "well, actully, I've got no idea whether we really need one, but I think we should buy it anyway"!

In reply to Rob Naylor:

whether your 'plotter' at work or a national investment in a plb infrastucture it comes down generally to best use of resource.

this is often a return on investment judgement especially where there are competing sinks for those resources.

if £x is invested in plb systems and this is forecast to save y lives, would that cash injection help save more than y lives if placed elewhere? (eg. hill education, publicity, mrt, sarda)

jeni needs to at least provide projected figures with some statistical backup before i would even entertain directing money to plbs.

In reply to Rob Naylor:

Just to add - many of the "search" fatalities (non mountain) would have been suicides, or despondent persons such as those with alzheimers wandering off. Urban searches (covered by some teams) also included.
None of these would want a PLB

Local incidents - includes RTCs where the team have been first on scene. Again, no PLB would have been used, or helped.

In reply to Caralynr:

Thanks for that.

I went into the mountain stats a bit, but didn't have the time to spend going into the non-mountain ones.

In reply to satori:

Exactly.

If £x put into SARDA would be expected to save more lives than £x going into PLBs then, even if the budget's there, its allocation to PLB systems may not be the best use of the money.

Oh well...you can lead a horse to water....

In reply to jenniwren:

Yes you are quite correct and there appears to be a body of opinion here that you are supporting the statement, "like a***holes everyone is entitled to one" or words to that effect.


And this is where you just do not get it. Climbers and mountaineers go into the mountains to embrace the challenge of nature and part of the appeal is that if/when you get into a serious predicament you are going to have to get yourself out of it. If you can not deal with this then you stay out of the hills or go to the gym for your climbing. As previous posters have said, maybe you should limit your horse riding to areas with mobile phone coverage. If you are uncertain where the limits of the coverage are then do not leave the stables, they will probably have a landline.

In reply to Caralynr:

Most search fatalities would fall into those groups, groups for whom there is a lot of behaviour analysis data and effective search areas can be quickly organised.

In reply to jenniwren:

Jenni,

Unfortunatly you are also wrong. People spend a vast amount of effort working out EXACTLY how many lives each fireman saves compared to his/her cost.

I don't know what your education or job is, but you clearly don't understand how Government and industry work with regard to cost/benefit analysis with regards to safety and other issues.

I (unfortunately) spend a very large amount of time at work producing cost/benefit justifications for spending hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayer's money and helping my boss justify expenditure of tens of millions of pounds. Contrary to popular opinion, Goverment Departments don't just spend money on things because they are 'good ideas' without some level of analysis.

You can legally (and morally) justify pretty much any level of risk of death/injury if the mitigation cost is high enough. There is only a finite amount of public money, therefore prioritisation of resources is a necessary and fundemental part of modern Government whether it is in terms of funding drugs on the NHS, funding road safety improvements or deciding how many fire/ambulance crews a county needs. Unless you can demostrate a benefit comensurate with the expense for any initiative it will not and should not get taxpayer's money or support.

This applies at all levels from local councils deciding whether to implement road safty improvements (often £100,000 per life saved) through to the Government implementing national rail safety systems (up to £2-3 million per life saved).

As an example, at my work we must meet a Civil Aviaition Authority mandate to reduce the chance a fatal military aircraft crash to less than one per million flying hours due to technical failures. However once we are under that limit any additional minor safetly improvements are rigourously costed against a value of £5million against each pilot's life saved and a cost of £30million per aircraft.

Like it or not, if you are promoting something like this you NEED hard statistics to back it up.

An initial 'business case' is not hard. As a basic starting process:

A - Estimate 'Lives saved':
1 - Research and estimate how many people DIE each year in remote areas of the UK following land incidents OUT OF MOBILE PHONE COVERAGE.
2 - Estimate % of cases where a PLB could have been activated and would have resulted in a significantly earlier 'responce'.
3 - Estimate % of cases where this 'earlier responce' would have affected the outcome (i.e. save the casualties life).
4 - Estimate % of cases where it would have been likely that a PRB would have carried.
5 - Calcuate 1 * 2 * 3 * 4

B - Estimate rough order of magnitude costs:
1 - Non-recurring cost to set up (annualised over 10, 15+ years).
2 - Annual recurring resource costs to maintain addtional service including training.
3 - Annual life-cycle costs of maintaining/replacing equipment.
4 - Annual additional resource costs from inevitable 'false alarms'
5 - Annualised cost of users purchasing PRBs
6 - Add 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5

C - Divide B by A. You then have a very rough 'cost' per 'lives saved' figure.

D - If it's <£100,000 you have proved it's the best idea since sliced bread. If it's between £100K and £1M there is a complelling aguement in favour. If it's >£1M then other initiatives may well be better exploring first, but it may be the best way forward. If it's >£10M then it is pretty certain that the money would be better spent doing something else.

In reply to Rob Naylor: It seems we are both in complete agreement - until you can identify which currently occuring 'deaths' the PRBs could avoid in future, you are not really in a position to campaign for their use.

I'd also pretty much agree with your initial conclusions.

In reply to jenniwren:

Just as a thoght, i get better reception on Helvellyn than at home

In reply to Mark Stevenson:

Well you've given her the bones of how to go about doing a cost/benefit analysis.

I wonder if she'll actually put the time in to do it?

I wonder too if she'd put a link into this thread from her website? Somehow I doubt it.

In reply to jenniwren: do u realise in the beacons your never more than and hour from a road. maximum. grrr

In reply to charl:

To be fair that wasn't really the issue, she was looking at a way of raising an alarm if incapacitated and out of mobile coverage.
So far the thread has pointed out what precautions should be taken when route planning, emergency first aid, how to improve phone reception/text message sending, availability of satellite phones, and even a link to a GPS type thingy that sends emergency messages with your location to home or the emergency services.

Sadly they all seem to have been rejected in favour of a multi-million pound overhaul of the entire emergency response system of the United Kingdom...

In reply to Rob Naylor:
Water Sports (non-ocean) 2

I've lost the track of this - but just to address a couple of Rob's points:
- Many of the non-mountain searches will be looking for people who have (threatened to) commit suicide. I doubt they'll be carrying a PYB. Others are for confused people (eg Alzheimers sufferers), and again, PLB unlikely.

I think Rob referred to deaths of solo walkers - I can think of one incident in the last couple of years where this might has occured, and it's possible a PLB would have been useful (but equally, or more, likely the injuries would have been too severe for the casualty to have activated a PLB.

In reply to ?

OK, who keeps bumping this?

In reply to Mark Stevenson:
Hello Mark, May I take up the cudgel on Jenni's behalf as she seems to be, quite unreasonably, under siege.
Mobile phones and satellite phones, both of which I have used in remote areas of the world, often do not provide what is needed for an injured person in the outdoors. Just because the person is in mobile or satellite coverage does not mean they can operate the devices, nor can many such terminals cope with the conditions experienced on our hills or during extreme weather. Most mobiles and satphones cannot withstand wet and cold weather such as we have and casualties, particularly hypothermic casualties cannot operate phones in bad weather. These devices have very limited battery life and often - look at the MR statistics - the reason that the casualties are in difficulties is that they are lost. Most phones don't have GPS yet and some of those that do don't work very well. Try and get a lat/long or a grid reference from them without fiddling about.
Nothing is perfect, but PLBs work in any weather, will transmit for a minimum of 24 hours, can be activated by the pull of a toggle or throwing a single switch, and provide the SAR agencies with a position, accurate to 125 metres within a few minutes in many cases.
There have 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. Believe me, there are a surprising number of missing people lying on our hills.
All that would have to be done in the UK to permit the use of PLBs would be to set up a PLB registration database - not a very expensive business, especially if placed alongside an existing database. Good manners and sensitivities dictate that specific cases are not detailed here, but there have been huge searches in the last couple of years which would have been rendered unnecessary if a PLB was activated – and at least 3 lives could have been saved.
Your premise demanding that Jenni provide hard statistics may well be valid in your line of work, but why should PLBs have to be justified by the process you set out when neither the EPIRB nor ELT use or databases were subjected to your rules? The cost of providing a PLB registration database would probably be well on the way if the cost of such a fact-finding process was dispensed with and the money was instead spent on the registration database.
I'm not trying to score points or to be 'picky', but in case others intend to do the same thing, you should not have been using an EPIRB, registered as such, in the Rockies. EPIRBs are designed for use on water, not land. More to the point, if it had been activated, there is an excellent chance that it would have produced one of the initial two unresolved positions in the Pacific. The rescue services would expect that an EPIRB would be activated at sea and could easily start an expensive operation and been ‘all at sea’. There have been a number of justified international complaints about just these sorts of incidents.
All the infrastructure is in place for users to make use of PLBs on land - other than the PLB registration. A PLB Registration Database is a must, and so is the need for would-be users of 406 MHz PLBs to register their beacons. Not to do so would squander a vital advance in beacon development. Mission Control Operators can interrogate the database and find the 24-hour, Emergency Point of Contact who can provide information such as; whether or not it is a false alert, routes, timings, number in party, experience, clothing colours, etc etc.
PLBs are in use by aviators who, like as not, will crash on land if they crash at all. They can legally use a PLB from a remote hill area, but the poor mountaineer, youth group, lone worker, etc, etc, etc can not. In New Zealand recently, a light aircraft pilot crashed in a mountainous area. He activated his PLB and walked the five miles to safety with it on. I support him, but what then is the difference between a walker and an aviator?
The seas and skies around the UK are as well regulated and monitored as anywhere in the world. Therefore, your argument that the land areas of UK do not justify PLB use can just as easily be used to say that PLB maritime and aviation use in the UK is not justified. Nonsense? I think it is too - rather like the same arguments against PLB use on land. The UK contains some of the most remote areas in Europe, by the way.

Jenni is sincerely trying to improve safety for those in the remoter outdoors on land in the UK. It is right and fair to thoroughly discuss the pros and cons, but please can we do so a bit more courteously?

In reply to Outdoorsman:

Dear God, how on earth did people ever manage in those long and benighted decades before widespread mobile and GPS (be they ever so imperfect) ownership?

Maybe they just got by with simple but robust technologies like a magnetised needle and a bit of paper. Maybe they just learnt their craft and built up their experience cautiously and binned their plans when they were getting them in too deep. Maybe they did this because they knew that they were reliant on themselves and, to an extent, they friends that they chose to trust. Maybe they did this because they knew that it wasn't an option to just whip out the old sub-etha device and be home and toasty before tiffin, at massive cost and disruption to others.

There's one basic point you and Jenni haven't really addressed - moral hazard. If mobile phones make people feel safer and thus make them take worse and riskier decisions in bad conditions, then the problem is not that they don't work. The problem is then that they do.

In reply to Outdoorsman:


honestly?

you're not providing unsubstantiated 'facts' to bolster your failing case?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

the uk is one of the most heavily populated countries in europe. there are very few places more than an hours walk from a road (these places also only tend to be visited by those wanting to get away from it all. i don't think they would probably carry a plb).

i live in france. my backyard is more remote than anywhere i have seen on my extensive travels of the uk.

should i carry a plb when collecting firewood in my backyard?

In reply to Enoch Root: As to the failing case? We'll see. and he who laughs last may laugh longest. As to your other pronouncements, I have survived for 40-odd years on the hill without GPS, but with a magnetised compass. Bet somebody said something dismissive about them when they were first used, too!
We all need help sometimes, Enoch. When needed, it's better to have an efficient means than something that doesn't work.
Moral hazard? Aye, there's a bit of truth in what you say, but overall, I'll stick to my guns, or the case for PLB land use in this case.

In reply to satori: A couple of seconds on the Internet revealed this:
'The Cairngorms, one of the last great wildernesses in Europe, are finally to become a national park, and campaigners should be rejoicing. Instead, they are furious at proposed boundaries which slice mountains in half and cover only a portion of this area of raw natural beauty.'
"On the edges of Europe, Scotland not only offers some of its remotest and wildest landscapes, it also has one of the continent’s most urbanised populations" -
It depends how you want to use the information, Satori.
Climbing on St Kilda - Scotland. Remote? In mobile phone cover? Have you been in to do the hills between Slioch and An Teallach? That can be pretty remote in honking weather and there are lots of places there where there is no mobile network coverage. Although there is truth in what you say for some of us hillgoers, it's maybe not fair to apply your philosophy on to a good proportion of them. I've seen all sorts of groups in some of these remote places and many wouldn't agree to your description of them.
G'night, all.

