I was just on the ground coordinating with 4 friends that got buried in 5+ foot of unexpected snow in the mountains (forecast said 1"-2" when they went up) for the rifle opener in Montana. I wound up getting sick so I stayed home (hilariously I was the only one who got an elk) but I sent them up with my InReach.
All I can say is THANK GOD that I did, because it turned into over a week long effort to get them out. Two decided to walk out and were able to text me a nav point that I was able to meet them at (took all day to get there because of the snow and mud, but I made it and was able to pick them up). The other two stayed up there, and we sent probably 100 texts back and forth coordinating what turned into like 3 solid days of fighting to get up there with snowcats and get them back down. Multiple situational changes that we would have been hosed without.
In the end, I spent like $80 on texts, but it was money well spent. I think it's great for people to have SOS built into their iPhone, but there needs to be a "use it now, pay later" or no one is going to activate it and actually have it available when they need it. The other half of the equation is that you really need to be able to send texts. The SOS button is very expensive. Extremely expensive. That will keep a lot of people from using it. (Yes insurance exists, but hardly anyone has it). Being able to text your friends for help is substantially more useful. Being stuck on a backroad with no service, 5, 10, 20 miles from where anyone can be expected to drive by is a far more common scenario than breaking your leg at the top of a mountain and needing to be evacuated.
First off, super glad to hear your friends are out of the field safe.
Want to address one point however: "The SOS button is very expensive. Extremely expensive"
In my experience on multiple SAR teams (Search and Rescue), this is almost never the case in North America.
Search and Rescue is one of the few services that is almost uniformly free [1]. Thousands and thousands of volunteer hours every year keep it that way.
In fact, the two most prominent professional organizations for SAR (NASAR [2] & MRA [3]) both have longstanding policies that teams should not
charge for rescue. On a personal level, I can tell you that the majority of the rescues/recoveries I have worked in the last decade would have been
easier or led to a better outcome if the subject had called earlier. Embarrassment and fear of cost are the two primary reasons I have had subjects
quote as the reasons they delayed calling for rescue, even after they knew self-rescue would not be possible. When you realize self-rescue isn't possible,
call us early.
As someone with a bunch of idiotic friends that always find themselves needing SAR in North America. The rule of thumb within the group that has generally held true is: if you're on federal lands it's fully free, but if you're in resort, city, or state jurisdiction they'll absolutely try to claw back the costs.
The SAR might be technically "free", but they'll categorize as many things under "medical emergency" as possible and throw the book of fines at you.
Free as long as you didn't sign an agreement saying you'd be responsible for the cost of SAR. Such as breaking resort rules by going out of bounds[1].
It's really the same as the US (other than our states and cities acting more like corporations), it comes down to who gets dispatched: if it's the government you're fine, but oftentimes if you're near a resort, it comes down to whether dispatch thinks the resort staff, a government agency, or a volunteer group is better suited for the rescue. If it's the resort, you might've agreed to give them the legal right to claw back costs.
Your link doesn’t really support your claim. It was a “fine” from a private resort, that by their own account is entirely unenforceable[1]. Essentially a request for a donation to SAR.
In practise, SAR is free in Canada no matter where you are. There are hundreds and hundreds of SAR calls in BC per year, and not a single person rescued has been required to pay a cent. Many of them do make donations though as a token of thanks.
In one instance, yes, for simply getting so lost in the mountains in a state park that they decided it was best to call SAR when provisions ran out after dark. Dispatch routed the rescue request to the closest city fire department, they came out with a helicopter. City then left them with the bill for the helicopter (which was covered by health insurance as medical transport minus the deductible), and fines for trespassing (they weren't supposed go off marked trails) and staying in the park after closing/dark.
Oh, SAR will "creatively adjust" the incident report when people have health insurance, so that they can bill them for a medical emergency and have their insurance cover it? Sounds like fraud.
SAR doesn't care about whether you have insurance. They simply stick you with a bill if they think you were negligent or the situation shouldn't have happened if there was adequate preparation and/or skill.
Then you, the rescued, file a claim with whatever insurance you think is appropriate and make your case. Maybe insurance investigates and looks up the SAR incident report, maybe they don't. Either way SAR isn't part of any alleged insurance fraud.
> The SAR might be technically "free", but they'll categorize as many things under "medical emergency" as possible and throw the book of fines at you.
And then seemed to imply that's what they did when someone just got lost. Okay they will do it regardless if you have insurance or not, still fraud isn't it?
There's generally a medical component to SAR. If you don't need medical attention or weren't at risk of needing medical attention, what's the rush?
Search is trivial if you're calling in help yourself since just about any device that can call for help will communicate where you are. Gets more complicated for a wide area search called in by someone else though, because that is expensive; but then the target's medical condition is unknown and likely assumed to be for the worst.
