Outdoor Adventure USA

Correction not Spot, I was talking about myself>LOL

Larry:

Let me see if I can put all the pieces together here, because I think that you and I are saying most of the same things. This subject is important enough to have this discourse and if our contributions can be helpful to others, then it was worthwhile.

It is important to understand where this discussion began. In the context of extolling the virtues of the Spot, you commented:

Basically, APRS is a great way to locate the guy in your group who has a Spot Messenger, so you can call for a helicopter extraction for only $7.95. Both are very useful - one can save your trip, the other can save your life

To which I responded:

Be careful about placing too much reliance on the Spot. It's new and there remain some concerns about its ultimate value, especially when it comes to saving lives.

It is the life saving aspect of the Spot that I believe needs clarification. One of the best sources for product evaluation of which I am aware, is a company known as Equipped to Survive, one of OAUSA’s original Outfitters, (along with Dirty Parts). This is what Doug Ritter, of ETS, has to say about the Spot:

While SPOT has received a great deal of publicity, it is not built to any recognized specification, has not been thoroughly tested by any independent authority, nor is there any operational history. It’s got some very cool tricks and a nice feature set, but I’m not inclined to suggest that you bet your life on the device at this time. Let’s see how it really works first.

This is exactly what I have been trying to point out. When you intimated that the Spot was capable of saving lives, and that Ham radio was only good to save a trip, I believe that this was not entirely accurate. Several very important points need to be emphasized with the spot, in addition to my concern about placing too much reliance on it’s potential life saving capabilities.
1. As the Spot website states, the dispatch for its 911 calls does not go through the same dispatch as regular cell phone 911 calls. Cell phone 911 calls goes through local law enforcement dispatch while Spots calls ALL go to Texas to the Spot dispatch center.
2. If the outdoor traveler is looking for a device that has the greatest documented history of saving lives, then the clear winner is Ham radio. If this same traveler wants the greatest versatility and ability to reach help, Ham radio, again, is clearly the winner. In all of my travels, I have yet to find an area where UHF/VHF coverage of some type was not available. Yes, I know that such areas do exist and that is why an HF radio resides in my vehicle. It is capable of contacts anywhere, including many places where the Spot cannot. When the experienced adventurer knows that his travels may take him beyond the reach of VHF/UHF, adjustments should be made.
3. As you may know, Spot is owned by the Global Star Company and relies on its satellites for communications. Global Star’s satellite situation has received some critical reviews when it comes to reliability. Without wasting time discussing all of these issues, suffice it to say that these problems should, at the very least, be a consideration for the outdoor traveler who may be relying on the Spot for its life saving potential. None of these concerns apply to Ham radio.

My overriding purpose in this discussion has been to clearly highlight the capabilities of each device when it comes to safety. If the Spot is able to live up to its potential, then it is absolutely an important piece of the equipment that one carries. When it comes to deciding where to place reliance for saving lives, wisdom must enter the equation. I offer the above as a consideration when it comes to where to place your reliance.

DaveK wrote:Larry:

Let me see if I can put all the pieces together here, because I think that you and I are saying most of the same things. This subject is important enough to have this discourse and if our contributions can be helpful to others, then it was worthwhile.

My overriding purpose in this discussion has been to clearly highlight the capabilities of each device when it comes to safety. If the Spot is able to live up to its potential, then it is absolutely an important piece of the equipment that one carries.

While we are in basic agreement as you suggest, we disagree on specifics. VHF/UHF communications is reliant on power and repeaters for any long distance communication. Most documented cases of amateur radio rescues (and there are many, to be sure) are HF communications in times of disaster, maritime pirate attacks, etc. VHF/UHF is extremely reliable in metropolitan areas or areas served by accessible repeaters, but are definitely not available world wide in remote areas.

911 calls placed on your cell phone normally are routed to the local highway patrol by the cell phone switching network, who then can send you to the necessary emergency services. It is not a direct link either, and if you are outside of your "home" phone area, can take additional time.