In reply to Outdoorsman:
>


In general people have been very courteous on the thread, they just disagree, almost without exception, with the proposal. There have been very good arguments put forward in this thread to show that PLBs are not needed or likely to be effective in the UK. However, I think the fundamental point that you and Jenni miss is that people don't necessarily think is a good idea to make going to remote places safer. By doing so a key part of the attraction of these places is removed for many people.

It is entirely possible to do horse riding or climbing or walking in completely controlled, safe enviroment and if that is what people want then they can do it. Do not assume though that it is desirable for _all_ areas to become controlled in this way.

In reply to Outdoorsman:

Why unreasonably? She comes here making a point, but appears to have done little research to back up her thesis. When asked whether she can justify the need for PLBs in the UK on land, she says that she *has no idea* whether they're justified, but will continue to campaign for them anyway!

Several of us put in a bit of time to actually "do some of her work for her" and, although she responds (fairly aggressively, and in some cases discourteously) to some people, she dipped out of the discussion completely as soon as people started coming up with a few facts and figures.


Oh, really? I'd be interested to see a few stats on this. The figures I looked into for 2004 for England and Wales suggested that probably none of the deaths that occured in MRT stats that year would have been prevented by PLBs. I didn't look at the "non-mountain, uncategorised" deaths but Carolynr suggested that few if any of those cases where MRTs had been present at fatal incidents in a non-mountain environment would have benefitted from access to PLBs.

So if you could come up with some evidence for your assertion, it would be very useful.


Most people on here *have* discussed things courteously. there were one or two tongue-in-cheek comments, but Jenni was also discourteous on occasion. I think you're mistaking "robust" for "discourteous" in many cases.

She came here with a pre-judged agenda and seemed astonished that people were actually asking her to justify her position quantitavely, rather than just fawning over here with loads of "wow, this is a great idea" comments as per the equestrian site. She didn't appear willing to even consider that people responding negatively may have a point, which probably didn't sit well with some people.

You say she doesn't need to justify her position (on the grounds presumably, that "anything" which *might* "improve" safety is a "good idea"...regardless of cost-benefit?). I'm sorry, but there you're wrong. If you're going to campaign for a change to something, whatever it is, then it's no good going with just hand-waving and dismissing any arguments against your campaign as being negative.

If you want to change the status quo, it's incumbent to (a) prove a need and (b) prove that it can be done cost-effectively. Anything else shows a lack of preparation.

Now if you can come back with a justification for the "literally dozens" of people (over what period?) that would hacve been saved by PLBs, I'm willing to modify my stance. I already said that I hadn't looked at stats for Scotland, but since I'd put in the work on England/ Wales, I reckoned that this was something Jenni should do for herself. Maybe it'll show a big difference from E & W.

In reply to MG:

Yes, as well as the facts and figures, I'd also agree with the "don't sanitise the experience too much" argument.


Exactly. It's a bit like pro-bolting arguments that say "if you don't want to use the bolts, just ignore them and climb the route in trad style"!

In reply to Rob Naylor:

Actually, I'm not willing to modify my general stance (that we don't want them as that would sanitise the experience too much) ) but I'm willing to concede that a positive cost-benefit case could be made for them, assumeing she (or you) can come up with justification for these "dozens" of lives saved.

In reply to Rob Naylor:
Rob, if you don't want them, don't use them. Would be absolutely behind that decision as I agree with freedom of choice in this (and many other) respect(s). Unlike bolting and pegging, PLB use doesn't leave any evidence in the rock. A PLB sits passively in your sack doing nothing, hopefully for ever. But for those who choose to carry them, they are there for themselves and others, if necessary. From the UK SAR point of view, their use would cut down the time, uncertainty and effort expended on SAR incidents. Given a position, MRTs can go out with certainty of finding the casualty(ies), even in bad conditions.
I'm sorry if in turn I upset anyone with my plea for courtesy - really aimed at a couple of comments by one person. Was just trying to indicate that some folk may be more sensitive to robust and direct criticism than others - and what may be the norm here.
Over the time between 1968 and now all over the UK, I can certainly justify the statement. For example, in recent times, last November, two guys were lost in the Northern Coires in a November blizzard. Had they carried and used a PLB, they'd probably have survived. As you'll know Rob, there is no certainty in these things, as a decision by them would have to be made in time, but that was just one of several similar incidents in the Cairngroms alone. And look at the search times / effort for some of the major incidents, even in the last few years - you'll remember the gentleman missing in Lochaber - still missing. We had 3 guys die in the Cairngorms/Dalwhinnie area just few years back - remember?
And one around the same time in the Glas Maol area.
Count these up over 40 years, even in N Scotland, and they'll soon reach 24.
Unlike one of your contributors, entitled to his view, neither Jenni nor I is advocating that PLB use should be mandated/compulsory. Absolutely NOT! But I can't see, any more than the use of any safety kit, or mobile phones, or satphones, or a whistle, or shouting, what the problem is for those who would choose to use them.
I very much respect your strongly held view, and share components of it, but just go much further with the availability bit for those that want to use PLBs and bring the land environment into equity with the maritime and aviation arenas, that's all.

In reply to Outdoorsman: here's a thought

instead of restating your case, have a go at trying to design into your scheme ways of avoiding the unintended and undesirable side-effects that have been listed on this thread

you might even find it useful to do

In reply to Outdoorsman:

I'm sorry but that is a very poor example and not valid at all to support your statement. There are lots of things those guys could have carried (e.g. more clothing, emergency shelter) that could have increased their chances of survival. However we know (because he posted it on UKC) that one of them did not carry such kit because he felt he could not justify the extra weight and thought that "fast and light" was the best thing to do in winter. I think you can be 100% certain that they would not have had a PLB if they were legal.

In reply to johnSD:

and 110% certain that their 'failure' to carry one would have been in the subsequent news reports :¬(

In reply to rich: With respect, there have been additional components to my 'case' in each response.
And I choose not to take up your suggestion. Perhaps you would like to do that, instead. Thank you.

In reply to Outdoorsman:

Would they have carried one? The one of the pair that posted on here was a "fast and light" enthusiast. and would theyhave trigered it if they had? I've been a bit hypothermic myself once, and doubt that I was thinking clearly enough at the time to have done it myself, if I had had one.


There's the nub...if it takes 40 years back-tracking to come up with a (possible) 24 lives saved, that squares with my initial comment about "somewhere between 0 and 5 lives per year possibly saved, probably tending towards the lower figure".

If you then work out the costings using Mark's figures, I suspect you'll get a result in the "money best spent on other enhancements" bracket.

That's the thing Jenni seems to be overlooking all the time....the "cost per life saved". If the same amount of funding were to be allocated to, say, SARDA enhancement, how would the figures work out, for example?

In reply to johnSD: Aye, right enough, John, it was not a good example, because they wouldn't have carried one.
But it's like mobile phones. A few years ago there were lots of folk (sorry for generalising) who were saying that they'd never carry one on the hill, but as they saw the possibilities, many now carry them as a matter of routine. You just have to look at the numbers and percentage of callouts that are triggered by a mobile phone-call to see how, once folk see the advantages, they are prepared to change. Oh, I know that some MRTs curse the things, but they also admit that. overall, they're a plus. We're only talking about a small percentage of outdoor folk who would buy and carry a PLB, but they should have the choice. Unlike mobile phones, you can't be contacted on the hill by one and you don't have to listen to nearby conversations on them, either.

In reply to Outdoorsman:

yeh, sorry - that kinda came across as sarcastic

i had a look back quickly though and the development of the case seems to have been

PLBs would technically work
Parts of Britain can be described as ‘remote’
If you don’t want to use them you don’t have to
They “would” [be expected to] lead to faster rescues
Several (7) cases where having one might have helped


if your thing happens it happens - i wouldn't be happy about it but i wouldn't loose any sleep over it i imagine

but i'd rather think that the people who came up with these things had thought seriously about the downsides too and weighed them against the benefits and/or put measures in place to avoid them - it's an absolute requirement in many development projects i happen to know even if it can be a bit of a going through the motions exercise in reality

In reply to Rob Naylor: A wee bit of give and take, please Rob. I did indicate at the outset that the numbers were over a period. They have been conservatively stated, I believe. Maybe I will look at the stats in detail - you may get a shock. The trouble is that whatever the stats reveal, will it change your mind? Is it worth the work. Mark's calculations are irrelevant in this case, as they were not applied to the other beacon environments. What funding? All that is needed is a registration database that can work hand-in-glove with sister databases. Will ask some of my SARDA mates if they can quantify what you say. Forget the 'cost per life' bit. The infrastructure, other than the registration database, is all there. The only other cost is buying the beacons, and that it up to the individual, not the public purse. Beacon land use would ultimately save public money as it would allow the SAR services, just happens with EPIRBs and ELTs, to quickly respond to the right place, with the right assets. That'll be me away until this evening. Hope you folks have a grand day.

In reply to Outdoorsman: How do you plan to fund portable trackers for MRTs if SAR Helis can't fly? Which will always be the case in severe weather ie. High winds, poor vis....

In reply to jenniwren:
In our area we are facing closure of Accident and Emergency unit that will result in people requiring urgent medical treatment having to travel far further by ambulance.

It's pretty certain, I think, given the increased journey times, that over time people will die from everyday causes like heart attacks and who would have survived before the closure. I think that would be an area I would be concerned about rather than possible benefits of yet another rescue technology

In reply to aircrew: Thank you Aircrew; good question. The deficiency in the MRT portfolio has been pointed out. In simplest form, all that is really needed is a receiver on 121.5 MHz that has a signal strength meter, and a couple of small aerials. There are specialist receivers available too, but they are expensive. It should be remembered that there are already about 5,000 121.5/243 MHz Sarbe PLBs issued to the MoD already and nobody has addressed this potential discrepancy. Glad to see that folks like you are aware of the problem. Care to send it up your 'powers-that-be' line? Helicopters couldn't function at the critical time during the F-15s crash.
There should be 406 MHz replacements issued in time for the 1 Feb 2009 deadline, by the way - that's the plan. . .

In reply to Anonymous: May I have the cheek to reply to your valid point. There's no end to this type of reasoning, Anonymous. You can bet that the same amount of money would save an awful lot of lives in the Sudan and places with similar problems. You campaign for your A&E amd we can try for PLBs. Good Luck to You.

In reply to jenniwren:
The problem is that when they or the technology/recievers etc become availible/standard etc we will be expected to carry them. Already insurance companies are refusing, and getting away with it, to fully pay out compensation to cyclists knocked off their bikes by cars.(with proven no fault by the cyclist) The argument is that the cyclist contributed to his injuries but not wearing a helmet!! The same thing will happen here in time. If you don't carry a beacon you will be persecuted for not doing so. Its principle. But then again I hate mobiles in the hills and never carry one.

In reply to mattsccm: Yes Matt, I cycle too because I can't drive any more (not banned or anything like that) and I do wear a helmet - but your freedom not to do so is valued by me. Insurance companies - say no more. They price peoples' lives in money terms, too. The 'authorities' have tried to force climbers to carry beacons of one description or other on Mt Hood in USA - and failed, largely because MR people are mountaineers first, rescuers second and they value freedom too. Long may it continue. We'll just have to fight that to the hilt if it threatens to happen here, which I don't think it ever will.

In reply to jenniwren:

I'll admit first that I haven't read all the posts here (130 odd is more than I have time for at the moment) - but in my view PLBs are one of the best bits of kit I have.
It was originally bought for aviation use only (flying helicopters in remote areas often alone), it's a McMurdo Fastfind Plus, transmits on 406 so it's relatively future-proof, has a low power homing beacon on 121.5, and GPS integrated to give accurate coordinates to SAR. It cost only a few hundred quid, weighs only 400g, and I'm rarely airborne and never out in the mountains without it.
The MAJOR thing I like about these beacons though is that they're individual. You activate it and Kinloss know it's your beacon; false activation and you face the consequences. The plus side of that is that I keep the registration details up to date so if I do have to activate it they can give my boss / my family a call, confirm that I was actually airborne or that I am in the mountains, and cut down on the possibility of the thing activating at home or something. I'm not saying it would, but if it's physically possible Murphy says with someone, somewhere it will.
IMO everyone who ventures into remote SAR-difficult areas should have one. Forget the flares, forget the heliographs, smoke, etc. One of these will have a nice yellow sea king over you when you need it most.

Aside 1. I didn't actually realise these are illegal in the UK? How so? They can be found in most pilot shops and magazines over here, and though I've registered mine in the US where I bought it from (and where it was originally coded), I believe the RCC at Kinloss now allow you to register it with them. Or is that aviation only? If so, it's another case of us lagging years behind the Americans; there they're not only legal but positively encouraged.
The other thing though is that on bringing it back to the UK I actually emailed McMurdo to enquire about its legality. The response I recieved was that it was fine, so are you SURE that it's not?

