Technology that makes rescuers want to lock up hikers

Perhaps you might be one of those who believes that there should be a very remote and unremitting island, somewhere in the Northern Baltic Sea, reserved for all those who act in an utterly inconsiderate manner.

You know these people well: those who sneeze and don't cover their mouths; those who come to your house for dinner and don't bring a bottle or a smile; and those, at least for members of the rescue services, who have bought a personal locator beacon.

According the the Associated Press, as these beacons have become cheaper, there appear to have been more cases of people setting them off to alert rescue helicopters of imminent disaster.

Imminent disaster such as post-thunderstorm stress disorder or rather salty water drinking syndrome.

You may think this cannot be true. But here is a story the AP offers from the National Park Service in Arizona.

A few dads took their sons for a hike somewhere around the Grand Canyon. They ran out of water, so they activated their beacon. Soon, rescuers found the party. Oh, what joy they experienced to discover that the dads and boys had found a stream. Help was not needed after all.

After a couple of beers, might someone alert the services for a refill?

(Credit: CC Besighyawn/Flickr)

However, they set their beacon off again a few hours later. Had a dad been devoured by a Bigfoot? Had a son become lunch for a bear? No, the hiking half-formed were worried that they might soon suffer dehydration because the water they had found tasted salty.

Which was a shame, as the rescue services were so concerned that they sent out a helicopter that was rather well equipped with night vision capabilities.

Your throat may temporarily cease to function when I tell you that this experience did not deter the fathers and sons from having faith in their beacon. The next day, they set it off again. Which caused the authorities to have them removed and cited for being utter and total morons who should never be allowed near the ACG section of Niketown ever again.

I'm sorry, that might not be quite accurate. The actual words were "creating a hazardous condition."

This might be an extreme incident. However, someone did once activate their beacon when they were frightened by a thunderstorm, the type of event that caused the top man at the California Search and Rescue operations to create a rather fine name for these personal locator beacons: Yuppie 911.

Matt Scharper, who co-ordinates rescue efforts in California, told the AP: "With the Yuppie 911, you send a message to a satellite and the government pulls your butt out of something you shouldn't have been in in the first place."

The people who risk their lives by flying helicopters and allowing themselves to sometimes get far too close to people with the mind and body odor of a desperate rodent, think that inexperienced hikers are buying these beacons--they can be had for as little as $129.99--in the belief that they can negotiate terrain that is far beyond their minds and bodies.

But what can you do? How do you know that a piece of technology is in the hands of a decent citizen or an utter offal-muncher?

Surely some brilliant engineer might solve this conundrum. Otherwise, let's vote for a two-strike rule and it's off to the northern Baltic with you. Sans personal locator beacon.

[yogibear224]

There are similar devices in all new Cirrus aircraft. The emergency parachute system. That would be the system that a certain baseball player was bragging about ["I can never have a serious accident with this" etc.] about 2 days before he a) flew in weather he shouldn't have, b) Wasn't talking to air traffic control the whole time like anyone with a clue does when they fly up the East River, c) Didn't just bust the LGA airspace, turn around and apologize like any decent pilot and d) (here's the kicker) when faced with a choice of turning left, towards the BIG HIGH buildings or right, where there were NO BUILDINGS AT ALL (at least none more than 5 stories high), turned LEFT. But it's OK. He had a parachute..... Which takes 4 seconds to deploy, and his turn / crash took 2...

Devices that make you do things you would NOT DO if you did not have them are NOT safety devices. They make you LESS SAFE. And people who set them off in non emergencies should be increasingly fined to the extent that they can't afford to go to national parks any more...

How about.... The third time you do it, you get the bill for the search and rescue helicopter... That would make people think twice.... :)

Seriously, we can't make people hmmm and hah about declaring an emergency, genuine emergencies will be missed. But people who habitually pull this stuff....... they should feel it where it hurts... the wallet.

[dracoaffectus]

They should really fine people if they use it in a non-emergency situation. Of course, the term "emergency situation" would have to be clearly defined.

