Two way satellite phones are already here with Iridum but (for many) the cost is too much - typically £700+ for the phone and about £30 a month. Plus they are about 3 times the size and do not integrate a GPS or have the tracking functions.

I am sure that people would still use mobile phones 'where possible' as after all they get reassurance that something is being done - certainly more than pressing a button on an orange box.

With Spot you have to buy the box, pay the subscription and register your contact / payment details and there are 3 different types of 'alert' depending on the message you want to send. So although the potential is there it is far from anonymous so I would hope that abuse is less likely and also if one were abused then Spot or the emergency services probably have the ability to cut it off / ignore it.

Certainly (from what I have heard) with PLB's (which are a similar type of technology although more expensive initially) there has not been much 'abuse'.

Would hardly say it is 'extravagant' technology and it is probably far easier that people who do go to more remote areas consider carrying something like this (in case of emergency) that try and persuade mobile phone companies to put masts up at huge cost in areas where they could never make a profit.

The problem with cost is you want to make it cheap enough so that people who need it can afford it so it is not too much of a barrier - but not too cheap so it could be abused. After all if you wanted to abuse the system you could buy a £20 PAYG mobile - walk somewhere remote - call 999 tell them you have fallen and broken you leg - a lot cheaper and far less traceable than Spot.

Barking Mad wrote (see)

The problem with cost is you want to make it cheap enough so that people who need it can afford it so it is not too much of a barrier - but not too cheap so it could be abused. After all if you wanted to abuse the system you could buy a £20 PAYG mobile - walk somewhere remote - call 999 tell them you have fallen and broken you leg - a lot cheaper and far less traceable than Spot.

I don't think deliberate malicious abuse is a problem. What about the selfish people who think tiredness, or that they have no food, is a good reason to call out MRT? A high percentage of call-outs are for trivial reasons. This can  be 'sorted' over the phone. With a SPOT alarm, no dialogue with the 'casualty' is possible.

 How long will it be before rescuers arrive after a SPOT call-out to find that the 'casualty' thinks they might miss their train home, so need a lift?

I guess it is one of those things that will happen once and they may find their Spot cut-off or ignored. The point is they are for use where you *cannot* make a phone call - I am sure most people carrying a Spot would also carry a mobile phone and IF they could they would use that instead.

One of the key things with an emergency would be knowing someone was coming or to be able to get advice (if someone was hurt etc.) - that is an obvious shortcoming with any one-way / PLB or Spot type system - but as an additional measure for when you cannot call or so other people can (optionally) track your progress it is a good idea.

The potential for abuse (however minimal) is always possible but you have to balance it against lives saved that may otherwise have been lost.

I think the first 'trivial' user of the SPOT has to be publicly named and shamed so others get the message.

 I'm arguing against myself here, but that hasn't stopped trivial phone call outs. mmmmmm?

Mike, you have understood the thrust of my concerns.

Of course we get malicious hoaxes, but generally we can tell when that is the case with inconsistencies in the conversation, and even if we send just to be sure, we can scale down the response to a minimum.

The potential for inappropriate use rather than malicious is what might be of concern to the emergencies services.

An example from our point of view is when someone rings 999 at 0300 on a Saturday morning complaining of toothache. Absolutely nothing the Ambulance services can do about that, but to that person, it is the most real emergency on earth at that time.

If the system is exclusive, then there is some control over it, if it becomes too popular, then indeed people may be pressing it because they need to get a message to relatives to pick the kids up from school because the walker miscalculated and is overdue.(A true call to 999 on one occasion!)

Publicly naming and shaming certainly doesn't stop inappropriate 999 calls!

I suppose that I am saying that I hope the blossoming popularity of this system does not devalue it in the eyes of the emergency services, which it ineviably would if abused.

It might indeed then have greater repercussions!

A  cautionery tale I suppose!

A PLB is a similar device widely used on boats and planes and (certainly as far as I have read) they have not found the system to be abused. The only major difference is that they are more expensive 'up front' (about £350) but then have no annual fee - so over a period of 4-5 years the cost is similar.