If you're completely healthy but in need of rescue eventually, they'll dispatch some better equipped volunteers to retrace your steps and rescue you out of whatever situation you're in.
One time our rope caught on something after we released it, so we couldn't ascend to unstick it, but couldn't descend further without the rope. That would've been a SAR call if there wasn't another group above us that could partially descend on their rope and unstick our rope for us. But it would've been a trivial rescue since we could've reasonably survived stuck on the shaded alcove for a couple days until we got another rope. A ranger or volunteer would've been dispatched to unstick the rope or with their own for us to use, not a helicopter to extract us out.
It's when there's an immediate risk to life, that's what causes urgency, which is the main driver for cost because then typically helicopters are involved. If they itemize by search, rescue, and medical, why wouldn't medical greatly dominate the costs?
> There's generally a medical component to SAR. If you don't need medical attention or weren't at risk of needing medical attention, what's the rush?
"At risk of needing medical attention", e.g., dying of thirst of exposure after a few days when you're lost, is not a medical emergency though. This isn't even some esoteric legalize it's just obvious common sense. You were talking about things like just getting lost, and SAR trying to file as much as they possibly can under "medical emergency". Definitely sounds like fraud.
While this is great to know, the SOS button is still fundamentally potentially a completely open-ended liability if you haven't taken Garmin's 30 buck annual insurance option for it. Even with that, you are only capped at $50k to best of my knowledge. Your Utah example illustrates this.
In a real SOS situation the cost is likely immaterial, but I can absolutely understand why people would wait a bit longer than they should before pressing.
Having two-way communications would help tremendously, because then you can say "well, pressing the button will cost $100, but the person on the other end will know if I need rescue now or later".
> the SOS button is still fundamentally potentially a completely open-ended liability if you haven't taken Garmin's 30 buck annual insurance option for it.
Not in Canada. SAR is completely free in Canada for the reason you've basically alluded to in your next paragraph.
> but I can absolutely understand why people would wait a bit longer than they should before pressing.
I've been to a number of presentations from the local SAR, and whenever they're asked about this, they say that the reason SAR has no cost is precisely because they never want people to hesitate before pressing the button or making the call.
Thanks for sharing. I'm relatively new to back country adventures (moved here from RI in 2018), and have heard from peers stories about bankrupting rescues. Glad to know that is not necessarily the case.
I can say I was completely out of my comfort zone when two tried to walk out, that turned into the most stressful day of our lives. I think everyone thought they were going to die: the two walking out from hypothermia, me from a bear that didn't want to leave me alone when I was on foot looking for them. It wound up taking them hours longer than expected to walk out, and I kept getting stuck looking for them, to the point I thought I was sleeping in my car that night (while they potentially froze to death) because I was like 12 miles from a main road, and had no cell signal, and hadn't found them yet. I'd much rather have called S&R!!
As a big-time hunter myself, I'm glad you got them all out. It sounds like the ones that stayed back were well prepared. Surprise snowfall is no joke and can catch out even the best mountaineers. Countless day hikers have lost their lives in smaller mountains like the Adirondacks in Upstate NY, let alone the big mountains in the Western US. Thankfully it's never happened to me, but I personally never venture into the mountains without the ability to survive for weeks if needed.
A friend's 18yo brother was motorcycling in the mountains with their father, crashed and broke his femur. Ambulance would have taken hours, they had helicopter rescue insurance, but the only helicopter company that operated there wouldn't take it. Got a $25k bill for the helicopter ride and negotiated down to $16k iirc.
The next couple years will give us more concrete numbers, but based on my personal experience, I doubt this will change call volume significantly. We're mostly seeing dramatically increased call volume due to more people being involved in backcountry recreation and less so due to increased comms coverage through cell or satellite devices.
While there is the argument that these devices give increased peace of mind that the backcountry is somehow "safer", I don't know that I've seen this cause an uptick in callouts for our team. Subjects needing rescue are still usually hesitant to call for rescue and usually try to self extricate, even when they should likely initiate a rescue. Most of our call-outs happen at night for this reason.
That said, the upside of these devices is significant - especially in the area of improving our response time and reducing total callout time. The advent of the E911 Phase 2 (including location in 911 calls) has made the majority of our call-outs dramatically simpler & faster. What was formerly a multi-step process which might involve something like deploying multiple hasty teams to sweep large areas; determining subject location; deploying specialized resources for extraction -- can now jump straight to deploying a single hasty team for medical while simultaneously deploying specialized resources given that the terrain & access is known via the subject's location.
Edit: I can't edit my above comment, but just got confirmation from a friend both Grand and Wayne have revised their rescue policy and now only charge in exceptional circumstances - https://www.grandcountyutah.net/734/Donate-to-GCSAR
> Subjects needing rescue are still usually hesitant to call for rescue and usually try to self extricate
Someone with the knowledge and foresight to bring along a Garmin or PLB or something probably has a decent understanding of what it means to use it - waking people up and deploying expensive assets - and because of that I can see why they'd probably hesitate (it surely would trigger my "I don't want to be a bother" instinct).