Aside 2, I can't remember what specific law or agreement it relates to, but doing ATPL exams I'm sure I remember hearing that in cases of distress, where life is in danger, it's legal to use any and every radio frequency in order to signal for help. Perhaps someone with a better knowledge of Ofcom or the ITU might be able to be more specific? I'm certain that was the case though, and in that case surely PLBs are legal? You're signalling for help using a radio frequency.
The other point that should perhaps be made is that if you buy one, need to use it, and someone later says you've been a naught boy (/girl) and broke the law... are you really going to care? If it is illegal the law should be changed sure, but a judge (for example) can't sentance me to dying from a broken leg in a crevasse...

hope that adds something to the debate!

In reply to Outdoorsman: rob and johnsd have already answered many of the points I'd wish to make.

There still seems to be a lack of 'incidents' where there was no mobile phone coverage AND PLBs could clearly have saved lives AND would likely have been carried AND would likely have been activated.

Thankfully deaths by hypothermia in the British mountains are now very rare. Also rare are deaths by traumatic injury where earlier response by MR would have changed the outcome. Unfortunately in most falls the outcome is determined immediately: in most cases the injuries are either clearly fatal or clearly non-fatal.

If you or other proponents could come up with at least 10 fatal incidents in the last decade that meet the criteria above:
- No phone signal
- Earlier response could have saved life/lives
- PRBs likely to have been carried
- PRBs likely to have been used
Then I think most people would probably be more receptive. In the absence of this evidence a think a degree of scepticism is perfectly warranted.

Cheers M

In reply to Ioan: Hello Loan, Interesting points that certainly add positively to the debate.
You activate your registered PLB and the UKMCC at Kinloss will interrogate (probably and inefficiently, all) the registration databases and then speak with your nominated 24-hr Emergency Point of Contact(s). Your phone numbers will be there too, so if you're contactable by that means at the time, they may be directed to speak with you, direct.
Your Aside 1 - PLBs are legal for GA/light aircraft and for maritime use. The PLBs for use by aviators are registered on the ELT registration database maintained by Kinloss (copied on to the EPIRB database because, somewhat extraordinarily, there is NO UK PLB Database). PLBs for maritime use are registered only on the EPIRB database. But - UK-coded PLBs for land use ABROAD, ARE registered on the EPIRB database - don't blame the staff there, they're doing that for all the right reasons. Your PLB, Loan, if used for GA/light aircraft purposes in UK, should really be coded as a UK PLB and if you use the National Location Protocol, it will provide a more accurate coarse GPS location (within 2 miles instead of 15), but hopefully, it will provide a refined GPS position, within 125 metres.
If the UK had a dedicated PLB database, PLBs could be used in any of the three environments. and so ALL the PLBs could be placed on it, cutting down on interrogation time and minimising the chance of error.
Aside 2 - You are correct: One of the fundamental Radio Regulation rules is that, when life is in danger or at stake, any radio means at your disposal may be used. That still doesn't allow you to register a PLB for use on land (unless you're an aviator who crash-lands or a sailor washed ashore - an uncomfortable contradiction there), and as things stand, there is a specific exception made, excluding PLBs in the hands of terrestrial users from use on land. So it would not be illegal to use it for life-saving if it was carried, but if you carried it with an intent to use it (even on an only-if-necessary basis), you would be breaking the law. Also, and this is important, if you are not a sailor or GA aviator, you can't register the beacon unless you say you're going to use it abroad. IF IT ISN'T PROPERLY REGISTERED, you are squandering one of the cardinal plus-points of buying a 406 MHz beacon. Sorry to be categroical about it, but this is the only area where I think some sort of penalty should exist - for those that don't register their beacons - after all, it's free.
We should surely be campaigning for PLBs for land use to be made as legitimate as their aviation and maritime brethren, so that folks can buy and register them without hindrance or fear of breaking the law..
Quite an involved subject this, isn't it?

In reply to Outdoorsman:

Sorry to correct you, but I never said there was a problem to fix. I was asking you about funding. Straight line signal searching on signal strength works fine in the air, but I'm sure ground forces will have issues with this, how much is the the kit per team? what is the life of the kit? battery endurance? weight? accurancy? Servicing cost? How many times a year do YOU think it will be used?

Heli's could fly during the double F15s, but not high up, and also provided troop carrying functions.

You heart maybe in the right place as they say, but the mountaineering world on average differs in both attitude and motivation to the equine world, so I doubt until PLBs are imbedded in wrist watches you will have any takers.

In reply to Ioan:
"IMO everyone who ventures into remote SAR-difficult areas should have one. Forget the flares, forget the heliographs, smoke, etc. One of these will have a nice yellow sea king over you when you need it most."

Perhaps; SAR Flts won't get given a 10 fig grid ref or lat/long to aim at, they will still be doing some local searching to find you, so hang to those flares and anything else you have to home them in. Flares are also a great way of alerting locals (farmers, game keepers, stalkers, etc..) and ground based SAR teams.

As much as crews will want to get out to you, you won't even see them, as they will be in their crewroom if the winds are very high, very low cloud, dense fog, extreme rain or snow. So have a plan B if you crash or get lost in poor weather. Mobile, hand held sat phone, Map, compass (+skills), food, clothing etc. They will try and follow roads and other major features, but the best will in the world can't beat the british weather, especially a scottish winter.

Think - Responsibility to get yourself out of where ever you get yourself into and any help beyond that is a bonus.

In reply to mattsccm:
....Already insurance companies are refusing, and getting away with it, to fully pay out compensation to cyclists knocked off their bikes by cars.(with proven no fault by the cyclist) The argument is that the cyclist contributed to his injuries but not wearing a helmet!! .....

I am not aware that this is in fact the case. Insurance companies have tried to argue this but failed. This is one of the strongest arguments against helmet use on road bikes IMHO.

BUT back to the main argument.
If PLB's are made available you will be criticised for not carrying one by people who do not know better. Experienced ML's are already getting advised to carry a GPS 'just in case'. There is probably a market for a single use GPS fitted with Lithium '10 year shelf life' batteries. It doesn't really matter if it works as long as you carry one.

Steve D

In reply to aircrew:

My feelings exactly.

I've been involved in 4 incidents where people have been injured in the mountains or on sea-cliffs. On 3 of those occasions we worked together to extricate the injured person without involving MRTs or Coastguard.

On the 4th occasion ( I was the injured party) we were actually setting up a hoist to assist me in climbing out (with a broken elbow) of Swanage under my own steam when the Coastguard arrived having been called in by another party. They then called a chopper.

I was grateful for the quicker trip to hospital but stictly speaking it wasn't necessary. I would have been able to climb the Diff at Subluminal with hoist assist from above and someone climbing alongside me, and felt quite embarrassed that a chopper was called when I was in fact "walking wounded".

Calling for assistance should be an absolute last resort. I've carried half a Thomas stretcher up onto Kinder myself, and would be reluctant to put anyone else to that hassle unless it was a dire need!

In reply to Rob Naylor:


Absolutely spot on.

Compare that statement with "Just press a button and help will arrive"

In reply to Outdoorsman:

- I may well change my mind if the figures indicate a significant number of *probable* lives saved over a reasonable period (though going back more than, say, 10 years would not be helpful). I won't change my mind about the "self-reliance" stance, but may well change my mind on whether it would be a cost-effective way to allocate resources.

- Mark's calculations are not irrelevant: some level of funding will be required. As well as the cost of compiling (and maintaining...I work with databases, and, believe me, maintenance is a not insignificant cost) the database there will be a need to equip and train every MRT in the country with sufficient receivers (and of a sufficient quality to do a bit more than straight-line air-ground RDF), and to update them. Cost of a replacement cycle, batteries, etc woould also have to be factored in. And the training in use would take up a portion of the *volunteers'" time.

As I said, this may be worth it if a significant number of lives would likely be saved. But if it's, say, 5 in a decade, would it stil be worth it? (Genuine question...I haven't done the calculations).

What I found astonishing in the original posts/ replies was that no consideration at all appeared to have been given to whether this idea served a real need or was a "solution in search of a problem". It was taken as read that it was "a good idea" and no research seemed to have been done by the proponent to justify it.

In reply to aircrew:

Agreed 100%. Individual responsibility is a must, and I probably shouldn't have said the bit about forgetting the flares and all. The point I was trying to make though is that it is still a pretty robust, reliable system which might at the end of the day be your only hope. It's all very well to take the latest and best survival equipment, to be the world expert in safety and self-rescue, but at the end of the day, things happen, and this system could very likely save your life if you were injured in a remote place somewhere. And it's not just here in the UK I'm talking about.

In reply to ridge,
"> Calling for assistance should be an absolute last resort. I've carried half a Thomas stretcher up onto Kinder myself, and would be reluctant to put anyone else to that hassle unless it was a dire need!

Absolutely spot on.

Compare that statement with "Just press a button and help will arrive" "

I'm very very aware of what MRTs and SAR go through in order to get someone off a mountain, but at the end of the day if you're up there, something's happened and you've no other choice, would you press the button? That's what this is about, giving one more last resort.

Thanks very much for the explanation of what's legal and what's not. Apparently me taking my PLB into the mountains with me isn't legal... so be it. I'm 100% for changing the law.

A thought about the possibility of false callouts:
they will happen... people with a stubbed toe or feeling tired dragging MRTs out unneccasarily. Perhaps more action should be taken against them? A few high profile fines or something might help prevent that?
Or perhaps a system where everytime someone presses the button they later have to explain to a judge exectly why they did; a kind of court of enquiry?

Also (another point) to someone who mention wristw*tch PLBs - Breitling make one based on 121.5. it's a chunky thing, but I know several people who have them. give it time and there'll be GPS and 406 in there too

In reply to Rob Naylor:

Finally time to reply to the rest of this in more depth. kids' christmas concert making me rush earlier!

While I see your point about the cost of setting the system up and would like to see some research into the finances of it all, somehow I can't imagine having PLBs in general terrestrial use would work out negatively in that respect. Firstly, while PLBs are not TOO expensive - for those who spend long periods outdoors and in potentially more hostile places - I can't imagine your average Joe Bloggs is going to get one for a wander up the local hill. At £300 - £400 each, at least in the short to medium term they'll be the preserve only of those who might one day seriously need it, and for whom more conventional signalling methods are inadequate.
Now look at the cost benefits of the system. Has anyone got an idea of what a Sea King costs per hour to operate? At the moment I'm on an A109 which is around £1000 an hour, give or take; a sea king is going to be significantly more. If I go out in the highlands tomorrow, leave a route card and then fail to turn up a week later, what's that going to cost? MRTs, rescue aircraft... aside from the fact that if something had happened to me it might be too late anyway, it would be one HUGE amount cheaper to have a GPS coordinate of my exact location and send out a MRT directly to me.
So, your could use a whole team of volunteers' time searching, or you could choose just a few of them and use a lot less of their hours learning how to operate a 121.5 homer. If your average person can learn how to use an avalanche transciever reasonably well in just a few hours, I'm certain it won't take too long for a few members from every team to use one that'll find a PLB instead.

There's a saying that I've seen somewhere - probably from McMurdo or one of the other PLB manufacturers trying to sell beacons - "takes the search out of search and rescue".
While I don't suggest it's that easy, for those who'll carry them I think it'll be close

I don't plan to wade into the "ethical" side of the debate, but one thought occurs to me in terms of practicalities...

If the PLB manufacturers want to push this, I think as an absolute minimum they should be the ones providing any required equipment and training to the MRTs. Otherwise the manufacturers are effectively profiting from MR money invested in that infrastructure etc. This way, the cost would ultimately be funded by those who think they want to carry the devices.

My own opinions, not those of my team, etc etc.

