View Full Version : RELIABLE alternatives to cell phones for safety
Tha Wookie
04-06-2006, 10:34
As you might have read in the various cell phone debates going around, people have very different viewpoints on whether or not the AT and other trails are appropriate places for cell phones.
Whatever the argument, on thing is not debatable: many people think cell phone use encroaches on their experience.
However, this thread is not about whether cell phones are good or bad. Instead, it is a positive response to the debate, not for rants but for ideas.
The topic is Alternatives to cell phones for reliable safety.
Here's my idea of an alternative, that for safety's sake, is FAR more reliable than a cell phone.
As you might know, I have been in the ocean on a sinking ship. Had we relied on the on-board cell phones, I might not be here today. But when we triggered the EBIRB Emergency Beacon, our relatives, the coast guard, and everyone with whom we had registered our emergency information were notified in a matter of minutes from across the Caribbean.
In just a few years, they have gotten smaller and cheaper.
If you are serious about bringing your cell phone ("my wife makes me", "I have a heart condition", etc.) for safety but are open to other MORE RELIABLE options, check out EBIRB technology and spare yourself the social debates.
EPIRB Fact sheet:
http://www.gme.net.au/marine/PDFs/EPIRB_fact_sheet.pdf
Alligator
04-06-2006, 11:03
The brochure states that the better digital signal put out by the 406 MHz model is accurate to 5km[see advantages of 406 MHz]. This may be good on the flat sea but how good is that in the woods? I suppose having a trail nearby would help to narrow the search. Maybe making a reasonable corridor bisecting a 5km search radius. On the other hand, a cell will not provide location. I'm getting widely ranging prices here. What would be a suitable unit for hiking with price?
On the other hand, a cell will not provide location. I'm getting widely ranging prices here.
Actually, all newer cell phones do indeed have to provide LAT/LONG information when calling 911. Different providers use different solutions. Some use GPS, others use multiple towers to fix the position. But they are more accurate than 5k.
some more info : http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/emerbcns.html
wrt to finding someone once within the 5 km accuracy from the sattelite there is a low power homing signal also in the PLB - my question is how likely is the SAR Team going to have the right equipment to receive the low power signal to localize the source? There is also mention of GPS inclusion in the PLB but I have serious doubts as to how useful that would be - my experience with a GPS is that they are less than useful under trees and in hollows.
Prices that I have seen are in the 6 to 7 hundred dollar range but I have not looked for any bargains.
Just looked it up - the Phase II requirement for cell phone location is an x/y location within 100 meters for 67% of the calls and 300 meters for 95% of the calls. So, if you call 911 with a newer cell phone, you have a pretty good chance that 911 will have your x/y location within two tenths of a mile.
rgarling
04-06-2006, 11:15
travel in groups of at least 3.
satellite phones (too heavy right now)
lightweight 'ham' radio gear
I don't think most people carry cel phones for safety.
the goat
04-06-2006, 11:18
i always carry a flare gun with me when i hike. even if i'm not lost, it's a great cure for boredome around the shelter.
Alligator
04-06-2006, 11:19
Actually, all newer cell phones do indeed have to provide LAT/LONG information when calling 911. Different providers use different solutions. Some use GPS, others use multiple towers to fix the position. But they are more accurate than 5k.
OOps, you are absolutely correct Chomp. I forgot about the new improvements for 911. I was thinking of that guy in the Smokies Dunwidde(?) and how they couldn't locate him. My bad.
I forgot about the new improvements for 911.
Oh course, you actually have to get a SIGNAL for any of this to work. :) While its not a problem in the mid-atlantic states, good luck in the valleys of NH, or just about anywhere in Maine.
Alligator
04-06-2006, 11:48
some more info : http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/emerbcns.html
wrt to finding someone once within the 5 km accuracy from the sattelite there is a low power homing signal also in the PLB - my question is how likely is the SAR Team going to have the right equipment to receive the low power signal to localize the source? There is also mention of GPS inclusion in the PLB but I have serious doubts as to how useful that would be - my experience with a GPS is that they are less than useful under trees and in hollows.