I hope once every iPhone user has the same capability that it doesn't become an "eternal September"-like moment and flip too far the other way into overly casual use.
Regardless, you're much closer to the situation than I am so I'll defer to your expertise. Clearly, more communications in an emergency is always going to be better, so I look forward to seeing stories about how this new feature saves lives.
And thanks for your efforts in providing rescue services to the people who need them!
That decision making process is a key part of what's taught in a wilderness medicine course: assessing the situation at hand and deciding whether it's necessary to evacuate for a higher level of care, and if so, whether you need a rapid evac like a helicopter, or can walk or be carried out with fewer resources. https://blog.nols.edu/2018/02/20/stay-or-go-infographic
I do tend to agree that this has a pretty good chance of creating more nuisance calls from people who are not in actual danger...I read the New York forest rangers reports now and then, and a big portion of the rescues involve clueless people who set off alone with no map, an hour before sunset in October wearing a tshirt and shorts.
At least those people probably need to be rescued. The more annoying examples are people who are not lost or in danger, but just decided they were tired and did not want to walk back out.
From my chats with friends who do SAR, they'd much prefer you use it more casually if its the two way communication kind. SAR volunteers really are a special breed, they're already volunteering to risk their lives to save you and most days don't have incident, so text messages back and forth with the potential for rescue is a bit exciting.
Like, the moment you're sufficiently sure you might be lost or at risk/danger. Then at least they know you're out there and where to start looking from your last known location even if you don't need help yet. They might also be able to trivially guide you for self-rescue instead of the situation escalating into requiring rescue or becoming a much more complex rescue.
But if it's just a simply SOS device, then, well, yeah, it can become a nuisance because that can mean "I'm a bit lost" or "I'm quickly dying" and anything in-between and they have no way of knowing.
> We're mostly seeing dramatically increased call volume due to more people being involved in backcountry recreation and less so due to increased comms coverage through cell or satellite devices.
I wonder if part of the reason more people are involved in backcountry recreation is due to it not feeling as dangerous as it used to because people figure (rightly or wrongly) they can always get help from my phone.
Anyway, I agree with your reasoning that it's important that backcountry rescue be free, becuase of people not calling as early as they should because of worry of cost, and resulting injury, death, or just more complicated rescue... but even though you're assuring me of it, I'm still not sure it's true! I feel like I hear stories all the time (which googling seems to confirm?) of people being charged when someone determines they deserved it or something, depending on who ends up responding... which would make me reluctant to SOS too. I believe you the outfits you work with never charge, but when I'm in an emergency or possible-emergency, I have no way of knowing if it's going to end up being that situation or not... which is a problem.
i doubt it, most new folk getting into it rarely think about what happens if it goes sideways and are totally ignorant of the dangers. i usually have to be "buy an inreach please or at the very least let people know where you are going"
mostly its just made it safer because you now can call for help isntead of having to hike out
Out of curiosity, do you find it at all useful when people who call in SAR have some kind of handheld radio transceiver? (I'm lumping everything here - FRS/GMRS, MURS, ham sets etc).
I've seen stats that showed a significant increase in the number of callouts without major injuries in a period around 20 years ago, which correlated with mobile phones becoming popular. Suddenly it was easy for someone to call rescue services when they're stuck, where previously they would have had to make a plan. And maybe it also increased the number of people going out into the mountains now that they had an easy way to call for help.
But overall, the rescue services managed easily. The growth was slow enough over a couple of years, that it's easy enough to scale up the number of volunteers as needed. In my experience, when you get more callouts, more people are eager to volunteer. No-one wants to spend regular time doing training when there aren't any callouts.
Alternatively, you can spend about $200 one time on a personal locator beacon that requires no ongoing costs. It can't do two-way communication but activating it sends out a specific frequency picked up by satellites and is the equivalent of calling 911. Rescuers will come to help you.
All serious hikers and outdoor adventurers should carry a personal locator beacon.
Actually, I'm not sure this is good advice. Two-way commiunicators are vastly preferred by Search and Rescue organizations.
The reason for this is that they can learn about what they need to do and who they need to send to you, because they can ask you.
If you have a broken leg, they'll send in 10 people to get you out. Dehydrated? Two responders and water.
Calls that come in from "dumb" communicators like PLBs are more likely to get a 1-2 person "hasty" team assigned to them who can arrive quickly then call in more reinforcements if necessary. A SAR org. isn't going to put 10 volunteers on a PLB call that ends up being a rolled ankle, at least not immediately.
This has the potential to greatly delay the time to care for you, especially for more severe emergencies.