I remember when I worked in a warehouse, the owner got fined a few times for the alarm going off when there was no break in. The city had sent cops over to check it out, since it was a false alarm, the building was fined.

[cristate67]

No, no waiting till the third time to be billed. A fine on the first time, billed for the full cost incurred the second time, and jail the third time.

[dwreid]

As with any home alarm system you should be fined for any false alarm beyond the first one. The fine should cover the actual cost of the rescue team. Simple.

[caswell1515]

too true

[solitare_pax]

Makes sense.

But a self-destruct system in one of things would help take care of the problem too.

*BOOM!*

[dwreid]

As with any home alarm system you should be fined for any false alarm beyond the first one. The fine should cover the actual cost of the rescue team. Simple.

[korts]

Wow. As a pilot who's been involved in search and rescue, I can't believe that these devices don't come with a tutorial regarding appropriate use. These idiots should be billed for the cost of the helo launch unless a true emergency exists. The tutorial might describe the actual cost of launching a SAR asset, so that even a moron can weigh the direness of his situation with some accuracy.

[1nerdse]

Restrict these devices as if they were lethal weapons - because they are. Any copter out rescuing a yuppie from their inability to determine how much water they need for a hike, is not available to help someone in real need, someone who might die from the delay. And no law enforcement agency is going to have the courage to do anything about it, like press criminal charges for misuse of public emergency resource.

My son suggested this: No permission to buy one until you've passed a survival course for the ultimate level of the outdoors - in that way, the people who have them would know how to survive even without them, and would only activate them for genuine emergencies. I agree. It's the only way.

I agree about the fines. Banning them from one place, with their incomes, doesn't mean they're banned from other facilities. Confiscating them means nothing. These Yuppies that have money to throw away buying these things - $129.99 is NOT cheap for most of us - will just buy another one if it's confiscated. Since if a kid pulls a fire alarm at school, their parents are usually fined the cost of the call, and if people do stupid things that get them in trouble, they can be fined for the rescue costs, a fine is essential, if not for the first offense, definitely for the second and any subsequent.

Here's where I think the engineers come in: Disable ALL of them, after publicizing that they will do so, and have people show proof that they have survival skills prior to reactivating them. It shouldn't be that hard; people who are skilled at dealing with the outdoors are usually well known to at least one major outdoor facility, state or federal, and their skill level is usually quite obvious to people who do search and rescue. Everyone else has to go to school so they're safe out there, or pay a guide who does have a beacon to take them on their hikes. It would be a source of income for people who might not have jobs from the recession but may be skilled in living off the land, to be able to make money from giving classes to Yuppies. They should charge a lot just for listening to the BS about how the Yuppie is an Important Person who does Not Have Time For This, because that is all you'll hear. Yuppies excel at whining about how important they are and how much everyone else is inconveniencing them. I am a nurse. Healthcare workers have to deal with them in every suburban hospital out there (one reason I never worked in suburban hospitals; I'd have been arrested for b---h slapping stupid yuppies who don't care how sick other people are because they have "real insurance," since they assume everyone else there is on Medicaid or Medicare, and that apparently entitles them to have their splinters removed by an elite surgical team while the people bleeding to death wait for whoever's left over, even if it's the janitor).

[xim1970]

I once got completely lost after dark while geocaching. My GPS was running completely amok, despite running well enough to get me to the cache, (and my own desire to trek through the woods further), I couldn't retrace my route (admittedly, I was a 1-year novice at the time). Nothing like noticing your surroundings to get you out! Finally found the hay-bales that I had entered next to, and found my way back to my car. GPS will get you to many places, but it is your own senses that can get you out when the GPS fails.

[sparrowhyperion]

What is needed is some kind of training/certification program before Yuppies, Muppies, and Guppies are allowed within ten miles of one. And escalating fines to keep them honest. People like those cited in this story are a prime example of what happens when Natural Selection is taken out of the evolutionary equation.