Prices that I have seen are in the 6 to 7 hundred dollar range but I have not looked for any bargains.
Upon further reading, the homing signal is at 121.5 MHz. This was the previous standard for both maritime and air emergency beacons. The homing signal then brings the searchers in. That sounds reasonable. The argument of PLB vs Cell is then seems to be a price vs. signal issue. The PLB has the benefit of a satellite fix, whereas cell coverage is known to be spotty. Weight could also be an issue for some.
Saw one PLB for $400. I would prefer a PLB, but own neither a cell nor a PLB.
hikerjohnd
04-06-2006, 12:22
travel in groups of at least 3.
lightweight 'ham' radio gear
I don't think most people carry cel phones for safety.
I rarely go out in groups of 2 - I know I'm not gonna find a third!
Didn't one guy (or maybe more) hike with a ham set-up? Used the pack frame as part of the antenna...
And as to the safety issue - although I won't be lugging my new phone into the woods (new pda/phone combo - really cool but heavy) I carried my old phone more for my wife's piece of mind. And I have used it when I was injured and needed a lift off the trail.
Tha Wookie
04-06-2006, 12:44
Upon further reading, the homing signal is at 121.5 MHz. This was the previous standard for both maritime and air emergency beacons. The homing signal then brings the searchers in. That sounds reasonable. The argument of PLB vs Cell is then seems to be a price vs. signal issue. The PLB has the benefit of a satellite fix, whereas cell coverage is known to be spotty. Weight could also be an issue for some.
Saw one PLB for $400. I would prefer a PLB, but own neither a cell nor a PLB.
Once you buy and register an EPIRB, there are no monthly fees (I'm not sure about long-term mainentance).
So, let's say, for example: $400 handheld EPRIB vs. cell phone on 6-month thru-hike
$400 up-front for EPIRB :
Cell Phone 0 - $150 ; $40 service per month * 6 months = $240 + variable phone cost x.
so we have400:240 + x
financially, I would hypothesize there is no significant statistical difference in price in these hypothetical values.
Conclusions:
Over a single season 6-moth thru-gike, EPIRB units are about the same price as cell phones based on hypothetical value estimates. For longer-term, the one-time price of the EPIRB would level out and drop lower than cell phone costs.
However, real questions remain as to the size, weight, and operational efficiency of EPRIB units. More research is needed before a final conclusion.
gdwelker
04-06-2006, 12:46
EPIRBs are available for reasonable rent from BoatUS.
DawnTreader
04-06-2006, 12:50
When leading trips in Maine, I was required by my employer to carry a satalite phone. It was huge, but, an alternative to cells. I only used it twice in three summers in the backcountry. This is not a practical option imo. I'm sure soon they'll be smaller and cheaper, then maybe something to think about. happy trails!!
Alligator
04-06-2006, 13:42
I'm definitely not an economist, but I do disagree with your economic analysis Wook. I would hazard a guess that most hikers carrying cells bought the cell for non-hiking purposes. In addition, most hikers are not thruhikers. So some sort of a discount rate needs to be incorporated for the cost of the cell. Suppose the hiker is only out 30 days a year, then a factor of 1/12 would be needed.
Also, you could get a tracfone for less than that <$200. $130 gets you a year card, a phone, and 250 units. Or a $30 phone, and a $19.99 purchase every sixty days is only $89.97 for a six month thru. Ouch, now everyone will want one. However, I'm not sure if the phones tracfone sells are Phase II [per Chomp]. There might be better deals out there too.
I can see that eventually the cost of the cell service might surpass the PLB. It depends on how often the person is in the woods and cost of the service. Consider this. The person has a $300 a year cell outlay and they hike 36.5 days a year. The hiking portion of the cell is only $30.00. That means I could invest the other $370. I need an 8.1% annual rate of return to break even with the PLB. But if they buy the tracfone, the hiking portion drops to $13 (1/10 of $130) and they only need a 3.4% rate of return, with $387 invested.