In reply to jonny taylor: Hello Jonny. The teams will benefit because they will not be called out so often, and when they do, they'll know where to go. With a PLB, the necessity to search would not be necessary and that's what uses up lots of MRT members' time and effort. If GPS-integrated (location protocol) beacons are used, the position should be available within 125 metres and that's why, at the outset, would-be PLB users should be encouraged to spend the wee bit extra on getting a GPS-integrated beacon. If the geostationary satellites can 'see' the beacon, a refined GPS-derived position can be received at the MCC within 5 minutes, whereas a non-GPS beacon will have to wait for a Low Earth Orbiting satellite to come round and first provide two widely dispersed locations which should be quickly narrowed down to one by dint of PLB Database interrogation (hence the necessity to register the beacons), but this position can normally only be said to be within 5 nautical miles, or greater if the data is dodgy.
The beacon manufacturers are only selling a closely controlled product, so can't really see why they would have to be in any way responsible for training MRTs. They know their product, but not how to train MRTs in tracking them down. I have earlier gone into print about the homing component. Thanks

In reply to Outdoorsman:

That's assuming that PLBs will be universally adopted by every hillwalker, climber, canoeist and pensioner-on-a-day trip to Windermere. I imagine 99% of 'outdoor' people wouldn't use one. Given that I can't see how this will limit the number of call-outs. If the system you're advocating could be easily adopted, and the cost of implementation is funded by the manufacturers and users of these devices, and it doesn't inconvenience the MRTs then I don't really have a problem with it.

In reply to Outdoorsman:


Can you explain your reasoning for this statement? It would not seem to have been the case with near-universal ownership of mobile phones.

In reply to jenniwren:

As a member of the Llanberis mountain rescue team we deal with nearly 100 callouts each year on the Snowdon massive and south side of the Glyderau.

Callouts come from mobile phones via 999. Most callouts are from more inexperienced mountaineers (generally following magazine route recommendations), who believe they are in peril, when they are clearly not – I could give you vast amounts of examples! But the fact remains that THEY belive that the situation is drastic enough for a 999 call, so the whole legal use of them will then require a full investigation by MR and police to decide if they should have used it or not – not what we are here as MR to do.

What I can see an issue with is not knowing how to deal with receiving a message from a plb, giving only coordinates.

Eg. If we had the coordinates for Crib Coch (a regular hotspot), then we need to plan how we deal with it. Firstly we would check the cloud level. If we had low cloud then this proves to be a problem as we can’t call for assistance of the RAF seaking, as they won’t fly in cloud in the mountains.
We would then need to plan for a worse case incident, so we would need about 20-30 team members to go on the hill, because we could be dealing with multiple casualties, who will need to be carried and lowered by stretcher down to the road (get quite knackering!).
The equipment we would need to also carry on the hill would be unbelievable. We don’t know how many casualties there are and what injuries they may have sustained, so we would need to plan for the worse and take everything.
The location could put the casualty in a very different place if the accuracy is 125m (think about what is 125m to the right of the ridge as you are on it).

The team may be a bit angry after carrying up the whole kit store and medical equipment to discover someone who is mentally stuck on the ridge and requires no first aid treatment or technical assistance to help them down (this is a common callout for us, and we usually send a small team and light weight equipment to deal with it). Then comes the bit when the pagers go off again, on another part of the mountain, with a serious incident, and the whole team and all the equipment are somewhere else.

Generally when accidents happen out of phone signal, the people involved sort it out one way or another. Again if all we had was a location, then we would need to carry everything with us. If the people involved sent someone to an area with phone signal then this would take time, but we would get a better idea of how to deal with it and prioritise.

Remember helicopters don’t fly into cloud in the mountains – and they are not intended for mountain rescue. If an accident over water happens then the helicopter is going – even if they are halfway through a rescue in the hills!

I really think that they would get misused and that the prosecution threat (as there is on a 999 misuse) won’t deter someone who thinks the world is ending as they are out of their depth.

I would buy one for trips to Canada, Greenland etc but not in the UK.

Bryn

In reply to Outdoorsman:


I'm not following how you think this will lead to _fewer_ callouts - could you elaborate please?


I agree that there are some scenarios where this would be the case if the beacon was carried and activated. You must remember though that there are two main resources that MRTs have: their members voluntary time, and also their limited funds - which is what my comment was mostly based on.


My reasoning is based on "loan"'s assertion that MRTs would need to have some sort of homing device to make full use of the beacon's signal. You may disagree, but I'll elaborate on why I don't see it the way you put it...

1. The equipment manufacturers market and sell these devices, and profit from the sale
2. MRTs invest their own unpaid time and the team's money in purchasing and learning to operate some sort of "homing device"
3. An as-yet unspecified number of searches (greater than or equal to zero) are greatly reduced in duration
4. A similarly unspecified number of lives are saved

Ethical arguments aside, if the sale is legal then the manufacturers are free to do (1) if they choose. Completely independently of that, the MRC would need to make a policy decision about whether to do (2) based on (3) and (4), but I feel there would be pressure to do so if (1) occurs, regardless of whether it is the most appropriate channeling of available funds. (headlines - "man dies after signalling for help, but emergency services had refused to invest in the means needed to rescue him"). This level of investment would be the same even if the numbers in (3) and (4) were negligible.

Looking purely from the economics of the situation, the manufacturers' profits from (1) are entirely dependent on the MRC spending time and money first (2). My point was that I view this situation as the manufacturers freeloading off the MRC. I will retain that view unless somebody can conclusively show that the cost of these "homing devices" offers a better cost-per-life-saved than for example increasing SARDA funding (as Cara mentioned). You may have a different view.

It therefore seems very reasonable to me that the required financial investment should be passed on via the manufacturers to the users of the system. One could "tax" the devices, but it seemed much fairer to me to have the manufacturers pay for the infrastructure and then implicitly pass that cost on to the users in the price of the device. That way the manufacturers (and the end-users through their purchase or not of the devices) must decide whether the devices are financially viable or not in light of the investment required.

I could go on, but hopefully I've made my point clear even if you don't happen to agree with it.

Finally, if you don't mind me asking, what is your interest in this, Outdoorsman? You're talking very knowledgeably about this and it sounds like you may have connections with manufacturers. Basically I'm curious as to whether you're an individual who disagrees with what I thought was a fairly sensible suggestion, or whether you have links with manufacturers who frankly are bound to disagree.


Again, all my own opinions etc.

In reply to jenniwren: Interesting topic. Lots and lots of people going to sea carry GPS enabled EPIRBs. Some people will carry them, some won't.

Personally I think if you're going to have the potential to have to ask for help, give yourself (and the rescuers) the best possible chance.

Any over use / inappropriate use from these will be less than that seen with mobile phones, for two reasons. Firstly there will always be more mobile phones. Secondly because people who have shelled out to buy a PLB are far more likely to be prepared in other key areas.

So, why not?

Cheers,

FT.

P.S. Didn't read all the other posts.....sorry!

In reply to Fume Troll:
>Secondly because people who have shelled out to buy a PLB are far more likely to be prepared in other key areas.

Hmmmm. in that case they are already carrying flares, a whistle, a torch, a gps, a phone and have the wherewithall to survive outside without assistance for an hour or two longer. So these are NOT the people for whom a PLB is really a supposed benefit.

In reply to jenniwren: Some thoughts: This thread has been trundling along for a good while now. It has two principal advocates, one coming along after the other has departed. poster 2 seems to be supportive and rather more informed, but still seems to have something of a blind spot about dissenting views.

So a question: What is the relationship of Outdoorbloke to Jenni miller? Is there one?

Secondly, it appears UKC has been the only outdoor forum to really engage with the subject, though there have been similar threads started on other fora. Even her own forum seems pretty torpid. As to the goal itself, there have been very few signatures on the petition. Therefore is this subject something of a dead duck, and are we right to keep feeding it, nontheless?

Discounting the ads for the beacons themselves, this thread is one of the higher hits on Google

In reply to toad:

PS I was right about the flask and butties

In reply to toad:

And neither has posted on any other thread as far as I'm aware.


I had wondered too.

T.

In reply to toad:
Told you it would be an epic

In reply to shingsowa: Such a long thread that you really need something to help others rescue you from it in case you get unutterably lost.

Now what might that be, I wonder?

T.

In reply to Pursued by a bear:
One of the soft toys Roly from SARDA uses to train his dogs?

SARDA: Much better investment of money. Or for the outlying MR teams that don't benefit from the higher profile of other teams. Oh no wait that was the other epic rescue thread...

In reply to jonny taylor: Hello again, Jonny. Sorry for my rushed answers that are sandwiched in between doing other things.
Can't say what I do for a living, but my interest is mainly MR and the hill-goer. Am nothing to do with anufacturers, although I know a couple - absolutely no interests to declare there.

Want to see the terrestrial fraternity looked after as well as the aviation and maritime folks.

Fewer callouts that you picked up on - You're right. It wasn't necessarily true because overall they may go up, but all I meant there was that sometimes, a helicopter will be known to be adequate do the job - although thinking about it, MRTs should always be called and start out in case the helicopter doesn't get there or is divereted. So that was wrong of me and I should instead have said that the effort by MRTs would be reduced.

Would have thought that the manufcturers would be keen to help or advise, but I still don't think they owe us anything.

As to the users paying? Well, HM Government are the recipients of tax for the fuel that the walker, (for example), use to get to their walks, the clothes and all the kit that they buy, the accommodation that they stay in, the food that they buy in the area, the beer that they drink, etc, etc. If they stayed at home the exchequer would be much the poorer. If you tot that lot up, and consider the good health that generally accrues (saving to the NHS - or just delaying the inevitable?) from the activity, the cost of SAR and any beacon database is but a drop in the ocean - in this case, on the hill. The thousands of thousands of people who go walking and climbing and others who visit remote places, not to mention the lone workers who could potentially benefit from PLBs, should not have to pay any extra for beacons and their use - in my humble opinion. Indeed, why not make them tax-free?

It is always going to be impossible to predict how many rescues and searches we're talking about here. If I could predict things like that, I'd be a rich man - which I'm very much not.

You have every bit as much right to state and stick to your opinions as me, mate. I respect that very much. All I can do is state my (opinionated, no doubt) honest convictions.

All the best.

In reply to Outdoorsman:
But is are putting such an effort into getting the government to help fund the extra expenses that PLBs will incur the priority? Wouldn't it make more sense to help publicise the campaign for funding for MR/ALSAR/SARDA? And then turn to the PLB issue if that is what you think best? Just an idea...

Also, do you live in or near an area covered by an MRT? Have you spoken to them to see what the day to day issues are?

That is if you aren't already an MR team member of course.

In reply to toad: Though it is your right to be sceptical, I have never met the lady, though we have briefly spoken a couple of times on the phone - sorry if that's boring. If it helps to engender any interest, she sounds like a sincere and pleasant lady.

In reply to Outdoorsman:


I can't think of one member of the 'terrestrial fraternity' that want to be 'looked after'.

Indeed, I don't think that any responsible member of the 'terrestrial fraternity' should ever seek to be 'looked after' in the way you suggest.

In reply to shingsowa: It really wouldn't cost that much you know, Shinsowa. There are existing beacon databases and there would be economy of scale in just adding another one (PLB) - which anyway will have to be created and maintained for the aviation and maritime PLBs. Then it's up to the individual whether they want to buy and register a PLB, but they should have the opportunity every bit as much as aviators and sailors, don't you think?
Cheers.

In reply to Enoch Root: Well, Enoch, if you'd seen some of the poor souls who have by bad luck or ignorance fallen on hard times on the hill, or just fallen, you might change your mind. And if you think I'm advocating a mamby-pamby nanny situation, forget it. I've had all sorts of epics all over the world and been very, very fortunate in getting away with quite a lot of them. It's fun sticking your neck out and this nation needs to do it a lot more, but when things go (desperately) wrong, there should be the same opportunity to get help in an efficient way that least inconveniences the SAR services But you would like to be without? Absolutely your right and sometimes, the extra weight of safety kit, depending on what you're doing, is more dangerous than not having it - agreed.

In reply to Outdoorsman:
But what about the extra costs, both financial and resource, to the RAF or Air Ambulances? Or to MRTs? The cost of an accidental call-out? Or a well intentioned but unnecessary activation by an inexperienced and scared user? It's not just the database that needs paying for.

Bryn, from Llanberis MRT, who posted above, summed up the major issues for MR personnel/search managers as far as i can see.

In reply to Enoch Root:

Me!
Like I said, I spend a lot of time in the hills. I'm usually alone. I carry enough equipment to keep me alive for some time, and to signal for help where there's phone reception or other people. In the other areas? Vast areas of the highlands, several areas in Wales, amongst others in the UK... what then?

I recognise that at the moment few people use these devices, so I'm not advocating that every MRT goes and buys a homing device. Rather I'm saying it should be legal for those of us who want to carry them to be able to. If all else fails the GPS in it will with very high probability get a MRT to wherever we are. I see your point that without knowing the nature of the emergency they could be left carting serious amounts of kit up a hill, but first the beacon's personal to me, and therefore some information should be obtainable from my family, and second if God forbid a team did go through hell to rescue me, but did save my life, I'd be extremely sorry for putting them through that but to be completely honest I'd still do it. As would most people I suspect!

