I'm a search and rescue medic and I volunteer (although not in the States), but would have the exact opposite outlook on this. Better comms may lead to more shouts but it will definitely lead to better outcomes for casualties.

We always prefer calls to come in as early as possible, where maybe an issue can be resolved with advice or a daylight shout to an warm, ambulatory casualty in mild distress. That will always be preferable to a long search for a casualty in possibly deteriorating weather, losing light, without comms, with the prospect of a rescue turning into a recovery.

Mobile phones may have greatly increased the number of SAR shouts worldwide, but also massively reduced shout lengths. Searching used to be the largest time sink in every shout, which is no longer the case.

Every SAR team has frivolous calls, but that's part of the game.

I've sort of come around on this after discussing with a number of search and rescue folks. I'm sure there's some number of "I'm cold and my jeans are soaked. Come get me." There's doubtless some of that but, as you say, that's counterbalanced by by people who have a legitimate issue who can make an emergency call before the problem is really serious.

Part of me doesn't love that there's an increasing expectation that you're always able to be in contact. But, so it goes.

I wonder how many ppl will now travel to more remote areas with a false sense of security (and being woefully under prepared) that you can "Just call" for help.

As a paying customer with Garmin's inReach service, I'm acutely aware of how spotty and unreliable the service can be based on environment and current surroundings.

The same amount that did when the cellphone was invented, when Selective Availability was turned off, when the safety match was invented, when the chronometer was invented....

That's a good perspective. Undoubtedly better communication saves time for everyone, and improves outcomes.

I didn't really communicate this well, but my real fear is this: that folks who otherwise might not journey out into somewhat challenging situations because of their lack of confidence in their self-sufficiency might decide to do so because they can "call for help if they need it."

SAR's around the US are experience this in very high volumes.

I think it's similar to how injury stats are up in auto accidents. It looks bad if you misread the data, but it's wonderful with proper context that safety features, first response, and treatment are saving more lives. So many of those shouts are people who would have died in an earlier era.

good points. a few things jumped out at me from https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/11/emergency-sos-via-sat...

"A $450 million investment from Apple’s Advanced Manufacturing Fund provides the critical infrastructure that supports Emergency SOS via satellite for iPhone 14 models."

"Once received by a ground station, the message is routed to emergency services that can dispatch help, or a relay center with Apple-trained emergency specialists if local emergency services cannot receive text messages."

"In 2021, Apple announced an acceleration in its US investments, with plans to make new contributions of more than $430 billion over a five-year period."

Apple has probably given this some thought.

Isn’t it going to make calls using this feature much easier, if there’s a 10m-accuracy GPS pin around the subject?

Well that’s the GPS point. Make this more casually available and folks are likely to more casually use it.

The problem for the teams isn’t necessarily finding the party, we’ve had these beacons for years. Rather they have to climb into the mountains in the first place to solve what could have, ostensibly, been readily prevented.

Thus taxing a limited resource even further.

What should temper that is now there perhaps may be signs posted telling folks about the service, and that help is available (or not) but it’s likely going to be rather expensive if they have to come get you. It’s never been suggested that while the S&R teams maybe volunteer, as I understand the rescued party incurs costs of the operation.

You can be given a bill in some places under a limited set of circumstances but you mostly won't get charged as I understand it (at least until you get into the regular medical system per usual). I would assume if this started to become a real problem, you might see more charging--although I assume S&R teams wouldn't, for the most part, want people in trouble to hold off on calling for help because they might get a $10K bill.

It depends on who shows up. Not every call is going to get a full blown SAR response, and a lot of the country doesn't even have SAR teams anyway.

You'll get the local 911 response units, and it might be a Sheriff's deputy, fire, or EMS.

If you're in California you're also likely to get a rescue helicopter operated by CHP, and if they pluck you out of a ravine, the bill is $zero. Really, it's taxpayer funded. We operate with them quite often.

Actually, in many places in the United States, SAR calls don't cost you anything.

Usually it's the ambulance / helicopter ride. But even then, there are helicopter operators (like the U.S. military, which responds to many SAR calls where I live) that don't charge.

At least in Germany I know that the perspective on this is that you never want someone to even think about taking cost into consideration when they decide to make an emergency call.

In the US there are people who drive to the emergency room and wait outside in the parking lot to see if they get better or if they really need to go inside. Some of those people have insurance but would pay a deductible.

I don't have data to support this, but I guess that at least 40% of Americans would agree with the statement, "I take cost into consideration when I make a call to emergency services."

It will make each individual SAR easier, but if more people rely on this instead of proper planning for a trip, the overall increased burden on volunteer organizations will be unsustainable.

Certainly, yes. My anxiety around the broad adoption of features like this isn't really the individual calls, because they're likely to be fairly mundane / close to trail heads.

Rather, my concern is with the volume. Lots of "I'm Cold, Please Help" calls could take resources away from rarer but far more resource-intensive "My leg is broken, and I"m 10 miles out" calls.

The info could be used by volunteers such as NGOs with a 4x4 rescue team. I have a friend in such an org and they help a lot of naïve people who get stuck in the mud/snow. He got into the NGO by getting stuck and being pulled out by another volunteer. I was with him and another guy when that occured. They should be able to help "I'm cold" and other less severe cases. They always cooperate with authorities (police, gendarmerie, fire dept) and the cooperation goes both ways. Also keep in mind that there's a very thin line between "I'm cold" and potentialy deadly hypothermia.

Isn't the same already true for trails that do have cell signal?

How is it different from regular 911/112 abuse?

911 operators are not volunteers, at least not to my knowledge.

Maybe not, but the people they dispatch often are. My hometown fire department is entirely volunteers.

It’s really not that big of a deal. You could just triage calls for help and put them in order of priority on who to help first based on how difficult it would be, severity of the situation, and probability of success. The lowest level requests like for some water or a jacket could routinely go unserved.