So, let's say, for example: $400 handheld EPRIB vs. cell phone on 6-month thru-hike
$400 up-front for EPIRB :
Cell Phone 0 - $150 ; $40 service per month * 6 months = $240 + variable phone cost x.
so we have400:240 + x
financially, I would hypothesize there is no significant statistical difference in price in these hypothetical values.You are assuming that a) a person is getting a cell phone for the thru hike, as opposed to using one he/she already has, that b) the phone is for emergency (come-rescue-me-with-a-helicopter-now) use only, and that c) the person is not getting the best cell phone for a thruhike.
For those who get a cell phone for the hike, a Trac Phone is the way to go. Phone and service for one year is about $80 (less for a cheaper phone). Cost of calling is per minute, from 10 to 50 cents a minute depending on whether you buy minutes is little or big chunks. But $150 will more than see you through a thru hike.
Of course, cell phone cost is zero for those who already have one, as is likely the case for those who bring them. It would just be sitting at home anyway. And calling on most major plans (Cingular, Verizon) to a spouse is free 24/7 because both have the same provider. In my case, I pay just over $80 a month for four phones and service for me, my wife, my son and his girl friend. Phones were free with a two-year service agreement. I have no long distance charges, no roaming charges. We get something like 600 minutes a month, but that doesn't nights or weekends, which are free, and doesn't include calls to each other, which are free 24/7. For me, using a cell phone on the trail and in trail towns cost me nothing. The phone would just be collecting dust at home.
Anyway, you are offering alternatives to people who don't need alternatives. Those who bring cell phones are satisfied with their decision. They have studied their situation and decided it is best for them. Most will use phones in an emergency, but have them also to talk to spouses at home. A device you propose would not meet the needs of most people who use phones on the trail. Also, one might call for a shuttle with a cell phone. Triggering a personal locator beacon won't do that.
I understand why some people don't like them, but fighting cell phone usage is an exercise in futility. Those like me who are discreet in their use shouldn't bother you, and those who talk loudly on phones in stores, shelters, and restaurants are rude and could not care less what you would like.
People are no more going to give up cell phones on the trail that they are going to go back to using canvas tents, oil slickers, and hob-nailed boots. It jsut ain;t gonna happen.
Best to treat cell phone usage like a sudden, cold rain shower on the trail. Endure it, the rain and the conversation will pass in time. Roll your eyes when you hear Lion King's stockbroker doing business at an overlook, laugh at him, but recognize he has a perfect right to do so. You are asking people to stop doing what they think is best for them, and to do what you think is best for you. Isn't that just the kind of thing you hate in governments?
I carry a couple of Homing Pigeons.
TN_Hiker
04-06-2006, 15:26
That was what is was! For a moment I thought I having flashbacks again :)
i always carry a flare gun with me when i hike. even if i'm not lost, it's a great cure for boredome around the shelter.
i always carry a flare gun with me when i hike. even if i'm not lost, it's a great cure for boredome around the shelter.
If people complain about others using cellphones, what do they think when you pull out your flare gun? :)
I think common sense is the best alternative to cell phone use and actually comes before using a cell phone.
Common sense tells you to:
Know weather conditions and be prepared to be stranded for a period of time.
Let people know where you are going and when you should be in contact with them next.
Travel in pairs at least.
Have a basic understanding of wilderness survival.
Know how to take care of your body including basic first aid.
Know where you are and where you are heading (map/compass/whiteblazes and town markers)
Tha Wookie
04-06-2006, 15:45
If people complain about others using cellphones, what do they think when you pull out your flare gun? :)
I think common sense is the best alternative to cell phone use and actually comes before using a cell phone.
Common sense tells you to:
Know weather conditions and be prepared to be stranded for a period of time.
Let people know where you are going and when you should be in contact with them next.
Travel in pairs at least.
Have a basic understanding of wilderness survival.
Know how to take care of your body including basic first aid.
Know where you are and where you are heading (map/compass/whiteblazes and town markers)
This is perhaps the best suggestion I have ever heard as a reliable alternative to cell phones for safety.