In reply to Ioan:

Then I think you have to accept that the rewards you get from being in those areas don't come without risk.


And as far as I can see, others are saying that the money that would need to be spent in order for you to have the choice to carry them usefully could be better spent on other things of greater utility to all - a view with which I concur. And just earlier an MRT member posted arguing that they'd be of limited use in his, very busy, area.

You're entitled to your view, and long may you have the freedom to express it. It just appears from the vox populi here to be a view shared by few other regular visitors to this country's wild places, who know the risks but go there anyway - and for many, that's part of the attraction.

T.

In reply to Ioan:


I think you'll find it's spelt 'Me, me, me!'

In reply to Ioan:


Precisely.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4948182.stm

In reply to shingsowa: OK Bryan. The RAF have the UKMCC up at Kinloss. The first thing that happens when a 406 MHz beaacon is activated is that they contact the 24-hr Emergency Point of Contact and through this mechanism is usually revealed (provided the beacon owner has registered the bloomin' thing) whether it is a real incident or not, how many folks are in the party, experience, appearance, etc. Then we're dealing with a known place within a small area if it's a GPS beacon, or something that the RAF can home to (provided the weather's good enough, if not. Yes, if it isn't and a precise position can't be provided and the Emergency Point of Contact can't provide the exact route and if they're not lost. . . . they still have a lot more certainty to go on, saving resources and shortening the time for the injured to be evacuated. The Air Ambulances, excellent though they are, are not SAR assets and would not initially be tasked via a PLB activation unless it was in a known flat area and the SAR assets were unavailable - as a general rule.
Less and more precise effort expended by SAR
Much more certainty of position
Extra knowledge via the Emergency POC.
Even if an SAR asset/assets are launched for this, they know where to go.
Said even knowing that you may have opinions of where I ought to go. . .

In reply to Outdoorsman:


You present this as a simple matter of 'if you don't like it, don't use it' but that is entirely disingenuous.

Introducing these things would fundamentally affect the status of every hill-goer. Search and rescue, in your model, would go from being a privilege, provided by volunteers, funded by donations to a right, provided by the State, funded by taxation.

I want no intrusion by the State in the freedoms of the hills and this proposal would inevitably lead to such intrusion. This affects us all and you can expect concerted resistance if your selfish little plan ever looks like bearing fruit. Thankfully, I doubt that it ever will.

In reply to Outdoorsman: You idiot, Outdoorsman! Oh, I am Outdoorsman. . . .
That second last line was in reference to a false alert that an SAR helicopter had to go to. In other words, even if someone who couldn't be contacted in any other way after accidentally activating his/her PLB continued to leave the beacon on or, there's always one, jumps the gun, panics and activates the beacon, at least the SAR helicopter or MRT know where to go. Sorry about that.

In reply to Enoch Root: Sorry Enoch, but don't agree. Although more effective, in what way are PLBs different to mobile phones or satphones - whatever you think of them. And yachtsmen and airmen are not adversely affected.
And if you don't carry one, what has changed for you?
And why would it change the MRTs, other than to help them out a bit? The system needs the MRTs. Emergency Services can't put experts on the hill in the numbers required for major incidents and big searches. And the authorities know that if the Emergency Services started cherry picking and reacted to easy incidents, the Volunteer MRT members would vote with their feet and find something more rewarding to do - and the system would be in real trouble, because there wouldn't be enough 'professionals' to cope with major incidents and searches. Long live the Voluntary nature of MR

In reply to shingsowa Shingsowa, I'm sorry. Thought you were signing off as Bryn from Llanberis in the previous post and mixed you up with him for a wee while. Apologies.

In reply to jenniwren:
Bit like bolts on Cloggy sin't it? You don't have to use them.
Crap. Why bother with excitement if you don't want to have it. We won't be cnsidering going in the hills by ourselves next or soloing or climbing anywhere we might fall. Its all about maintaining standards and ethics. bugger practicalty. after allgoing into the hills isn't practical. Another thing. Most rescue teams are made up of hill goers and I bet if you asked them they wouldn't like it. Rescue teams are volunteeers, they don't have to go out, they want to. I am sure that many would not want these things to spoil the atmosphere of the hills. Anyway if you can't stand the heat ....etc

In reply to bryn: Hi Bryn. Know your area well and am aware that you get a lot of callouts triggered by mobile phones. But overall, taking the disadvantages into consideration too, they're of benefit.
<What I can see an issue with is not knowing how to deal with receiving a message from a plb, giving only coordinates.>
In most cases, the UKMCC should get a lot of information from the Emergency Point of Contact (EPOC), and either from them or the registration form should get the casualty's mobile phone number. So you can probably talk to them and have the benefits of the PLB with known casualty, casualty's position, etc, from the beacon and speak to them on the phone, too. If there's no phone contact, the MCC operator will still get a lot of informatio from that EPOC. Then a measured response, depending on numbers in party, etc, can be made - to a known position. So you should know how many are in the party and respond with a lot more information than you would have, otherwise.
<The location could put the casualty in a very different place if the accuracy is 125m (think about what is 125m to the right of the ridge as you are on it> First of all Bryn, the accuracy without GPS could be much worse, but there is always the homing signal, remember (something else to carry, I know). But if it is a GPS-integrated beacon, the chances are that it will be considerably less than 125m which is the worst a refined position can provide. And yes, I know how far that can still be on the N of the ridge particularly, but it's a lot better than if you have nothing, isn't it? A missing person can be on a bus home, in a pub, or in 'the rest of the world'. And you may well not even know about his/her plight at all. A PLB is a lot better for the MRT and a lot better for the casualty.
<I would buy one for trips to Canada, Greenland etc but not in the UK> In the bad conditions that we're talking about where 125m can't locate the casualty, and in real winter conditions - you do get them Bryn, most mobile phones won't cope with the wind noise and the wet will penetrate and anyway, the battery is bound to run out. N Wales can be just as wild then as Canada. Not so cold, but high winds and snow/sleet there will be just as dangerous. The attrition rate on our hills has not been good during the last few years and if I remember there were about 5 who died there in a very short time last winter or the winter before. It can be a dangerous place. PLBs are not the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything, especially if the casualty is unconscious, but they represent a significant safety improvement. Maybe you could ask the folks in New Zealand what they think of them. Hope you have a quiet weekend.

In reply to mattsccm: Bolts spoil the rock forever but PLBs sit in the sack or on the person and don't spoil the environment - except maybe they're not very pretty - but they're prettier than bolts, Matt!

In reply to Outdoorsman: You just don't get it, do you. F*ck off and die, leave the hills, the wilderness and the adventure to those who appreciate them. A plague on your filthy sweat shop manufactured consumer goody crap - I'll no more carry one than I will a mobile, and if a sprain an ankle, break a leg or generally come to grief then I will accept the consequences with no regrets.

In reply to jenniwren: is this device simular to the avalanche becon some skiers (myself included) carrie off piste?

In reply to djviper: Similar in the same way that a supermarket trolley is like a humvee.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward: ahh sorry i thought it was like my arva locator transceiver with added gps

In reply to jenniwren:
Without measuriung it it's a yellow box about 5" by 3" by 1.5". When you activate it an aerial extends out, it's activated by a big tamper proof tab

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

And if you were in a remote area with wife and kids?

In reply to Enoch Root:

So you'd prefer to go back to days where nobody carried mobiles?
It's a tool at the end of the day. People will and won't misuse it. I feel sorry for the MRTs that'll inevitably have to respond to idiots activating them, but all I can hope is that people don't. Same as with 999s

In reply to Enoch Root:


And I'm not afraid to admit it. I'm not on a MRT, I would try to be if I had a stable job in one place. I do however appreciate what they go through, I do consider them a 'last line of defence' that shouldn't be used willy-nilly, but when all else fails I would use the excellent service they're willing to provide. In exactly the way that if I could help others by doing what they do I wouldn't hesitate

In reply to Outdoorsman:
Hi,
Well done holding your ground against the avalanche! :O)
I can't help but think that you're over estimating what info can be gleamed from an emergency contact. Typically they MIGHT be able to tell you where they were going, but over and byond that? If you already have the location from the beacon...
An awful lot of people are active via clubs or will go out with no fixed partners/objectives so an emergency point of contact propably couldn't tell you how many are in the group, what they were doing, what equipment etc. If there is mobile phone signal to contact the PLB owner (assuming that they are carry a switched on mobile) it makes the PLB role a little redundant.
My feeling is that while there are obvious and morally arguable benefits, the costs and implications far outway them. While the choice not to carry one will always remain, it won't take long before it becomes viewed as "bad practice" not to have/take one if theres an accident. Its already said about mobiles from time to time. I'd rather see the money (and there would still be significant costs to expand the PLD database you talk about, equiping and training SAR teams etc - its been said in more detail already) spent on SARDA or similar.
There will always be those as well who WILL use it when its not an emergency or life or death, but since danger is often very much a matter of perspective how can you prosecute or fine someone if they genuinely considered in an emergency, or were in a panic after a friend has had an accident etc. Unlike with a mobile where a small light team can attend someone scared on a descent, or talk someone down to the valley without a significant team presence as you are actually in contact with the person, a PLB is simply a cry for help - no context, no on site information, no opportunity for an SAR team to talk to the caller. As I said, i think the cost and implications outweigh the benefits.
Cheers,

Stuart

In reply to Rob Exile Ward: And that's your choice.
And though I can't vouch for others, the one manufacturing installation that I had the privilege to visit was a happy place in UK with high-class, motivated staff who produce a wide range of top-quality products - they make something useful. If you knew some of the things they make, you would think again and eat your words.
As to you telling me to leave the hills, there is a song that covers that, a line of which is, 'No man has the right to own mountains, any more than the deep ocean bed'.
I hope the mountains are the better for you being there, Rob.

In reply to jenniwren: so, having helpfully bumped your thread, perhaps you could tell us if you have any relation to Ms Miller& her campaign. Again, there may be no relation, but then again, ole cynical me smells rodent.

In reply to jenniwren:

hi jenni....just wondering if you're single....had enough of "going solo in remote places"?....then hitch a ride with this stallion ;o

In reply to jenniwren: just google earthed vyrnwy and dyfnant forest, one of the 'remote' equestrian stomping grounds you mention. PLB, you have got to be taking the pi**.

In reply to Outdoorsman: Yes, that was by Ewan MacColl and he was a hypocritical b*stard too (albeit an extraordinarily talented one).

Everyone is welcome in the hills - just so long as they don't destroy what it is that draws us to them. The wildness, the loneliness and peace.

In reply to Ioan: I'm confident that I only take my kids where the risks are manageable and contingencies planned for. My wife would be touched by your concern, though as an adult she's competent to take responsibility for her own decisions, wouldn't you think?

In reply to toad:

I get the distinct impression that the advocates posting here are the electronic equivalent of the Jehovah's witnesses. They'll keep visiting us with explanatory postings and refuse to accept that the overwhelming majority of people just won't be converted to their point of view, for a range of extremely good reasons that have greater support than their advocacy.

T.

In reply to Pursued by a bear:

what can I say. I like the extra safety margin. Simple as that!

In reply to hooter:
Thatll be Vyrnwy covered by the NEWSAR MRT... oh wait that s me...

In reply to Outdoorsman:
Well thanks for sticking to your guns, that is admirable!

I think i sit in the 'good idea, but other things first maybe?' camp...

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
<Everyone is welcome in the hills - just so long as they don't destroy what it is that draws us to them. The wildness, the loneliness and peace>.

Thanks Rob, that's nice. Unlike your previous posting, I'll take that to include me too, then.

And I've spent 40+ years on and in the hills without a beacon. But (many others and me think) they should be available to UK hill-goers if they want to buy, register and carry them. And they sit quietly in the sack not harming anybody. You'd never know, Rob. . . . So that fits in with your wishes. Glad to have a convert. . . ?
Just joking, because you won't really change your mind. That's fine by me. But I fail to see how you think they will spoil your hill-going experience. Cheers for now

In reply to jenniwren:

Does anyone remember the old 5.10 advert, a cartoon where Captain Kirk falls off while attempting to solo the Nose on El Cap....'beam me up Scottie!'. With a punch line of: He should have worn 5.10 the stickiest rubber in the world.

So? Firstly PLB's aren't a 'beam me up' device. I have been present at an accident overseas where a PLB was activated, but also a good old fashioned 'runner' was employed. The PLB was never detected, the runner however got the message through, and the point is he knew he'd got the message through. So maybe you should consider that Sat Phone.