While I don't mean to criticize Doug Ritter, he is espousing one man's opinion - ham radios are not tested by any independent organizations, either, we just know from experience that they can work in times of trouble. The Spot uses a Global Star satellite constellation that is frequency independent from their voice communications satellites, which have been prone to reliability issues due to their age. Those satellites are being replaced as we speak, and a new set is scheduled to be fully operational by mid 2010. This issue affects voice communications, not data communication as accessed by the Spot Messenger. In addition, I have talked to many folks already using the Spot, and have not heard any issues regarding the reliability of contacts, even though all have been for tracking and notification so far.

While we will continue to disagree in our reasoning, our conclusions, however, remain the same. I do not sell or promote the Spot for any financial reasons, and I am not trying to tout that system as the ultimate lifesaver. I have both UHF/VHF and HF radios in my vehicle, as well as a sat phone and the Spot. All of them have the potential to save my life or someone in contact with me in a time of emergency. All of them use different methods to do so, and may have different levels of effectiveness depending on location, terrain, weather, and 3rd party equipment or personnel. Regardless, I feel I have a better chance of being rescued with all of these systems at my disposal, and I will have a Spot on board whenever I'm on the trail.

cruiserlarry wrote:While we are in basic agreement as you suggest, we disagree on specifics. VHF/UHF communications is reliant on power and repeaters for any long distance communication. Most documented cases of amateur radio rescues (and there are many, to be sure) are HF communications in times of disaster, maritime pirate attacks, etc. VHF/UHF is extremely reliable in metropolitan areas or areas served by accessible repeaters, but are definitely not available world wide in remote areas.

The vast majority of emergency, community and CERT communications are 2m and 70cm. And for for good reason. With a range that can easily exceed 150 miles, the huge number of people monitoring these frequencies at any given time, the availability of literally thousands of repeaters and the easy availability of radios in these frequencies, VHF and UHF frequencies are no slouch when it comes to emergencies. Most of the repeaters in the Southwest, including the Keller Repeater on which we do our OAUSA Nets, are set up for emergencies with back up power which will last for many weeks, if needed. But, as we have both observed, HF Ham radios greatly expand your reach and abilities, giving the outdoor traveler an impressive emergency preparedness arsenal.

The following has been my point all along.

cruiserlarry wrote:While I don't mean to criticize Doug Ritter, he is espousing one man's opinion - ham radios are not tested by any independent organizations, either, we just know from experience that they can work in times of trouble.

EXACTLY!!!! This, more than anything else I have said, sums up this discussion. Ham radio has the best and most well established history of saving lives. The Spot, at least at this time, is lacking in this department.

One of the more important areas where we also disagree, concerns the subject of Mr. Ritter's opinions. As you know, some opinions carry more weight than others. I submit, for your consideration, the following, from the Equipped to Survive Website:

"While SPOT offers a number of useful features and a low entry price, it also has plenty of potential pitfalls and problems, both with the device itself and its integration with SAR resources" [the issue at the root of my comments regarding the dispatch differences with Spot]. "I have been active in communicating my concerns, both directly with SPOT and to the SAR community at large. I gave a pretty forthright presentation on the subject at the RTCM annual conference, "What Price Your Life? Distress Alerting as a Commercial Service." This resulted in an invitation to give the presentation at Coast Guard Headquarters in Washington, D.C. I was also invited to sit on a panel discussing these devices by Canada’s Search and Rescue Secretariat at their SARScene 2008 annual conference."

If the U.S. Coast Guard and the Canadian Search and Rescue Secretariat value his opinions, perhaps we should as well.

I respect your thoughts in this matter and I believe that we are both trying to address the question of how best to equip ourselves for emergencies when we venture into the wilderness. In that context, it would be dangerous to leave this most important issue without a full discussion of the facts and a consideration of the opinions of those who are most knowledgeable. It would be even more dangerous for anyone to place reliance on a device when there are genuine concerns about its efficacy. This, by no means, is meant to suggest that the Spot is not capable, but rather to give the outdoor traveler the information which will allow him to make a well informed decision and ultimately, the best odds of surviving an emergency, especially when lives are at stake.