The great thing is that you don't have to sign a contract or finance mountaintop deforestation with a reliance on knowledge and experience over a dependence on cell phones.
It might not have helped me out at sea, but I can see how many people could benefit on the AT or other trails.
Mother's Finest
04-06-2006, 16:41
I am going to use this thread to relate a story about cell phones and their life-saving abilities.
In 1993/94, a very close friend of mine was volunteering with Portland Mountain Rescue. A couple of climbers had been trapped in a blizzard up on Mt Hood. One of them had a cell, and they called for help. My friend, Kent Swanson and his partner braved the blizzard and saved the climbers lives. This story made CNN nationwide, because of the "cell phone rescue".
In 1997, Kent was killed in a helicopter accident on the way to avalanche training up in Canada. Absolutely devestating to everyone that knew him. A few years later, his father decided to do a memorial climb for Kent on Hood. Like the climbers that Kent had saved years earlier, Kent's dad and his party became trapped on Hood, after heavy snow and an avalanche incident. Because he had his cell phone, rescue was called and he and his party's lives were saved.
not sure what my point is, as the conditions on the AT ain't Mt. Hood. I think I just wanted to talk about my friend, that I miss alot when I think about being out in the woods, because that is what we used to do together.
thanks for reading
peace
mf
Rain Man
04-06-2006, 18:13
i always carry a flare gun with me when i hike. even if i'm not lost, it's a great cure for boredome around the shelter.
LOL... for what it's worth, 16-year-old Eric Ryback used a flare to signal a passing trucker in the rain, after Ryback had crossed the Kennebec River SOBO, but couldn't find the AT and had to re-cross the Kennebec the same day to get help.
Oh yes, his pack weighed 60 lbs! He also eventually hiked 48 miles in one day.
"Hiking the Appalachian Trail" Volume Two. So far Ryback's account is as good as Bill Bryson's fiction, only real.
Rain:sunMan
.
max patch
04-06-2006, 18:28
So far Ryback's account is as good as Bill Bryson's fiction, only real.
Rain:sunMan
.
"Real" and "Ryback" don't necesssarily go together.
Lone Wolf
04-06-2006, 18:30
I've heard that about Grandma Gatewood too.
max patch
04-06-2006, 18:33
"Real" and "Ryback" don't necesssarily go together.
For those who don't know what I'm talking about here is a quote from Wikipedia:
The trail may have been first thru-hiked in 1970 by 18-year-old Eric Ryback. Wilderness Press, the publisher of Ryback's 1971 book The High Adventure of Eric Ryback, later claimed that Ryback had "cheated" by accepting rides for part of the distance. Ryback sued for $3 million, but dropped the suit when the publisher produced statements from people claiming to have given Ryback a ride. The truth of Ryback's claim is still debated today.
R
I've heard that about Grandma Gatewood too.
At the 2002 PA Ruck, Earl has some interesting comments to say about Grandma Gatewood along those lines!
Kind of an akward silence thereafter.
About Ryback, some people who did the PCT in 1977 told me they had a term for what we call "yellow blazing" today:
"Rybacking" :D
Just realized this is the "straight forward" forum.
A note to whom ever: Online discussions tends to morph and evolve. Rather than delete comments, you may want to move a mesage to a different discussion forum as appropriate. I can't delete my message ,alas.
i always carry a flare gun with me when i hike. even if i'm not lost, it's a great cure for boredome around the shelter.
Cause a big ol' fire, too.
R
At the 2002 PA Ruck, Earl has some interesting comments to say about Grandma Gatewood along those lines!
Kind of an akward silence thereafter.
So what are you saying? That Jack comes by it honestly? ;)
One question related to the thread. With the proliferation of cell phones, has anyone noticed that payphones are less common these days? They are not as profitable for phone companies, so my old employer (Verizon) was phasing them out wherever they could. I relied on pay phones during my hike, even though I was eligible for a cell phone discount as a Verizon employee. I only sprung for a cell phone in '02 - my 19th and final year of employment with the company, and a full 2 years after my thru-hike.