My wife has an InReach. While hiking in Colorado, she encountered a woman who started going into shock (for no obvious reason!). Because of the satellite-based texting, SAR determined that Medivac chopper was more appropriate than land based rescue. Doctors said that the woman had 1-2 hours before death / permanent injury, so the most likely outcome of only having an emergency beacon would have been her death.
SAR people may largely be volunteers, but helicopters have fairly expensive operational costs. In time-sensitive situations, it is better to have two way communications (because it keeps SAR as inexpensive as possible). See my sister comment for my wife's experience.
In our case, our org (Norwegian Red Cross) buy the equipment using sponsor money and the like. Then we get reimbursed by the government for using them in SAR operations.
It works well enough for us to have maybe 4 snowmobiles, 2 6-wheel ATV's, a 4 person rope rescue kit, 10 TETRA phones and a car in addition to various medical equipment.
Yeah, the cheapest plan is $14.95/mo ($11.95/mo if you pay for 12 months) and includes 10 "free" text's, $0.50/text after that.
I wish they had a non-cost plan (or maybe $10/year) plus $5/text or something like that for use in an emergency. I have an InReach, but haven't used it for an emergency (yet), I've sent a few texts to friends/family while outside of cellular coverage since they are "free", but would rather save money and only pay if I need to use it in an emergency situation.
Maybe they'll have to get more flexible with their plans now that the iPhone has this feature, and T-Mobile is reportedly coming out with Satellite connectivity for phones.
> I wish they had a non-cost plan (or maybe $10/year) plus $5/text or something like that for use in an emergency.
Given that the outdoor SAR use case is probably the largest reason for people to get one of these devices in the first place, I doubt that such a model would be economically sustainable (unless subsidized by government agencies or possibly insurances saving money due to spending less on large-scale search operations).
Vendors could also bake a free SAR plan into the initial sales price, I suppose.
Yeah, if we conservatively say 1% of InReach users will need to send an SOS message, then looking at the math:
Today, 100 InReach subscribers nets Garmin around $144/yr * 100 people = $14,400
If the InReach were free except for when activating the SOS, the SOS would have to cost $14,000 to make that same revenue from the same number of users. This would surely lead to more deaths due to folks waiting way longer to send an SOS.
Numbers are estimates but the order of magnitude shouldn't be too far off.
They're going to lose the people like me anyway when phones can send a SOS by satellite, so their revenue from me will either go to $0 and I'll sell my InReach on eBay, or they can get some small amount of revenue (enough to cover the administrative costs of registering the device) from me.
Good point – now that the iPhone has satellite SOS, the market has changed, and the pure SOS use case has become a lot less compelling.
Some users still prefer a standalone device, want P2P messaging functionality (until Apple adds that, too), or need coverage beyond Globalstar – I'd be curious to see how much of the market that is, in the end.
I like the way Fi does it, where service can be paused for 90 days at a time. Just used it on vacation recently after having it paused for a couple years and it was seamless. I think I'll end up paying around $30 for the trip. It's a nice balance imo
The $15 a month for the Garmin in reach is a month to month plan. You can get it for a single trip then let it expire for years before getting another month for your next trip. If you buy a 1 year subscription it ends up going down to $12/month so if you're using it >=10 months a year, it's cheaper to commit to that but for most people, month to month where you can pause whenever you aren't using it is a good option.
For me it's the best $15/mo I spend. As someone who is regularly alone in the backcountry far from cell service, it's massively nice to know that I can communicate something wrong or if simply running late. And my wife also has to worry far less knowing that I can let her know if something goes wrong. She also has the ability to request my location without me doing anything in the event I were unconscious or something.
My problem is I don't really have an off-season, nearly all year round I go on at least one hike a month that's outside of cell coverage (not too hard around here), which is why I got the InReach in the first place.
It's not expensive when it's compared to the alternative of not being able to call for help when there's no cell coverage.
But it's expensive if it's compared to $0 for a feature that's already built into my phone. (though it remains to see how long Apple keeps it free since they only say it's "free for 2 years")
It does, I have the fancier inReach - the one that can make calls and texts without being tethered to an iphone. The service runs $15 a month for the basic service and scales up depending on how many texts a month you want to use. I wouldn't ditch it for an iphone 14 as it is way more rugged and in really cold climates(I live near the mountains) a iphone will rapidly discharge its battery and will be useless.
I finally broke down and got my inreach as I was exploring a canyon way out in the desert and a rockslide almost took out my ankle. I told my Wife when I got back and she made me get one as I most likely would have been in serious trouble as cell signal was not working and nobody was in miles of me.
The Garmin inReach cannot make phone calls in any way or configuration.
It can send & receive text messages either by itself (that's a pain since you have to select letters one by one with arrow keys, but it works) or paired to a supported external device like a tablet.
you are correct, inReach devices can text by themselves(with no cell signal) and can be paired with a cell phone to make calls(I have the 66i), but not make calls by themselves.