Secondly, I have to agree that the use of PLB's will result, at least in the tabloid press, of 'he should have had a PLB'.

If I wanted to buy an electronic gadget with a real life saving potential on and off the hill, I'd buy a 'defib'. There not as expensive as you think.

There's more chance that you could end up saving someones life with it, than you needing a PLB to save your life.

In reply to Ozzrik:
Thanks Stuart. Of course you're right sometimes, but it will often happen that the Emergency POC will be a family member or friend, and those with the mind-set to carry a beacon will be more likely to brief their EPOC than others. Works in the other environments, mate. It will help us to know how many are involved and cut down the time taken to find out details of the casualty(ies). The mobile phone option is mainly for helping with false alerts in case there's an accidental and unawares activation, but there will be other options, as follows - - think how often there are folks who ring up genuinely not knowing where they are and in genuine distress in dangerous or worsening conditions. If they ring up the team leader (usually via the police) and he deems it wise, the beacon can be activated and that should quickly confirm, via the UKMCC, the position.
Whilst I would be horrified if the authorities took the view (nobody in MR that I know thinks this way) that it was bad practice NOT to carry one, I'm sure it won't happen. Where would that stop. Should you carry one on a wee stroll? Should Ramblers carry them on a semi-urban walk. No, there's no sign of that elsewhere in the world and nobody could reasonably mandate for the individual to spend that money to go out wolking or mountaineering. The costs to expand and man/woman the database would be saved by just a few hours of Sea King non-searching. I have got some good mates in SARDA and wouldn't rob them of funds, but the two things are different.
If the person in distress can talk on the phone, they will and if the situation is recoverable without the last ditch PLB, no harm done. But if not, it provides the position and 24 hours of transmission. No mate, I think that though it's not perfect by any means, it is the best 'real distress' option. Thanks for the thoughtful response and though you will remain sceptical, PLBs will be a help rather than a hindrance, as they've been shown to be in other, similar-sized countries.
Cheerio for now

In reply to Ioan:


At the moment you don't have the 'extra safety margin', so there's nothing to like. You might like the idea of having an extra safety margin, but that's a different thing. I accept that different people are comfortable with different levels of risk and uncertainty, but I'm not in favour of a lowest common denominator approach. If you feel this excludes you from travelling to certain areas then that, I'm afraid, is tough; the price of entry is accepting the risk involved.

So one thing you might say to yourself is, 'Perhaps they don't want a copy of The Watchtower at this house'.

T.

In reply to GrahamD:

I think that's rather a specious argument. Carrying the other stuff means that they are prepared to summon help. Once you make the decision to summon help you might as well be prepared to summon it as efficiently and safely (for all) as possible. If I'm going to drag volounteers out into a hazardous area, arguably I should endanger them as little as possible, and having them directed to my location as accurately as possible is part of that.

Interesting for instance that you say they will already be carrying a mobile phone. An hour or two can make all the difference (hypothermia, bleeding etc), however it may well be more than an hour or two if your mobile phone doesn't work.

Cheers,

FT.

In reply to Outdoorsman:

...

I for one would be very interested to know where you fit into the framework if you're prepared to say. People from various backgrounds have posted in the thread voicing opinions against the technology, but I gather it's not a unanimous view among MR personnel for example. I'd like to re-read your posts knowing where you fit into the scheme of things...

In reply to jonny taylor: Hello Jonny. Very few things in MR are unanimous. There are a lot of very individual folks in MR and mountaineering and that is one of MR's strengths - members are not easily led.
But that is not to say there is a lot of hostility toward the technology and there is, in fact, a lot of support in MR in favour of PLBs.
They're not a threat to mountaineering, and they will provide SAR information that is not available from any other source, either directly from the beacon itself - the prime means, or indirectly, through the Emergency Point of Contact. G'night

In reply to jenniwren: Well, here is a view from across the pond. I feel like a important view has been missed in all of the arguments that have been posited so far. The first rule of being outdoors in the wilderness is: NEVER BE ALONE! With that said, many people with various adventures in mind break this rule, myself included. When you break it, you must accept responcibility for what may happen to you. If you are uncomfortable with the possible consequences, don't go out alone. A PLB is a tool, and occationally a useful one. I'm a former MRT member, and it would be nice to have a better location on a subject, but as others have said, there is a lot of other info we would like as well. I do fear that with the widespread use of PLB's they will become required. As a previous poster mentioned, it has been tried at Mt Hood several times now, and the effort is seeming to gain momentum. None of us want to be dictated as to what we carry in the hills, down our street, etc. Many more people die in their cars than in the hills, doing any activity. Sometimes, when the chips fall, it is just your time.

Sorry about the rambleing and somewhat (mostly?) disjointed nature of this post, it's a bit late over here!
Jon

In reply to Outdoorsman:

You8 keep saying that "if you don't want to use one, don't carry one".

which somewhat misss the point.

If PLBs were legal for land use in the UK, then *every* MRT would need to be geared up for integrating them into their ops. Imagine the outcry if a PLB had been triggered, but the weather was socked in so as not to allow for an immediate chopper deployment, and the local MRT wasn't geared up to locate the beacon from the ground.

You're then back to the MRT having to go out. To DF the position of the beacon from the ground they would need kit, training, and a continuous element of cost to keep this updated.

And as for your assertion that people who carry PLBs would be "more likely" to leave a route card with someone at home, personally, I think the opposite would pertain. Possession of a PLB could easily give people a false sense of security so that they would feel *less* need to leave a route card. We see this with mobile phones. Also, it's quite likely that all members of the family residing at the address the PLB would be registered to would be out on the hill, so getting details of the size/ equipment and destination of the party may not be as straightforward as you make out.

At least on the "con" side there's been some attempt to look at the cost-benefit side of things. On the "pro" side, the cost-benefit analysis has been waved away with comments along the lines that the infrastructure is "already all there". It may be there in forces SAR facilities, but there would certainly be an additional cost in promulgating the infrastructure and training into every MRT in the country.

And for what? the saving of possibly 1 life a year or fewer, based on an admittedly crude and partial quick analysis that I did way up the thread? However, none of the "pro" arguers has been able to come up with a supportable figure for lives saved, beyond saying that "if you look at the stats for 40 years you could probably come up with a couple of dozen".

This is still looking like a solution in search of a problem to me, and I'd still prefer to see the funds required spent on something like enhancing SARDA capabilities.

I'd certainly consider carrying a PLB if I was out in the wilds of Canada or Australia, but not in the UK. It's the same with GPS. I've been using it professionally since 1986, when I used it to re-triangulate part of northern Brazil. However, I wouldn't bother carrying a unit in the UK, except perhaps as a curiosity if I wanted to, say, test my map/ compass/ pacing abilities against it.

In reply to Outdoorsman:

The trouble is, they won't. 97% of activations are accidental and spurious. So where are the resouces coming from to respond to would almost certainly be a deluge of spurious activations?

I sail quite a bit and have sailed on yachts with this kind of equipment. Most yacht skippers are trained and qualified, most hill-goers are not. Almost all yacht skippers are trained in the use of marine VHF (which is a legal requirement to operate one) and most of that syllabus deals with distress calls. Nevertheless, despite all that awareness and training, there are huge numbers of accidental EPIRB activations by marine users. Just imagine what is going to happen if every hill-walker, horse-rider or mountain biker has one of these units.

In reply to Rob Naylor:

Good points, well made.

The "if you don't want to use one, don't carry one" argument is wholly spurious as, if a minority did use them, it would have inevitable (if indirect) effects on everyone else. It's a selfish and thoughtless proposal.

In reply to Rob Naylor:
Hello Rob.
PLBs are legal for use in the UK mainland - for aviators and sailors, both of whom can end up on our hills and cliffs. Where are the homers and special MRT training? - you'd better get weaving, mate.
Legalising PLBs is not going to breed hill casualties, you know.
There will be the same people and the same number of casualties on the hill but some, who knows how many, will have PLBs. PLBs have been permitted for a number of years in the rest of the world, and the MRTs, SAR helicopters and RCCs love them, because at last they have something positive to work with.
And they may have a positive mind-set, too. . .
If the casualties are fairly desperate and have a mobile, they'll use that as a first measure if they can. If they are very desperate and can't use the mobile because there's no coverage or whatever, and they have a PLB, they'll use that. And the MRT will normally get a position to within 125 metres. What particularly do you need to gear up for with that, Rob, in any conditions?
And what would you have otherwise? Zilch, that's what.
You wouldn't even know that they're in distress.
As for the DF'ing, it's only a little receiver, you know. You (nearly all) each now have a VHF handset which was not the case even a few years ago and it's taken for granted now. You only really need one DF receiver per team to home on to the beacon - and that will be the exception rather than the rule if folk get GPS beacons. And in a few years time, Medium Earth Orbiting beacons promise to refine the accuracy to even closer limits, even without GPS.
Every team wouldn't 'have' to do anything of the sort. They would have access to the knowledge that someone was in distress and be provided with a position. What's wrong with that?
As previously stated, PLBs have the lowest false alert rate and have an audible alarm to tell when they're on. Even if someone on the hill accidentally triggered one, they would normally know about it.
There are no MRTs that I'm aware of, including military teams, that have any specific training for the existing 121.5/243 MHz PLBs used in aircraft. SAR helicopters and Nimrods do practise homing on land and sea, but teams don't.

If you fall over and break your leg in a glen in Scotland or a Welsh Valley and there is no mobile phone coverage, you are about as liable to die there as you are in Canada.

SARDA are grand - a wonderful asset. But even they can't tell you that somebody in a remote place is in distress and where they are, to within 125m.
By the way, how would you enhance SARDA capabilities? And have you done a cost benefit study yet that covers the various SARDA groups?

Where were the statistics produced for UK aviation and maritime beacons? Yet they are an undoubted plus.

I haven't had time yet to delve into the UK statistics, but I will. Important though this is, there are other priorities. If I go away for a few days, I'm not hiding, mate.
And the stats I gave were only out of my own memoryh and experience, so please have a bit of leeway on that aspect.

It is perfectly reasonable to assert that someone who researches and buys a PLB and is required to register it and abide by the rules, is going to have the mind-set to tell his Emergency Point of Contact (there is room for several numbers/several people) where his/her route is. It would be common sense not to have your EPOC with you, though I'm not saying it would never happen.

You are obviously a highly competent navigator, Rob. Despite our wishes that others (me too, likely) should aspire to your level (I carry, but don't often use a GPS on the hill), there are many who will never approach your standard, for various reasons that we're never going to change. Remember too, that GPS gives people the freedom to wander and pursue other interests at times without having to keep a detailed step-count as to where they are. And hang-glider pilots and ski-mountaineers are sensible if they take GPS with them as a double-check as step-counting and timing isn't so relevant in there or other outdoor sports/pastimes/professions/callings.
Cheers for now.

In reply to Dogwatch:
Hello Dogswatch,

The EPIRB false alert rate is high, but the vast majority, in complete contrast to what has been stated by several members of this string, are quickly cancelled out WITHOUT LAUNCHING ANY SAR ASSETS by dint of contacting the EPOC. And are you saying that the tens of thousands of lives that have been assisted and saved through EPIRB use should have been (crystal balls at the ready, folks) subjected to a cost/benefit study before the system was properly contemplated and, undoubtedly with some of you folks at the helm, killed off before conception.
And have you got the PLB false alert rate to hand? That is different - look it up, if you can.
Do you know how Cospas-Sarsat started? You should look that up, too. And wonderfully, it helped to bring East and West together at a time of tension.

But nobody, even you, can predict what the false alert rate on land will be in the UK.

There are not 'huge' numbers of false EPIRB alerts. Told you a thousand times, don't exaggerate. . .

When they do occur, they serve to show that the satellites, tracking stations and MCCs are all working properly. They don't come close to stressing the system.
Hill-walkers, mountain bikers and horse-riders may well be less liable to accidentally activate beacons than their maritime counterparts, so don't bestow a slur on them just because you can, please. You ask for facts and statistics on one hand and then dish out unfounded aspersions with the other. Washing down the decks and big waves are less likely to happen on the hill, eh? Remember that most EPIRB false alerts, automatically triggered by hydrostatic switches, are caused by this sort of thing. Please state like for like.
PLBs will have to be manually activated and it should be reasonably easy to ensure that false alerts are prevented or minimised. The beacon manufacturers will see to it that beacons are fairly immune from false activation, I think.
All the best.