Would certainly 'hope' that someone who would invest £100-150 up front on the device and £50-75 a year would be 'responsible' but equally I would not be against deactivating devices and / or charging people for 'false' emergency call-outs.

I believe if they do receive an emergency alert they do try and contact the people you have listed as contacts (i.e. yourself / other people you nominate) to try and verify the unit has not been lost and it is likely to be a 'real' alert before calling the emergency services.

Think Spot try and make it quite clear that the 'emergency' button is really meant for (near) life or death situations as it will cause a response from the emergency services. Since the units are traceable to the individual (and I believe they continue to broadcast your location if you press the emergency button) I would 'hope' it would make malicious call-outs far less likely.

Overall it should result in the system being there to help both the victim and the emergency services resolve the incident ASAP (which of course is in the interest of everyone)!

Barking Mad wrote (see)

Overall it should result in the system being there to help both the victim and the emergency services resolve the incident ASAP (which of course is in the interest of everyone)!

We have been through this element of this discussion before. There is a MASSIVE difference in boats and aircraft using such technology because they obviously traverse vast stretches of water where if navigational aids fail, they might have no idea where they are should they need to summon help.

Again, we are not concerned with "malicious" call outs, although if one is stolen from a parked car, vandals might have a bit of "fun" with one if the owner doesn't realise it has gone missing before reporting it stolen.

We are back to the acid test of who determines what constitutes an emergency severe enough to use the device.

In the hands of the few, easy to control, in the hands of the masses, much more difficult!

cysgod-du (Grand Slam 2008) wrote (see)

SPOT - how it works

.

Before SPOT... before mobile phones... before even CB was legal...

I was waiting with two teachers for three D of E groups to arrive in Elterwater. Two groups arrived, but the third group didn't turn up at the agreed time. I'm not joking, but the very second their ETA had passed, one of those teachers made straight for the phone box to dial 999. It took me and the other teacher to wrestle her out of the phone box and try and calm her down. It was 30 minutes before the group turned up, by which time the teacher was practially having a panic attack. She then turned purple with rage and demanded to know where they'd been.

"Somewheeeeere over the rainbow," they chorused!

Of course, they'd snook off to some pub for a bit of under-age drinking. But, as has been mentioned above, it's all too easy for someone to flip and call out the rescue services when there simply is no need for it. If mobile phones, or a SPOT device had been available to that teacher, I've no doubt she would have got the rescue out before we could have stopped her.

Bottom line,

Mobiles tend only to work where there is line of sight to a relay, so if you are on a summit, fine, so long as there are not loads of summits obstructing your signal. So, if you break a leg on a summit with good coverage, great but if you break a leg anywhere else in mountainous country you are f****d unless you are Bear Grylls. What are the chances that you are going to do yourself serious injury where there is good mobile phone signal? Pretty slim I imagine but if you have "companions" all well and good, if you don't, tough s**t. SPOT costs less than the mobile I use (and not often enough to make it economical) and is far more likely to get me rescued or at least to tell where my bones lie, so I guess I might get one.

When you say...

"And it's in the 'interest' of whoever is importing it into this country that any negative arguments against are countered?"

What 'exactly' do you mean?

There seems to be a lot of negativity aired here regarding this type of device (when infact it is really very similar to a PLB that has been around for years). I think the chance for abuse is actually pretty slim consider they are traceable (have to be registered etc.) and realistically would only be used where there was no mobile coverage.

Also seems people miss the point that even if there were a few false call-outs - surely that is acceptable if it means lives are saved by genuine ones.

Barking Mad wrote (see)

.......................................................

Also seems people miss the point that even if there were a few false call-outs - surely that is acceptable if it means lives are saved by genuine ones.

What about the lives potentially put in danger whilst the Emergency services are on wild goose chases that cannot be verified at the time of the call?

It would be ideal IF people only used them where there is no other alternative, but I bet you they won't!