I think I didn't write that clear enough :) I haven't used mine like this so far.. but you can pair the garmin to a phone(via the connect app) and make a call from the phone using the garmin as an antenna so to speak, you cannot talk or hear anything on it(the garmin inReach).
Any personal locator beacon recommendations? It's one of those items that I could very much use during bike touring, hiking, and bikepacking... but I've never bought one because it seems like a very large cost for something I won't even test until it is a matter of life and death.
Out of curiosity... is there any way to alert your local emergency department in advance of testing a beacon, so you can verify that it works?
For PLB I am pretty sure it's universal. For messengers (like the inreach), find out what people in your geo use between iridium or SPOT because satellite coverage can vary. For example, I have heard that in alaska SPOT's only geostationary sat is really low on the southern horizon and anything that breaks LOS will interfere with the device.
For PLB specifically you cannot test them. Once you activate them, they continually broadcast and cannot be canceled except by destroying the device. For messengers, they hook up to a web service and you can send messages to personal email or SMS via the sat network as your test.
> I have heard that in alaska SPOT's only geostationary sat is really low on the southern horizon and anything that breaks LOS will interfere with the device.
Any geostationary sat would be low on the southern horizon in Alaska. That's just how geostationary orbits work, they are over the equator. Though pretty high above (35.000km/22.000mi). So it's still visible there but yeah you need a clear view of the southern horizon.
But Globalstar which runs the service for SPOT only has low earth orbit sats which are definitely not geostationary. They're only at a few hundred kilometers.
However it could very well be that their orbits are aligned so that they are always pretty low to the south from Alaska, yes.
> Each device has a test mode that will communicate with the SARSAT satellite network without sending an alert.
That explanation is factually incorrect, then. There currently is no "test" flag, nor is there the required infrastructure to check if your test alert went through:
Possibly (the page I linked even mentions a "test" type of signal), but given that there is no return link for most PLBs and no "list of recent successfully received test transmissions" online, I don't understand how one would actually verify success.
This policy document mentions that the "self-test" feature actually does not communicate with satellites at all, and also mentions a "test frame" that is discarded by satellites, as well as a "test protocol" that is forwarded by satellites, but discarded by the ground segment:
https://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/POL-MCC-051-v...
So it seems like both the "self-test" and the "test frame" don't tell you a lot about how well your beacon would work in case of an actual emergency (unless you have equipment that can receive and interpret that signal), and live testing involves a lot of paperwork.
These devices require a new battery every few years and that service includes a test done by the manufacturer. There is also a self test button on the device which does not send a message to the satellites.
If you really feel the need to send test messages into space, they do support that but then you need a subscription (https://www.acrartex.com/406link/). At that point you may as well buy a different device which has 2 way messaging included in the subscription. PLB users generally do trust that their devices work the first time they're used for real, and this trust is backed up by a lot of real world use.
>PLB users generally do trust that their devices work the first time they're used for real, and this trust is backed up by a lot of real world use.
Although they are not foolproof. See for example the story of Kate Matrosova. [1] Basically, mountain shadows made the location readings erratic which, in combination with extremely bad weather, meant rescuers couldn't find her.
The person in that article was using SPOT, not a PLB.
Actual PLBs (not SPOT) have a backup strategy in the event the GPS signal is obscured by mountains.
If the device can't get a reliable GPS fix, the satellites will resort to measuring doppler shift as they pass overhead to locate the transmitter. It's slower (takes several passes of the satellite, so we're talking hours) and less accurate, but it will get rescuers to the general direction.
From there, PLB devices also transmit a low-power homing signal on 121.5 MHz (the aviation distress frequency) that SAR teams can locate using radio direction-finding equipment.
Thanks for the info. Although, in general, I assume a device that allows you to have two-way communications with SAR is preferable even if a PLB might have been better in this ultimately fatal situation.
Yes, two-way communication is a huge benefit since you can explain the problem and the responders can give advice in addition to ETAs.
However, a device like the Garmin inReach requires an active subscription for the SOS to work. If there's a glitch with your credit card and the service becomes inactive while you're on travels, it might not work.
Another difference is that an inReach SOS message goes to the Garmin-run https://www.iercc.com/en-US/about/ rescue coordination center who will the relay to rescue services.
Whereas a PLB or EPIRB communicate with the Cospas-Sarsat system and is handled directly by government rescue agencies (https://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/mission-control-center). While the Garmin service works great, I have more trust in the USMCC being always responsive than any private company.
So the best advise is to have both. I have an EPIRB (for boating) and a couple PLBs in addition the the Garmin inReach. I use the inReach for casual messaging but if I ever have a real emergency I'll activate the PLB and EPIRB first and only afterwards start trying to message via the Garmin.
My understanding is that SARSAT is the only option that has satellites in orbits above LEO, and thus generally better coverage. So if it's down to one thing only, I'd pick the PLB just on the basis that, in a serious emergency, it's more important for help to come at all.