In reply to Rob Naylor: Rob, Sorry. I am an eedjit sometimes. Said Medium Earth Orbiting BEACONS and should have said SATELLITES. These satellites will have every point on the earth covered by several different satellites at the same time, so will be able to accurately calculate the position of a beacon, almost immediately - even without GPS, which will nevertheless serve to corroborate and resolve.
Apologies.

In reply to : Well it would seem this thread has received some attention at.......

http://www.mountain.rescue.org.uk/phorumz/viewtopic.php?t=437

the Bolton MRT are unhappy at some of the opinions/views expressed on here it would seem. Funnily enough a couple of members of the local MRT don't seem as enthused about the need for PLB's. IMPO if horse riders want to carry them then so be it, as has been pointed out on here earlier, it would appear to be a solution looking for a problem.

Iain

In reply to jenniwren: I notice you have a lot of support but that the scheme generates adverse opinions. Your website leaves out of account the one issue that would be a priority for most individuals - the cost of the PLB. The other factor is that mobile phone reception in most mountain areas in the UK is now better and improvng once you are clear of shadow e.g. valleys and buildings. The situation in the French Alps is excellent - I have made a mobile call under the North Face of the Ailefroide. Other problems have been noted - sorry to be sceptical...

In reply to jenniwren:

Hi

I've just read the thread (I had some time on my hands...!).

A couple of observations (just personal opinioins mind):

- I think, having seen some well-put cases both for and against in the thread above, that I'm in the "not needed in the UK and likely to cause more hassle to MRTs, provoke more interference in how we are allowed to use the hills and incur more unwanted cost for both individuals and organisiations, than the benefits that might accrue.
- Sadly, the UK just ain't *that* much of a wilderness any longer and mobile cover is good
- You and Outdoorsman might find it helpful to explain any commercial interest or other connection in the project as you both appear to have registered in order to champion this cause. It's starting to look to some (including me) as if you have an interest beyond "hey we saw this and thought it was a neat idea". If you have an interest, not disclosing it is dishonest; if not it would be good to clear up that issue

So, a "no thanks" from me.

John

In reply to jenniwren:
I've read most of this thread and all I can say is it is a complex issue and there isn't a black or white answer. Many of the replies on either side are very dismissive and have come up with spurious pros or cons. The only issue that can't be answered is the one that it can remove the sense of adventure. But on the other hand the "I would never carry one so nobody should be allowed to" attitude is especially daft.

I have quite a bit of experience of these in New Zealand (I am a hillwalker/tramper, not a climber) and there they are considered a way of life. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are the best thing for here, but I think the option should be there. A few observations:

New Zealand is a small country similar in size to ours but it has much more wilderness areas and large swathes of it will find no mobile coverage. It is easy to get to 3 days+ from a road and there they are really useful.

Every mountain rescue that goes on in NZ makes the national news. In 4 years living there and 2 years since where I've followed the national news, I've never heard of anyone setting off a PLB by accident (it has to be a deliberate act to set one off) or for spurious reasons - if that was the case the person would be given short shrift in the press. The only time I've heard of a failure of the system was when 2 climbers in Arthur's Pass were caught out in a white-out and sheltered under a rock. The signal didn't get out- I can't remember if they survived.

Due to prohibitive cost, very few people in NZ own a PLB and I'm not even sure you can buy one. Mostly they are rented out by Outdoor stores, outdoor guiding operations and Department of Conservation rangers who I believe must be registered. People register, give a complete description of their intentions (could be a trip of a few hours up to 3 weeks) and these can be reviewed. Users must give credit card details, so if there was a call-out for spurious reasons, people could be easily be charged if appropriate. However most MRT people I know are of the belief that they'd rather bring down a live numpty than a dead lion and, for that reason, Mountain Rescue is a free service in NZ.

In NZ with far less air traffic, calls are picked up very quickly and a precise location can be picked up speedily. I expect that in the UK a signal would be picked up in an hour to 90 mins.

Given that, we have 15 times the number of people and 1000 times the number of numpties in Britain, there is a risk of more and spurious callouts, but I would say that most of these wouldn't have heard of a PLB and most of the rest wouldn't carry one - half climbing Ben Nevis in shorts and T-shirt with a Tesco bag and the other half backing their own skills to get them out of the mess- with or without good reason. Also, most of these people wouldn’t need to carry one, as they would happily whip out their mobile phone and ask to be rescued (probably with a wrong location). Those who decide to carry them (in NZ they were quite heavy and not carried lightly!) have worked out the risks and felt that in the case of an emergency it would be worthwhile.

Also Britain has far less wilderness areas and people are a shorter distance from the road. There are very few places where you can not get a 999 call out.

I'd recommend that anyone with an interest should google PLB use in NZ and find out more.

Personally, I would have carried them in NZ quite often, the only time I would consider carrying one in the UK would be a backpacking trip somewhere like Torridon. Therefore, I would be in favour of limited use with the caveat that they should only hired out by specific trained operators (maybe a new organisation)who could apply for a license. They would then register and review full details (Name address credit card + full intentions) of each hirer. e.g. a PLB would not be given out for a trip up the equivalent of Loughrigg Fell (or an area with 100% mobile phone coverage)- likewise if a party was insufficiently experienced or ill-equipped, at least the provider could have a go at persuading them to do something more appropriate. If they ignored that advice, they would be liable for any rescue costs.

In reply to Outdoorsman:
Meant the principle of removing danger because of not being as brave as someone else. this is getting boring now

In reply to Outdoorsman:

No. Marine personal EPIRBs are commonly equipped with Hammar-type hydrostatic switches. These are pressure activitated and the user needs to be underwater for the device to be activated. I've had the experience of jumping into the water wearing a Hammar-activated lifejacket. It takes several seconds of the device being several inches underwater before it triggers.

In reply to jenniwren:

The emergency services get far too many false alarms from EPIRBS going off in the back of a Volvos doing 80 up the M3.

This would be chaos.

In reply to jenniwren:

Well, I own a McMurdo EPIRB with full GPS interlacing. It sits under my navigation station and sat there when 250 miles north f Scotland in a race last year, then it goes back in the box when my boat is back in Hamble.

I understand exactly how they work and what happens when you hit that big red button.

However, the sea is a very differant environment to land, and in the UK we simply do not need them. If I go into the mountains I read the weather for day before, consider where I am going and what I am going to do out there. A PLB simply is not necessary.

You can take the opinion from here and dismiss it, but I have read throught he various response and short of finding yourself in a room with the RGS and Alpine Club the level and depth of experieince is impressive.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

Exactly. For instance, one would be quite capable of leaving an expensive "Friend" halfway up "Stirling Bridge" without any assitance from a PLB. Though if one had one handy, it could perhaps be used to hammer the said "Friend" free, no?

In reply to Rob Naylor:

Cheeky, and to think I was going to steal you a new high chair!

In reply to jenniwren:

Having Read every post on this thread (taken me hours).

What amazed me about this thread, is how many people that wrote in HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT !!! How can you say PLB's are a bad thing, that MRT's will be overworked with false alarms and Nimrod aircraft will be flying over your house, if you do not know how PLB's even work?

Only Outdoorsman, Loan and the NZ guy (sorry can't remember your name) knew what they were talking about. Even Jenniwrens argument would have been stronger if she knew how they worked too.

If you do not know what you are talking about, you shouldn't write.

Oh by the way... I do know how PLB's work as I had a lecture on them today! And the instructor mentioned this forum as a bad example.

In reply to BennyC:

We bow to your 36 months of hard bitten experience.

Troll

I also know how PLB's work, I give the lectures.

In reply to BennyC:

You should not decide if something is good or bad until you know the true facts from both sides.

As far as PLB's are concerned the " against party " should get their facts right first.

In reply to BennyC:

In a raging storm half way to Stavanger then an EPIRB is a good idea, on a run up to the Northern Corries I fail to see what they can add. This is the general view of people posting on RT, and knowing many I would defer to their experience, which ranges from MRT members who have to go deal with the button pressing panicking public, to hairy arsed climbers with Guide carnets and 8000m peaks under their now expanding belts.


I even agree with Rod (AKA Rob) Naylor, who despite being a gudgeon toucher spends most of his time in the middle of god knows where looking for satellites ( but Land and Hydrographic Surveyors always where considered odd).

In reply to BennyC:

It is however very easy to say PLBs are probably UNNECESSARY with only a basic knowledge about hillwalking and climbing fatalities in the UK.

The simple fact is that we no longer have have lots of people dying in remote parts of the UK where quicker location/rescue would have been likely to save them.

If for example we had been having this discussion in the pre mobile phone era shortly after the Cairngorm tradegy it would be a different story. However, until a clear 'benefit' has been identified it's not worth knowing ANYTHING about how they work.

In reply to BennyC:


I ment to say the instructor used this forum as an example of how people have no concept of how they work and dismiss them without knowing the facts.

In reply to BennyC:

Well I reckon your instructor should wind his neck in, there are people on this forum - I know 1 personally, who designed the bloody things an still fall into the no camp.

In reply to Mark Stevenson:

How about narrowing down the search area from a few square Km down to 100m? What do the MRT's think of this? All night search or a ten minute job? By the way you do not need direction finding equipment on the hill as PLB sends the co-ordinates to the ARCC at kinloss.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

Im not for or against. I'm saying people should know the facts. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

In reply to BennyC:

Fair enough, but be aware that there is 1 person who has posted above who designed sat tech for Raytheon, along with some very experienced sat geographers.


It is useful kit onthe boat, but I if you are going to push a petition that affects other outdoor enthuiasts then an open mind and a willingness to hear the opposing view is important and Jennie failed on this.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

True I agree with the open mind and the willingness to hear the opposing view.

If Jennie could register a PLB with her details for horse riding or joe bloggs could register a PLB with his details for mountaineering. How would that effect anyone but them?

It would not effect anyone on the hill who does not want to use them anymore than a mobile phone does. After all a PLB is nothing more than a sat phone that automatically sends out the users details and their location by "glorified" text message to the arcc at kinloss.

MY ONLY VIEW IS THIS, THIS IS HOW I SEE PLB'S= If anything it would only effect MRT by making their job easier and quicker. Which is a good thing. The ARCC at Kinloss be able to locate missing persons to 100m in just a few mins. Each beacon sends out 1. it's GPS co-ordinates 2. A serial number so the ARCC can work out who the beacon belongs to by computer database already in place for martime and aviation. The ARCC would then try and contact the owner of the PLB first then their point of contact / next of kin to make sure it's no hoax (if it is a false alarm it stops right now, simple eh)! The ARCC then plot the beacons location on a map and work out what best asset to deploy. And unlike a phone a PLB will transmitt constantly anywhere in the world for well over 24hrs without any further input once the PLB ripcord was pulled. The only cost is to the person buying the PLB, everything else is already in place. Because each beacon transmitts a serial number, the buyer just has to give his details, etc. MRT's do not even need any additional kit as the ARCC tell them where the PLB went off (a search area a few 100m big is better than no search area)

HERE IS A QUESTION= How many people here have done MRT where they were called to search for a missing overdue person and had no idea where the person was? How big was your search area? 4 sq km? 10 sq km? or could this overdue person have been absolute anywhere and you knew it (off hill already? in pub? in Panama?) Because you have no idea where this missing overdue person is without PLB, how many assets did you need to find this missing overdue person? (a few different MR teams? several SARDA dogs and at least one chopper?) How long where you searching for (one or two days?)Did you even find the missing overdue person in the end (How many people have gone overdue in Scotland and are still not found?)

In reply to BennyC:


This post brought to you by the PLB Council of Great Britain.


You post similar to someone else further up the thread, must be the acronyms.

If you want don't like the thought of wilderness, holiday at Centre Parks.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:


If they are an expert, it would be good to hear their accuate views.

In reply to BennyC:

Ok.

This is the man who, when asked to check the calibration on my B&G instrumentation on the boat, spent 2 hours working through it then proclaimed he "could tell me what was happening at the atomic level".

Will aks if he wants to get into dialogue.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

It's the thought of people being killed I dont like.

Still waiting for MRT's to answer my question = All night search with no idea where the missing overdue person is ... or ... few minutes searching knowing where they are to few 100m?

QUESTION 2. If you have a PLB that is in bottom of your bag and left unused, how does it detract from the wilderness ?

In reply to BennyC:
>

You get used to it, I lived in Hackney for 6 years.

