Yuppie 911

[RiverAux]

Heard a story on NPR most likely prompted by this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33470581/ns/us_news-life/ ) while driving home in which they interviewed the head SAR guy in CA about the rise in the intentional use of Personal Locator Beacons in what are not really emergency situations.  Unfortunately he didn't give any statistics on this, but just a few anecdotes.

I think this is likely to be a continuing and growing problem from now on.  Just think about all the people using the real 911 system for non-emergency situations. 

I think this will eventually lead to more states using CAP to respond to PLBs, especially in the parts of the country without a lot of real local SAR teams (midwest, southeast, great plains).  PLBs are not really a federal issue (like ELTs), so it is probably going to come down to states funding CAP to respond to them. 

I think that it is much more likely for them to give CAP a little bit of money to handle a lot of these for them than it is to really pump money into a system to develop their own capabilities in this area, especially if the non-emergency use percentage is anywhere near as high as it is for ELTs. 

Now, I could be wrong about this.  Police departments are pretty good at writing grants for stuff and like any paid agency are always looking for additional ways to justify their existence and to expand their empire.  But, even then, they're going to know that there are better things their officers can be doing in most cases. 

[sardak]

One has to read a little deeper into the story. "Personal Locator Beacon" is now the generic term for PLBs and SPOT beacons. The latest incident that spawned this article and Matt Scharper's comment about "yuppie 911" was actually a SPOT beacon. The National Park Service incident report is here.

As for actual PLBs, AFRCC stats show that in 2008, 183 PLBs were located out of 6849 total beacons, or 3%. That includes 121.5 beacons which are no longer the problem that they were. Removing the 121.5 beacons from the total bumps PLBs up to 6%. While this number will go up, I don't think it is going to become a big problem.

I don't see agencies flocking to CAP for help any more than they use them for PLBs now. There may be a slight increase, matching the rise in beacon usage. I too, could be wrong about this.

Mike

[Flying Pig]

Ive talked to Matt personally on a couple of occasions.  Good guy.  In Fresno County, we have responded to a few SPOT signals from hikers in the Sierras.  A couple were people hitting the wrong button not realizing it.  One was a guy was really just wanted to see if anyone would come. One was a real deal where a hiker walked across another hiker who was injured.   The UTM came to our office via a phone call from dispatch.  We flew to exactly where the person was.  In the middle of the Sierras, the victim was on a helo ride to the hospital in less that 45 min.

[isuhawkeye]

Specific to the SPOT:

When you register for service you need a credit card, adn if you read the fine print they reserve the right to charge you $500 for "nusance" activations.  Add that to a local rescue bill, and pushing the 911 button could be a costly mistake

[RiverAux]

As for actual PLBs, AFRCC stats show that in 2008, 183 PLBs were located out of 6849 total beacons, or 3%. That includes 121.5 beacons which are no longer the problem that they were. Removing the 121.5 beacons from the total bumps PLBs up to 6%. While this number will go up, I don't think it is going to become a big problem.

Those are the PLBs that AFRCC handled as federal missions, not all the PLBs activations that they tracked, right?  Don't most of them get handed off to the locals without any federal response at all? 

I don't see agencies flocking to CAP for help any more than they use them for PLBs now. There may be a slight increase, matching the rise in beacon usage. I too, could be wrong about this.

PLBs are still a relatively minor thing, but as they continue to be sold in all sorts of outdoor catalogs at extremely low prices the number deployed is going to rise at an astonishing rate (in my opinion).  Just think about how stretched CAP has been in certain places trying to respond to ELTs and there are what, maybe a million aircraft in the US?  Just think of the market for PLBs and how many are eventually going to be out there. 

[Flying Pig]

The nice thing is we arent really going to be "searching" for anyone.  It gives you UTM or a Lat/long right to where the person is.  So as far as resources, they wont be to consuming until you get there and see what you have.

[sardak]

Those are the PLBs that AFRCC handled as federal missions, not all the PLBs activations that they tracked, right?  Don't most of them get handed off to the locals without any federal response at all?

No, all PLB detections are still processed by AFRCC BEFORE handing them off to the locals. After seven years, NOAA and AFRCC still have not come up with a system that sends the reports directly from the MCC (NOAA) to the responsible state agencies bypassing AFRCC. There was a system in place for about six months earlier this year that allowed the states to get all 406 beacon reports directly (without AFRCC intervention), but it was scrubbed because of contractual issues. AFRCC is preparing an RFP for a new system, again. Hopefully this summer's system or something very similar will receive the new award, since it met almost everyone's needs.

The nice thing is we aren't really going to be "searching" for anyone.  It gives you UTM or a Lat/long right to where the person is.  So as far as resources, they wont be to consuming until you get there and see what you have.

That only happens on beacons with a GPS, and 406 beacons (PLB, EPIRB, ELT) aren't required to have a GPS. All SPOT beacons have a built-in GPS.

Mike