PLBs are tested down to -40° so it might have stayed working for longer as the weather got worse. It is of course impossible to say if Kate might have survived under other circumstances except that (not very interestingly) if she's decided the weather was too awful and aborted she'd almost certainly live.
It's been a while since I read the book on this. I'm not sure if it got into the exact equipment or not. Certainly if SAR had an accurate fix from the beginning there would have been at least some hope for a rescue.
The book was interesting mostly for all the SAR detail. The accident, sadly, was mostly in the category of--however fit and well-equipped you are--don't try to beat a very bad incoming storm on an exposed ridge line in the middle of winter. If she had turned around at Madison Hut or wherever she'd have been fine.
I only meant that the devices, if properly maintained, can be trusted to do their job as best they can and not say "PC LOAD LETTER" and expect you to troubleshoot it. A successful rescue is never guaranteed.
Those of us who are programmers usually default to "If it's not tested end to end, it won't work," and that is the sentiment I was responding to.
So far 100% of my inreach use is texting family, I bought it for emergencies but so far (luckily) haven't needed it for that. I'm confident that it will work well enough in that situation that I don't need a PLB.
You buy the hardware, pay a $30 activation fee, and a then pay monthly for the service.
There are several service plans ranging from $15 a month to $65 a month. The cheap plan comes with 10 texts a month and the $65 a month plan has unlimited texting.
If you pay an additional $35 annual fee, you can suspend the plan during months you would not use it.
InReach, and any users (other brands offering competing two-way communicators) of the Iridium satellite network, have ongoing fees. They're rather small compared to someone dying in the wilderness.
PLBs are great and definitely better than not carrying any emergency communications device at all, but they can ultimately only send out a binary signal: "I need help at location x/y".
There's a lot of situations in which I'd appreciate being able to call help without possibly triggering an expensive helicopter SAR operation, when sending a park ranger would be more than sufficient (e.g. a sprained ankle a mile off the trailhead when solo hiking).
Another advantage of two-way communicators is being able to get instructions from the SAR team: It can be vital to know whether you should e.g. go to higher ground (because your signal has not been received yet) or conversely seek shelter from the elements for a couple of hours. Newer PLBs partially solve that problem though, thanks to Galileo's "blue light" return channel.
If you're seriously going to go into the back country in the rural western US states and Canada, and you have a good paying professional job, there is no excuse, in my opinion, not to spend $1000 on a full capability Iridium handset and the $50/month service plan that goes with it. If you really NEED to use it you won't care that it costs $1.20 a minute to make a call.
I agree with your sentiment but I'd add that a full handset is overboard in many cases. An InReach mini (or similar) will work fine for many/most people
For Emergency services there is no “activate and pay later” because you don’t need to activate, and you don’t need to pay. If you have an iPhone 14 it’s supposed to just work if you’re calling 911.
>If you have an iPhone 14 it’s supposed to just work if you’re calling 911.
Did you mean to say "work AS if you're calling 911"? The emergency message via satellite function has to be explicitly used instead of just calling 911
To the average user, they will try to dial 911, the iPhone won’t be able to complete a cellular 911 call and will then present the user with the UI for sending an emergency message to first responders. I don’t really see the need for distinction, except between an iPhone 14 and a 13, or an android, which would fail to make the 911 call and that’s it.
> For Emergency services there is no “activate and pay later” because you don’t need to activate, and you don’t need to pay. If you have an iPhone 14 it’s supposed to just work if you’re calling 911.
This is nothing special about the iPhone or the version; every cell phone is supposed to put through calls to 911:
> All wireless phones, even those that are not subscribed to or supported by a specific carrier, can call 911.
> For Emergency services there is no “activate and pay later” because you don’t need to activate, and you don’t need to pay. If you have an iPhone 14 it’s supposed to just work if you’re calling 911.
The Emergency SOS seems explicitly to require activation, and to have a cost (eventually):
> The service will be included for free for two years starting at the time of activation of a new iPhone 14, iPhone 14 Plus, iPhone 14 Pro, and iPhone 14 Pro Max.4
So I assumed that the parent was referring to just calling 911 using the normal cell network, which can indeed be done, on any mobile phone (that is able to dial, of course), without activation or payment.
Activation here refers to the activation of the phone itself, not the satellite service specifically. A new phone needs to be activated (registering it with Apple and maybe your carrier) before you can use it at all.
The “use and pay later” scheme refers to an emergency system that is pay-per-use or requires an ongoing payment (e.g. subscription); the idea would be that if you use the feature at all it works immediately but will charge you for that sometime later (kinda like how an ambulance will pick you up right away but bill you for the privilege later).
It doesn’t require “activation, ” you try to call 911 and when you don’t have signal, the phone sends an emergency text message to the satellite network.