In reply to BennyC:


quite a few mrt members have posted on the thread in their own terms but their objections don't seem to have sunk in - if we were just having a debating game here then we could swap hypothetical choices all night long but you've raised stakes by stating your attempt to change the nature of an activity that means a lot to a lot of us


i fear you and your colleagues will either get this or you wont - judging from your respones so far i'm guessing that you won't

In reply to Nevis-the-cat: Hello Purring Nevis and a few others - to save time answering all individually. Aye, Well mate, I'm still here and there have been some interesting and some uninformed views declared on the thread. Benni has an open mind and one or two others. PLBs are not for everyone, but don't dimmiss our weather on land in the UK. Remember it has claimed in N Wales lives from those training for Everest - yards from a main road. Several climbers have died of hypothermia in the Northern Corries during the last few years - only a few miles from the Car Park. Highly competent instructors have died in the Cairngorms not far from safety. Thousands of man-hours and helicopter hours have been wasted in searches for missing folks.
Not needed? - tell that to quite a few and you'd get a grief-stricken answer.
Oh I know it isn't that simple - nothing is. But to come the high and mighty and "We don't need them", is maybe a tadge selfish.
The Volvo bit - yes, it happens, but only once in quite a long time. The 121.5/243 MHz beacons will be a thing of the past and all the time wasted on them won't equal the time taken to cancel a lot more 406 MHz false alerts, even if they happened. Hydrostatic switches don't do too well it appears, when faced with a high-pressure hose. There are quite a few of those, I beiieve.
PLBs are apparently less prone to accidental / false activations than EPIRB and ELTs.
It takes less than a minute for a good-quality PLB to acquire a refined position (within 125 metres) and transmit it to a geostationary or passing low earth-orbiting satellite, and only about 3 minutes after that before the position comes up on the screen - best case perhaps, but easily achievable in the right conditions (nothing to do with weather conditions).
The person or inventor who designs or conceives something is not necessarily the right person to decide on its use - in fact, it very rarely occurs. So if the gentleman earlier who designed one says 'No', he would be worth listening to, but his view isn't automatically valid for all of that. And the person who is not a hard-nut like all of you fine folks, and who may not be able to hammer in/out a peg or Friend with a PLB because the edge of your hand is too hard is no less worthy of a listen than any of you, just mind that. Despite your and my prejudices, the hills are theirs, too. Have a heart, folks, and all the best to you.

In reply to rich:
>quite a few mrt members have posted on the thread in their own terms but their objections don't seem to have sunk in -

I think the MRT members who posted on here did not really understand how a PLB beacon works and what it could do for them.

>if we were just having a debating game here then we could swap hypothetical choices all night long but you've raised stakes by stating your attempt to change the nature of an activity that means a lot to a lot of us

I dont think I ever said I wanted to change mountaineering, I was just stating how PLB's do work. You still havn't explained that if SOMEBODY has an unused PLB in bottom of their bag, how it changes YOUR day out?


You could use a PLB in the UK now if you wanted to, it's just that you cannot register them for mountainerering use. However if you were to use one on a UK mountain in a life and death situation it would still work (what the feds gonna do about it? Kill me? )

In reply to rich: Hello Rich, I've carried a bloomin' sleeping bag in my sack, supposedly for myself or for others, for over 40 years and hardly ever had to use it - when it has, it has been for others. That doesn't make me a bad person - other things do, but that doesn't.
And I do get it.
And it doesn't necessarily make you a bad person either
Cheers

In reply to Outdoorsman:

One of the guys who died in the Corries, who you cited earlier, was a friend of mine, and a closer friend to several on the forum.

You can post all you want about the technicailites, and Trailrider can whinge all she wants about anti-equestrianism on this site( which as a former horse owner I can't seem to find) but the fact remains this. The people who posted on here did so based on their experience. That experience ranges from top roping beginner to MRT members to professional mountaineeers.


Remember, when you press that red button, they people who respond, will be climbers and very likely post on here. Not the plod, not the coastguard and not the RNLI.


You can, if you wish, remain to argue how many angles can set of PLB on the head of a pin, me, I will stick to crag sense and studying weather, mountain skills and accepting the risk. Perhaps I am a bit too existentialist for my own good.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
<It's the thought of people being killed I dont like>.
Answer <You get used to it, I lived in Hackney for 6 years>.

Mieow

You got to admit, Benni, whoever you are - that was a good one!

In reply to rich:

Because Outdoorsman carried a sleeping bag in bottom of his rucksack does that mean he was trying to change the nature of an activity that means a lot to a lot of us?

Because Outdoorsman carried a sleeping bag in bottom of his rucksack does that mean he was detracting from the wilderness?

Why should a turned off PLB be any different?

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
The people who posted on here did so based on their experience. That experience ranges from top roping beginner to MRT members to professional mountaineeers.

Doesnt' mean any of the above are right. The above are still human like you and me and even if they could climb E11 doesn't mean you know everything. And still waiting for MRT to answer my question.


Doesn't matter how much crag sense and studying weather, mountain skills and accepting the risk you do. Mistakes will always happen and people will always be missing overdue as people have no idea where they are and what has happened to them

In reply to Nevis-the-cat: No, fair enough mate.
And I do have a care for you and your friend - sorry. And I've been not an extra-terrible hill-man myself and agree with all the points of mountain skills, even (with some scepticism - and respect) weather, and I would defend your right, especially with those in mind, to accept the risk - to the hilt. Despite what you may think, we're maybe not a million miles apart. .
Hackney is, eh . . .
G'night

In reply to Benmac:

no, but rather him than me


no, but rather him than me


Because when I get in my spangle stained doss bag, I don't wake up 20 climbers, coppers and ambulance men when I need help.


I do understand where this is coming from, but you are on the wrong forum. climbing and mountaineering is about crag and mountain sense, self sufficiency and if necessary self rescue. We know the score, we know the risk and we spend time in some of the most remote areas of the UK and the world.

As a question, if you are walking in winter, would you carry an ARVA?

In reply to Outdoorsman:

S'ok. btw that was Angels, not Angles, I seem to recall from school that they were large, Scandanavian sword wielding blokes. Not many to a pin.

In reply to BennyC:


Are you so dumb that you don't realise the difference between a piece of kit that may help you or a mate stay alive in the hills on your own and a piece of kit that calls in others to rescue your sorry ass.

I am very much in favour of avalanche tranceivers (and insist that people carry then when conditions demand) but these devices are for self rescue, not to call in the troops when you have been a tit and got yourself into trouble.

sleeping bags or bivvy bags are exactly the same - but used in different circumstances.

In reply to BennyC and Rich: Mind you, if it was in MY bag, it would be a turned-on, turned off beacon.
You hang in there, Benny.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

If it is turned of it don't wake up 20 climbers, coppers and ambulance men when I need help. It only wake up 20 climbers, coppers and ambulance men when you're in a life and death situation. Is this not why they volunteer in the first place ?

Can you not have a nice day out and still have a saftey backup ?

No. But I would carry a phone and a GPS or a PLB.

In reply to satori:

How about if you were in a situation where you could not save yourself.

How do you self rescue when burried in an avalanche

My bivvy bag is not made out of goose down / feather, but that is a different story

In reply to BennyC:


An ARVA is for avalanche situations.
No other acronymns will see you out alive

In reply to satori:

Do people not get into life and death situations accidently? Because somebody slips and has a broken leg does that mean they are a tit? Even if they are a tit and get them into trouble are you saying it is okay for them to be missing overdue and die?

In reply to Miserly Trump:

Sorry I only know it as peeps or avalanche transciever. And yes I do have one.

In reply to BennyC:

the closest reply to the sense of what i mean is that it's all about self sufficiency

if and when i ever find myself dying in the wilderness (or snowdonia) no doubt i'd be easy to persuade to your point of view

but the more the hills are tamed the more is taken from the 100s and 1000s of days per person where people test themselves just a little bit

one person having one beacon in their rucksack won't change that - 10% of people might - 50% definitely would - 100% . . . .

you're seeking to change something

my suggestion to think about the potential downsides and how they could be avoided earlier up the thread was declined - i realise that you see no downsides - i realise you think about these things in a simple technological kind of way but i don't believe it works like that

In reply to BennyC:

you die. that's the risk you take.


hope i wasn't misleading. by 'self rescue' i mean the other team members with an ARVA , shovel and probe can dig you out. - you don't go in to avalanche terrain on your own, do you?


errrm. bivvy bags are made of goretex or pertex and are light enough to carry on all big trips.

In reply to BennyC:


They don't work under 2000 tons of snow, well the PLBw ill, but by the time the buttie munchers of Lossiemouth get to you, you will have expired. Your friends, however, will still be prodding around with their poles wasting valuable drinking time.

In reply to BennyC:

Well done, so your kit check is;
PLB
peeps
GPS
Compass
Phone
whistle

all before you get to gear to actually use on the hills?

you must be very strong.

In reply to rich:

When you talk about the hills been tamed where do you draw the line? Is using rope and gear not taming the hills? You do not have to use a PLB if it is with you, if it is switched off it tames nothing.

In reply to BennyC:



I suggest you do the BMC winter skills course, very worhtwhile.

In reply to satori:

But you do not have to die, thats the whole point.

So you rely on the avalanche transciever sending out a signal for other people to locate you then? Sounds familair with another device.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

Are you coming home tomorrow and having a last late night then? Just got the scotch out here.

In reply to BennyC:
'Accident' is an overused word, especially where a f*ck up is avoidable. 'Mistake' is often a more suitable word.
On their own? On dodgy terrain? either a tit, or someone that accepts the risks.

probably. if they haven't the nouse to tell someone where they are going and when to be expected back yes.
you are talking about the little old uk?

i'm a big fan of darwinism.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

DO they not get avalanched too, in which case nothing will save you. I never said a PLB will work in an avalanche.

In reply to BennyC:

You ae now showing your ignorance

In reply to BennyC:

you are a troll.

I claim my £5

In reply to BennyC:

exactly - the need to draw a line is exactly what i'm talkign about - in reality i'm a child of my time - i'd think nothing of lacing vdiff gritstone route with cams - sutty would no doubt chuckle at the thought of it


of coure it is - but a rope with a button on that summoned people to set up a top rope for you tames them more than one i have to work out how to use on my own


oh, you're not getting it after all - yes it does

In reply to sutty:

Just safe

In reply to sutty:

Home on Thursday. Had a decent week ski mountaineering and ice climbing and home for Crimbo, the out to La Grave with the Alpine Club in January.

You fancy a beer and kip over at our place around Crimbo?

In reply to rich:

Dont use it unless you have to

In reply to rich:

or should i say - because i'm doing the same logic error and rhetorical bobbins that you did earlier when you claimed that the mrts on this thread haven't understood the benefits - i disagree with you

In reply to BennyC:

Are you or have you ever been DJ Viper?

ROFLMAO

In reply to BennyC:

Benny, you don't know much about climbing and mountaineering do you?

In reply to rich:

why?

Why not let people have one so they can use it if they really need to?

If they carry one, unused, why does it detract from your experince?

In reply to BennyC:


When you press the red button, climbers appear. They are the MRT's of the UK.

A bit of a presumption to advocate something that commit others without their input, werll actualy you have their input in the threads above, you just chose to ignore it.

Do PLB work underground so we can summon CRO?

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

will speak to your boss later this week to see her arrangements that you know nothing of. Dare not upset her who must eat burgers.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
>> A bit of a presumption to advocate something that commit others without their input, werll actualy you have their input in the threads above, you just chose to ignore it.

Yes they have an input. They have a massive input. They would never have been scrambled if the control centre did not think it was worthwhile. And thru a chain of command there is input all the way on what they do. Right down to the individual as nobody forced him to be MRT and turn up.

I DO NOT HAVE THE MRT INPUT AS A WHOLE, just a few persons who a a tiny percentage and do not speak for everyone

In reply to BennyC:

Well, you are advocating something that you have taken nil input from the MRTs of the UK on. Here, you have some, albeit limited, input.


Go away and ask them, then come back with the response/s.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

G'night Jawn boy, off to bed shortly.

In reply to sutty:

Night Silverback.

Still ticking from todays ice related japery, and 2 euro a litre red booze.

Will give you a bell.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

I suspected alcohol was involved.

Only come back to tell you the latest weather forecast, -10 in parts fro Thursday, keep your thermals on.

In reply to sutty

Cool, I have a project in the Dales. I could tell but then I would have to kill you.

In reply to BennyC:
>


You got the EPIRB lecture for the Day Skipper didn't you!

Scrambled, chain of comand? this is not Thunderbirds. Unles we are talking blown up Pan Am flights or derailed trains, you get doris at Keswick Police station and 8 lads who happen to live in Eskdale and be sober on a Tuesday. If it gets really rich, you get the moustache breeders or the Frigate dwellers.