LostInSpace
04-07-2006, 00:48
I favor the use of Personal Locator Beacons. There is little point in me trying to paraphrase the arguments in favor of using them, as there is an inordinate amount of information already available on the Internet. It might be useful for people to post links to some of the better discussions/commentary that they run across.
I do not have one yet, but I plan to purchase one. I hope never to have to need to activate it. I consider the reason for carrying a PLB similar to the reason for having smoke detectors and fire extinguishers in my house. I live alone and am extremely careful anything that could cause a fire, so a fire is an extremely low probability, but safety equipment just makes good sense.
The following are a couple links that some of you might find informative:
http://www.equipped.com/ritter-commentary_082005.htm
http://www.equipped.com/406_beacon_test_status0205.htm
http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/sarsat.html
If you want to buy a PLB, the following is the lowest price I have been able to find for the ACR unit with the integrated GPS.
ACR AquaFix 406 PLB I/O w/ Internal GPS - Online Marine Price $569.95
www.onlinemarine.com/online_superstore/safety/acr_aquafix_plb.htm
I contacted ACR Electronics. The ACR AcquaFix and the ACR TerraFix are identical in form, fit, and function. They are slightly different in color, name, and accessories because of the difference in target market.
You are assuming that a) a person is getting a cell phone for the thru hike, as opposed to using one he/she already has, that b) the phone is for emergency (come-rescue-me-with-a-helicopter-now) use only, and that c) the person is not getting the best cell phone for a thruhike.
For those who get a cell phone for the hike, a Trac Phone is the way to go. Phone and service for one year is about $80 (less for a cheaper phone). Cost of calling is per minute, from 10 to 50 cents a minute depending on whether you buy minutes is little or big chunks. But $150 will more than see you through a thru hike.
Of course, cell phone cost is zero for those who already have one, as is likely the case for those who bring them. It would just be sitting at home anyway. And calling on most major plans (Cingular, Verizon) to a spouse is free 24/7 because both have the same provider. In my case, I pay just over $80 a month for four phones and service for me, my wife, my son and his girl friend. Phones were free with a two-year service agreement. I have no long distance charges, no roaming charges. We get something like 600 minutes a month, but that doesn't nights or weekends, which are free, and doesn't include calls to each other, which are free 24/7. For me, using a cell phone on the trail and in trail towns cost me nothing. The phone would just be collecting dust at home.
Anyway, you are offering alternatives to people who don't need alternatives. Those who bring cell phones are satisfied with their decision. They have studied their situation and decided it is best for them. Most will use phones in an emergency, but have them also to talk to spouses at home. A device you propose would not meet the needs of most people who use phones on the trail. Also, one might call for a shuttle with a cell phone. Triggering a personal locator beacon won't do that.
I understand why some people don't like them, but fighting cell phone usage is an exercise in futility. Those like me who are discreet in their use shouldn't bother you, and those who talk loudly on phones in stores, shelters, and restaurants are rude and could not care less what you would like.
People are no more going to give up cell phones on the trail that they are going to go back to using canvas tents, oil slickers, and hob-nailed boots. It jsut ain;t gonna happen.
Best to treat cell phone usage like a sudden, cold rain shower on the trail. Endure it, the rain and the conversation will pass in time. Roll your eyes when you hear Lion King's stockbroker doing business at an overlook, laugh at him, but recognize he has a perfect right to do so. You are asking people to stop doing what they think is best for them, and to do what you think is best for you. Isn't that just the kind of thing you hate in governments?
For letting me use your cell phone in Georgia. Some of us aren't angry at the ones we left behind.;)
BTW: I only used it in town, not on the trail or at shelters (I only slept in one, anyway, and it was a big mistake -middle aged, heavy people shouldn't sleep on shelter floors on Ridgerest pads).:(
Once you buy and register an EPIRB, there are no monthly fees (I'm not sure about long-term mainentance).