Seems like we’ll find out in a year or two no? No one knows right now but I’m not going to bag on a service that will save lives on the maybe chance that 2 years from now it might cost something but we don’t know what.
Interesting observation: You prevented a "uh oh" from turning into an "we're dying" state. It sounds like your friends are pretty hardened for the backcountry, and they needed to get out, but it wasn't life-threatening (at the time). Something we should consider while designing these systems. I think the pricepoint of InReach services certainly prevent casual usage (sending memes, browsing instagram) but allows sufficient communication at a reasonable price to coordinate safely.
Also, with 5ft of snow coming down, I have my doubts an iPhone would be able to reach out and touch a satellite. It'll be interesting to see some tests.
> there needs to be a "use it now, pay later" or no one is going to activate it and actually have it available when they need it
I've been solo hiking, running, kayaking, and biking in areas without cell service since before cell phones were things people carried.
Haven't needed emergency search-and-rescue in 20 years, so it's just never seemed like a good investment...that's $3600 I could have 'wasted' on a service I've never needed. But I would probably buy and carry an InReach if they offered use it now, pay later plans. I don't carry a PLB, because that would mean paying for insurance, and I'd more likely need a lift from my brother in a side-by-side than a helicopter from the sheriff's office (and the ruinous costs that would entail....
I plan to wear my Fenix 6 Pro for another 10 years, but if they came out with a version with InReach 2-way texts my wife would buy it RIGHT NOW, express shipping, not even a thought of waiting for Christmas.
On the other hand, that's $3600 of profit for Apple/Garmin/Iridium/Globalstar/Spot that they're loathe to leave on the table until the one time in 20 years when I really need it.
Depending on the location, perhaps getting your amateur radio license and a radio with APRS on it might help fill in some of the coverage gaps. I've heard (though cannot confirm personally) that there is often APRS coverage in remote areas that are otherwise not served by cellular.
It depends a lot on the terrain and specific area whether a typical VHF/UHF ham radio will work. The range is much longer than cellular, but it is quite LOS, and repeater/digipeater sites with good coverage tend to be at established antenna sites for commercical broadcast or telecom. There'll be some more remote sites of course, but infrastructure and LOS is still more or less required. With many popular recreation areas up in uninhabited mountain valleys with no infrastructure and where building stuff is often prohibited, the chances of hitting a site aren't great unless you happen to be below a mountain microwave site or such. At least without hiking out of the valley, but that's hardly a condition you want to put on yourself for an emergency communicator.
That said, it's not a bad thing to carry in your car, as there are plenty enough dead spots that would likely be covered by packet radio. It's just a lot less clear how to get help.
This. I’ve been wilderness backpacking for a long time and still carry a 2m radio just for fun, but the usefulness is limited in a lot of places. If you’re climbing up a mountain in NH you can pretty much hit a repeater from anywhere, but if you’re trekking around in Big Bend State Park in Texas you can forget it. Satellite communication is much better and if you can’t afford a few hundred bucks for some kind of satcom then you probably shouldn’t be going out too deep into some of these places.
>Haven't needed emergency search-and-rescue in 20 years, so it's just never seemed like a good investment
It's just $16 a month and there are other uses besides SOS; like texting to say you'll be late but everything is fine or that you've decided to stay another night. You can even get weather forecasts which is pretty huge if you ever do multi-day trips. Besides all that, carrying an InReach could one day save someone else's life.
The most important benefit it gives me (and my wife) is peace of mind. I find it worth every penny.
One more cool feature I just remembered - it can intermittently send your location to a website (optionally password protected) so someone can track your progress. If you fall and get knocked out you won't be able to send an SOS - but your location (and the last time you moved) will be known by loved ones.
> The SOS button is very expensive. Extremely expensive.
With my inReach I pay for the insurance plan [1]. I do wilderness float/canoe/kayak trips and I have it for peace of mind in case I or somebody I'm with (or encounter) is immobilized, as I can walk out of most places I go to if my legs are working.
I haven't been able to find any such option for the iPhone, which, amongst other things, means I'll be keeping my inReach. Though to be clear I don't know to what degree I would be on the hook for anything if I _did_ hit the SOS button.
I encourage people to know the laws in the state they are exploring as they are different across the board - some are at no cost to the individual while others have clauses.
Additionally, know how your device works - end to end - regardless of what it is. You gain a lot of knowledge and life saving techniques by knowing the process that is kicked off, it's timeframe, etc.
I'd be surprised if Apple does not launch this as a paid feature sooner rather than later (possibly as a perk part of Apple One or one of their other subscription plans).
No one is asking this but the rest i know about, so i find myself thinking "what on earth do you do with a rifle-shot-dead elk?", since I have no suburban-kid idea.
Leaving aside the option to take a side-by-side/ATV/snowmobile (with skid or trailer if needed) to solve the problem with horsepower, or the option of biological horses instead of petroleum horses:
1. You first field dress it - cut from sternum to tail and pull the entrails, leaving them in a pile in the woods for scavengers. That takes your elk from 700 lbs (you hope) to ~450 lbs.