We simply do not have the resources to cope with this potential.

Any perceived negativity are genuine concerns and a realisation that this is not the perfect innocent solution that the manufacturers would have us believe.

The perfect solutution would be for mobile phones to work 'anywhere' - never run out of battery power and have built in GPS's - the fact is that currently (and for the forseeable future) that is not going to happen.

A satellite phone is probably the next best option but the cost is going to be prohibitive for many people and they are quite a lot larger and heavier than either a PLB / Spot or a current mobile phone.

Spot is really almost the same as PLB's that have been around for years - the only difference is the up front cost is lower but they charge a subscription instead - i.e. they probably subsidise the units knowing they are going to have a subscription instead (bit similar to how contract mobile phones are sold in the UK).

People seem to imagine users are going to abuse Spot - well PLB's don't appear to be abused and I would certainly like to think most people buying this sort of thing would be buying it to be 'responsible' and I am sure most people would use a mobile phone (in preference and if possible) to abtually speak to a human and know someone is coming to help.

The fact is they are here so time will tell - what happened to innocent until proven guilty? From what I have seen they have the potential to save lives and provide peace of mind (with the tracking feature) to people back at home etc. I am sure the emergency services would 'accept' a few more false alerts if it also meant a few more lives saved as well?

Personally I do think people should be charged for false call-outs and / or have their unit deactivated.

Just to add... I have been reading some of the call-outs for Mountain Resue teams - seems quite a lot of the call outs are from other people where the walker(s) are later than expected or where other people perceive they may be in trouble.

Certainly in the first case Spot could have helped reduce the number of call outs - either by the owner clicking the 'Check in' (i.e. I'm ok!) button or if they were using the tracking feature you can see where they have been and where they are. My point being it could actually help reduce some of the false call outs.

Also seems quite a lot of call-outs took a long time to locate the people they were looking for - at least with a system like Spot they know exactly (to within perhaps 10-20 metres) where they are - significantly reducing the time for a rescue which is obviously beneficial for MR teans and the person / people they are rescuing.

I suppose I am being selfish here, because throughout I have been referring to false calls to the Emergency Services and by that I mean the under resourced statutory emergency services, not the volunteer MRTs.

I suppose they might well excuse the odd false call on the premise that they want to be out there and it is their only voluntary consideration, although it is possible in the extreme for an MRT to be diverted to a false call when a genuine call then comes in.

That is the point that you are entirely choosing to ignore, the fact that how would they know the priority of a call generated by SPOT, if they need to split/divert resources? 

Statutory Emergency resources like the Police and Ambulance can do without the potential for such false/inappropriate calls; we just don't have the resources.

It is not a case of innocent until proven guilty either. You have swallowed the system hook line and sinker no questions asked. Some of us are merely pointing out that there ARE some negative aspects that do exist which need to be addressed before the technology runs wild and is "tolerated" with limitations, rather than being set up with safeguards.

That is typical of this country mind ewe, to allow concessions, rather than setting something up properly.

I am worried that if this becomes too popular via the usual back door entry into the UK, and is "tolerated", rather than being properly researched and set up, then it will devalue it's use and it will become a less effective method.

You can guarantee too that if it became common place, people will take it instead of mobiles and will use them instead when they could be talking to control room operators.

Now it might well be OK in the wilds of Scotland where there are limited communications and were there may well be keen and enthusiast MRT bods itching for a call out, you can guarantee though that when such calls are generated in the Brecon Beacons for example, where generally it would not be necessary, the authorities will not be amused!

It is not the system on trial, it does what it says on the tin, it is the implications and responsibilities of the triggered call that is in question!

An example of what I mean is why not develop a UK version that can send preloaded text messages via satelite using some sort of menu system, rather than "here Iam, I need help!"

Of course people would complain, because it wold inevitably cost more. BUT, would it not be worth it for "peace of mind?"

<If you have a broken leg press one>

<if you have a broken arm press two>

<if you have broken a finger nail PIZZ OFF!>