Well, I guess I underestimated the number of times we could see=saw this in the name of "information", so here's my final summary:

We agree that the Spot is not a guaranteed rescue, and uses technology that has limitations.

We agree you should not depend on any one method of communication.

We agree on the usefulness of UHF/VHF in populated areas in time of emergency.

We disagree on the usefulness of UHF/VHF in areas far from repeater access, or in other areas of the world, as a life saving method of communications. While HF has worked worldwide in emergency situations, no such record exists for VHF/UHF use outside of populated area.

However, despite the expected effectiveness of ham radio, despite Doug Ritter's legitimate concerns, and despite the relative negativity presented here regarding the premise behind this new technology, I will carry a Spot in my vehicle and on my hikes. Why?

Because ham radio (or any communication method) doesn't always work.

Because there have been no reported failures of the system to date.

Because there have been rescues as a result of the Spot.

Because the experience of those I've talked to have been good with the Spot.

Because GlobalStar has a lot riding on the (commercial) success of the Spot.

Because it has uses other than rescue that I find can be very useful.

Because it is relatively inexpensive, and communicates with those who do not have a two-way radio available.

Because I carry a spare tire, extra fuel, tools, food, and water - so why not have every possible means for rescue and communication at my disposal ?

Because I am never better off without it- it has no effect on the other equipment I already have on board.

DaveK, I will now leave it to you for the final retort....

You guys are killing me here!!!!

I do not know about the 911 feature because I have yet to use it but the other features have worked where ever I've needed them.

"SPOT Tracking": My wife and any family members on the trails with me have had the ability to track where we are at 10 minute intervals whether on foot or in my vehicle and this function has yet to fail me. Until I bought my VX-8R HT radio, I could not be tracked on foot via APRS.

"OK" Feature: This feature has never failed to allow me to send a message to my wife and family members of the group saying that I am OK (or any other predefined message) no matter where I am at. I have sent this message from places like Coyote Canyon, the Mojave Desert, Mexicali, and the Rocky Mountains. In all these places I hade no cell coverage and I could not hit any repeaters.

"HELP" Feature: Works the same way and uses the same system as the "OK" feature but sends out a predifined need assistance message.

These messages are sent to cell phones as text messages and to emails or both. You program them prior to leaving for your trip. I have programmed up to 6 points of contact in my SPOT at one time. Each time I hit a button they all got a message both in email and text to their cell phone without fail. Not only do they get the message, it also includes my GPS coordinates in the message.

The SPOT, although only as few years old, is currently undergoing some pretty rugged tests. The Discoveery Channel is testing in places like remote parts of Alaska and a lot of othe environments.

It will not replace ham radio but it is a awesome tool in conjunction with ham radio.

We aim to please!

OLLIE wrote: "OK" Feature: This feature has never failed to allow me to send a message to my wife and family members of the group saying that I am OK (or any other predefined message) no matter where I am at. I have sent this message from places like Coyote Canyon, the Mojave Desert, Mexicali, and the Rocky Mountains. In all these places I hade no cell coverage and I could not hit any repeaters.

I would have bought a SPOT if the "OK" feature was all it had.

It's a comfort to my wife to know that we are all okay. She also likes to know where we are located on a trip.

Maybe they should have called it "The Leash"!

unwiredadventures wrote:

OLLIE wrote: "OK" Feature: This feature has never failed to allow me to send a message to my wife and family members of the group saying that I am OK (or any other predefined message) no matter where I am at. I have sent this message from places like Coyote Canyon, the Mojave Desert, Mexicali, and the Rocky Mountains. In all these places I hade no cell coverage and I could not hit any repeaters.

I would have bought a SPOT if the "OK" feature was all it had.

It's a comfort to my wife to know that we are all okay. She also likes to know where we are located on a trip.

Just don't activate the other features. It will cost you less annually that way.