[lwoolsey]

Ok soo here lies the problem: The companies that sell this are making a buck off the ignorant. So it would be unlawful for the company who sold them to de-activate them, so unfortunately that is not a viable option. Also, I think marooning them on an island might pose some legal issues. But I do think that a very reasonable solution would be for the rescue teams to buy them in bulk, and "rent" them out to people who hike in dangerous regions. Now comes the easy part if you want to rent one out (which for some people who actually need them might be more financially reasonable) you have to READ and sign a form saying that you would only use them in emergency situations.

Even old people who have those for slip and fall emergencies know not to use them if they are out of prune juice and can't make it to the store.

Maybe someone will read this who actually has some say in the matter...otherwise I hope it at least entertains someone.

Leon

[biffhenerson]

Sell rescue insurance. Charge for "certain types" of rescues. When a person goes on a cruiseship, the cruiseline offers insurance to pay for a helicopter evacuation to shore in the event of a medical emergency.

[sanenazok]

I may be in a minority here but I don't like people who complain about having to do their jobs. The rescuers are out to rescue people, not sit on their bums all day. So a few people call in fake emergencies, is that really new? Sorry to burst your bubble, but the solution is extremely simple - fines and cost recovery. So the rescuers sent out an expensive helicopter? Have the idiots pay for it. At least be glad that you have it available and didn't have to trek out yourselves. Once these hikers pay $12,000 the company selling the beacons will put a warning on the packaging and by going after these people the rescue services will look like they actually care about keeping costs down. Instead, it's just moaning and groaning about technology that when used correctly will certainly save lives.

[bluemist9999]

I think many people, including myself, agree with your sentiment --- that people who use these in non-emergency situations should have to pay the full cost of the "rescue" operation.

But it's not reasonable to allow people to use the beacons, with no real emergency, without paying the consequences for their false alarm---namely a large fine to cover the cost of the rescuers coming out. I think that is what is happening in the cases listed on the article.

[Byteme2009]

@ sanenazok

On the one hand I can understand you not liking people who complain about doing their jobs, but when it comes to rescue personnel I think it is a little different. Someone gets scared in a major thunderstorm and sets off one of these beacons and you have a crew going out in a helicopter that is at that point putting their lives at risk. Yes they are paid to do rescues, but again this is for when there is someone who actually needs rescuing. I find it infuriating that people go and climb mountains, go wilderness wandering, etc., with little to no training and then expect to be rescued when this can put other people at risk.

Yes, this equipment could save lives, but again this would only be when a life is indeed in danger. The other thing with this is that if these items continue to grow in popularity then you could end up in a situation where some moron who doesn't need saving sets one off, and while a team is dispatched their services are truly needed elsewhere and someone dies because the rescuers are busy tracking down someone who got scared by a noise in the woods.

When it comes to sending out a helicopter, even experienced pilots run into situations that are beyond their control and turn bad - we lost how many American personnel in helicopter incidents in the last day or two? Was it 16?

[lwoolsey]

I understand your argument, however, I was trying to think of a way of taking people who use these distress signals ignorantly and unnecessarily, and teaching them. Not just yelling "off with their heads" and fine them too. I was trying to point out that these people spend 129.99 and think it gives them the right to use these. Instead they need to understand the privilege they have, and the responsibilities they have as hikers. Also, this would make these available to everyone. If they required that they read a waver and then acknowledge their consequences of a false alarm, maybe they will think before they use them. Furthermore, they should require that they come back on the helicopter if they send the distress. If you are scared enough to send the signal then you should just get out while you can, its a RESCUE team not a phone a friend.

[rvisokey]

There is a better solution. www.trailnote.com

[ashralis]

I think people miss the point that when an emergency service is called, it always must assume a severe situation - where somebody may be minutes from death; it therefore always throws great financial expense and a dash of human risk into making a rescue. The article kind of missed the ball by only giving examples, and not directly stating the seriousness of an emergency call, especially a wilderness one. It is much more expensive and difficult and dangerous to get to a person when one can't simply drive quickly on a road. But that is not to understate the seriousness of calling even an ambulance, because driving one of those in traffic is no safe thing either.

[fondy]

Here where I live, the local government started something called revenue recovery. If you call 911 for ambulance, fire, police, the county sends you a bill to help cover the cost of the service. I can't believe something similar doesn't apply to using these things.