So, let's say, for example: $400 handheld EPRIB vs. cell phone on 6-month thru-hike
$400 up-front for EPIRB :
Cell Phone 0 - $150 ; $40 service per month * 6 months = $240 + variable phone cost x.
so we have400:240 + x
financially, I would hypothesize there is no significant statistical difference in price in these hypothetical values.
Conclusions:
Over a single season 6-moth thru-gike, EPIRB units are about the same price as cell phones based on hypothetical value estimates. For longer-term, the one-time price of the EPIRB would level out and drop lower than cell phone costs.
However, real questions remain as to the size, weight, and operational efficiency of EPRIB units. More research is needed before a final conclusion.
Tracfone for 99 buck with one yaer card included. Plus, you can talk with it. I have heard they get th best reception too! ;)
http://www.tracfone-orders.com/direct/tr/itemdetl.jsp?prod=2978&tech=TOGSM4&techzip=78701
MedicineMan
04-07-2006, 01:37
one the McAfee Knob hike we found a hiker with a blown out knee....long story but he had a cell, talked him into using it (which is funny in itself)...Troutville Fire Department had our exact position fixed within 60 seconds and in 2 minutes we could hear sirens...my current alternative is a Yeasu VX-2R (4.7oz) and a j-pole ant. at 1.5ounce
LostInSpace
04-07-2006, 01:52
Once you buy and register an EPIRB, there are no monthly fees (I'm not sure about long-term mainentance).
You would need to replace the lithium battery every five years. Because a PLB is not used for non-emergency purposes, as cell phones usually are, you can rely on the PLB to have the necessary power when an emergency does occur. I think the life of the PLB battery life is closer to ten years, but in order for the PLB to meet the specs for length of time the beacon would be operational, the manufactures specify a much shorter battery lifetime.
LostInSpace
04-07-2006, 02:15
The topic is reliable safety and not necessarily restricted to the AT setting.
For the sake of discussion, consider the emergency situation to be something unpredictable and not preventable, like a burst appendix. It could happen to anyone at any time.
Tha Wookie
04-07-2006, 11:34
Tracfone for 99 buck with one yaer card included. Plus, you can talk with it. I have heard they get th best reception too! ;)
Yes, but don't cell phones get poor reception in most backcountry areas, whether it is a tracphone or regular contract phone?
An EPIRB or PBL emits a homing signal that can easily be picked up far outside the range of the cell towers that they put on deforested mountain tops.
In short, a cell phone can't guarantee help, but an EBIRP can.
Yes, but don't cell phones get poor reception in most backcountry areas, whether it is a tracphone or regular contract phone?
An EPIRB or PBL emits a homing signal that can easily be picked up far outside the range of the cell towers that they put on deforested mountain tops.
In short, a cell phone can't guarantee help, but an EBIRP can.Good point. In that one area, when immediate help is needed (heart attack, etc), an EPIRB is superior. But it is such a narrow-functioned piece of gear, I still think a cell phone provides more benefit to the carrier, at least on the AT.
Superior function in one attribute does not make one item a better choice. It's like shelter. A double-walled tent may guarantee freedom from insects whereas a tarp-mosquito bar combo will not, but in many cases a tarp is a better choice. There are often other considerations to take into account.
If you personally want to carry an EPIRB, great. I have no problem with it. For me, though, a cell phone is a better choice on the AT. It meets more of my needs AND costs nothing to throw in my pack (as I am paying for it anyway) vs a $569 purchase. I hope you have no problem with my decision as to what is best for me.
If I were soloing on the North Country Trail, or NW Trail, my choice might be different. On the AT, the choice is clear: a cell phone is a better all-around, more cost-effective, multi-use piece of gear than an IBIRP. For me.
LostInSpace
04-07-2006, 13:56
For me, though, a cell phone is a better choice on the AT. It meets more of my needs AND costs nothing to throw in my pack (as I am paying for it anyway) vs a $569 purchase. I hope you have no problem with my decision as to what is best for me.
Frosty, I have no problem with your choice. However, I am of the opinion that although we each must make choices, our choices have no direct bearing on the reliability of a safety device for emergency use. For the most part, one device is inherently more reliable than another for comparable use.