2. Quarter it and hang the 4 ~100lbs quarters high in a tree safe from bears and wolves (but not cougars) and carry them out one at a time using a backpack with a frame and hip belt. Be sure to carry the prime cuts (backstraps) out with the first load. Watch for predators on the return trips.
3. It's becoming more common, too, to fully butcher the animal in the field, removing the bones, which reduces the load to haul down to about 200 lbs. The skin, ivory, and head (if you want those) add some weight.
A Jet Sled in 2" of snow makes it surprisingly easy to haul an awful lot of elk and gear. As long as you're going across flat ground or downhill, that is - uphill is no fun at all.
A whitetail here in Michigan is much easier, even a big one is only about 100 lbs after field dressing. You just lay it on a drag/tarp or in a sled (or, if you don't care about the skin staying pristine and aren't going over super rocky terrain, just tie a rope to the antlers and front legs) and drag it out.
In case this helps anyone else not from the US, a side-by-side is one of those bigger-than-a-quadbike vehicles. A buggy. Like Polaris, etc. I've seen loads on farms and trails and honestly never knew what they were called. Always assumed side-by-side was like a motorbike with a sidecar!
Great comment by LeifCarrotson pretty much explains it. I gutted and skinned it, removing each quarter, and the meat along the back, ribs, and neck. That took basically all day. I use a knife with a replaceable blade. The guts are held in by connective tissue near the spine. If the belly faces downhill when you open it, gravity starts to pull them out. I removed the lungs to get room to work (just indiscriminately slicing), and then reached up in the neck as high as possible, and cut the trachea and esophagus. Then I used a hatchet to cut through the pelvic bone, a sharp knife to basically excise the anus, and cut any remaining connective tissue from behind. Eventually, gravity did the rest.
The big goal is to not puncture intestines, as they are gross and contain bacteria that will spoil the meat.
To skin it, I started at a back leg, just making a cut, pulling the skin up, and seeing it's connected to muscle by very soft fat. You can pull on the skin, slice the fat, and the animal basically unwraps. You want to keep hair off the meat because again, bacteria.
Front quarters are easy as there's no bone joint. They pop off quckly. Rear are harder, you need to find and cut the ligament(?) that holds the leg in the hip.
Then, I put about half the elk on a children's sled, and pulled it (mercifully downhill or level) about 1.5 miles. Then, I went and got the other half. She was a cow, so no antlers to carry.
Then, I hung all the meat in a frienda garage for about 2 days, took it home in several coolers, and fought off my dog while every evening for 4 evenings, I separated the muscle groups, and/or chunked meat to grind (lower quality meat gets turned into hamburger or sausage), vacuum sealed eveything, and froze it.
I'm originally from Rhode Island, and this is only my third animal (first was a deer, then an antelope) so it was pretty overwhelming.
Why wouldn't it be? For that matter, is there any country that has enough natural areas for hunting to be viable, but bans it anyway? Developed countries usually have more stringent requirements wrt licensing, hunting seasons, equipment (e.g. no lead bullets in many places, caliber restrictions to ensure humane kills etc), and so on; and better enforcement of all that.
Well, I knew where their tent was, but when the two walked out, they sent me the spot to meet them, and left the InReach up top.
By the straightest path, they had about 5 miles to go. I had about 12 of bad road. I got there an hour late and thought I missed them. I spent another 2 hours looking for them before finally finding them (at dusk). I was actually about to leave and go call S&R. It turns out, the path path of least resistance turned into 10 miles, which is why it took so long. One had mild hypothermia when I found them.
Ultimately, I wouldn't have known they were trying to walk out unless they could text me. Location is super helpful, and I wish we had more than one InReach as a group, as I would have found them more easily.
All I can say is THANK GOD that I did, because it turned into over a week long effort to get them out. Two decided to walk out and were able to text me a nav point that I was able to meet them at (took all day to get there because of the snow and mud, but I made it and was able to pick them up). The other two stayed up there, and we sent probably 100 texts back and forth coordinating what turned into like 3 solid days of fighting to get up there with snowcats and get them back down. Multiple situational changes that we would have been hosed without.
In the end, I spent like $80 on texts, but it was money well spent. I think it's great for people to have SOS built into their iPhone, but there needs to be a "use it now, pay later" or no one is going to activate it and actually have it available when they need it. The other half of the equation is that you really need to be able to send texts. The SOS button is very expensive. Extremely expensive. That will keep a lot of people from using it. (Yes insurance exists, but hardly anyone has it). Being able to text your friends for help is substantially more useful. Being stuck on a backroad with no service, 5, 10, 20 miles from where anyone can be expected to drive by is a far more common scenario than breaking your leg at the top of a mountain and needing to be evacuated.