You are quite correct about having to make a decision. It is essentially a risk management decision.
1. What are the risks?
2. What is the probability of us realizing any risk as an actual emergency?
3. What are the possibilities for mitigating the risks and how do they compare in terms of effectiveness?
4. What are the costs of mitigating the risks?
5. What are the consequences of the emergency factoring in the reliability of each possible mitigation option, or lack thereof?
Some of the answers to #3 may be "more effective or reliable" but be solution may be prohibitive, undesirable, etc.
The cost of PLBs has come down. I have thought about how long to wait for a greater decrease. I have, and will continue to on occasion, backpack in areas where I am 2-3 days at best by foot from any assistance. Conseqently, for me, it is worthwhile to get a PLB and use it any time I hike solo, even in less risky settings such as the AT. Many times I have day-hiked in the winter in Shenandoah NP and have not seen anyone on the trails.
SGTdirtman
04-07-2006, 15:36
Heres my opinion, Cell phone signal can be unreliable. BUT so can any other form of emergency signaling.
Say you shoot off a flare, someone has to see it... and on top of that they have to actually care. I've shot flares off in the woods before where I know people could see them. but no one thinks twice about it.
Same goes for those beacon thingie majiggers, someone has to be monitoring it and assume its not just someone screwing around.
Being able to call and talk to 911 on a cell phone theres no waiting and hoping you'll be saved. you know there going to show up (providing you got a signal) and Cell phone GPS systems are pretty darn accurate.
In my opinion phones are still the best emergency system.
Tha Wookie
04-07-2006, 18:03
For me.
Can't argue with the ending;)
I have, and will continue to on occasion, backpack in areas where I am 2-3 days at best by foot from any assistance. Conseqently, for me, it is worthwhile to get a PLB and use it any time I hike solo, even in less risky settings such as the AT. Many times I have day-hiked in the winter in Shenandoah NP and have not seen anyone on the trails.I think winter hiking, especially midweek, is a far more risky setting than hiking the AT with the NoBo "herd."
Not seeing people on the trail does indeed make you wonder what would happen if you were incapacitated.
Winter hiking has its own set of rules, IMO. If you know you are going into an area without cell phone service, even for day hikes, the best safety alternative (other than a PLB) is carrying a pad and sleeping bag, perhaps some chemical hand/foot warmers, and letting someone know where you are and when you should return. The ability to survive a few hours or overnight while waiting for help is crucial.
I love winter hiking. No bugs, few people. But the consequences of bad decisions and/or bad luck are very severe.
(I also carry a GPS when winter hiking, but that is a hot topic for another thread :D )
The most reliable alternative to cell phones for safety starts with you, the hiker.Planning ahead, being prepared for the worst and having an alternate plan in the event of inclement weather, injury or what have you.
I have never in 35 years hiked with a cell phone, flare,beacon, or any other hi-tech device to save my bacon. How I have managed to survive without these devices is beyond me. Most of my hiking has been in Maine and NH, all seasons including winter. I am astonished at this need for hi-tech gizmos in today's hiking fraternity for safety. Not all of you thou have this need. And I applaud this sense of self sufficiency.
My son recently attended a first responder training class, and the instructor suggested the use of a handheld Air Band Radio, such as an Icom IC-A5 Sport. It is very small, uses AA batteries, and has about a 3 mile range in open terrain (according to ICOM). The beauty of this approach is that you can scan in, and ultimately talk to aircraft, either private or military. Most anywhere you go, there are aircraft around. If you have an emergency, they can relay or patch the message through to an airport, and ultimately to the US Air Force Search and Rescue group. According to the instructor, this group rescues folks for free, and actually welcomes an opportunity to practice their SAR skills.
I'm not sure if this approach is sanctioned, legal, etc. but since the radios can be purchased in the $200-300 range, and also include weather channels, it seems like an alternative to sat phones, epirbs, etc.
Can anyone comment on this approach ?
SteveK