Hacker News Reader

Comment by thaumaturgy | Hacker News Reader

I'm in search and rescue near the Tahoe area.

So far we've had good luck with beacon call-outs. The cases we've responded to have almost entirely been folks that were legitimately stuck or lost, and yes, they were somewhat under-prepared for the situation they were in, but that's just the modern reality of outdoor play and it makes no more sense to expect all recreationists to be perfectly prepared than it makes to expect all software developers to build some idealized unit-tested software.

I have heard from other SAR groups that the beacons have been a mixed bag, and they're getting too many call-outs from people who just got tired and want a ride home. Those people deserve a verbal chewing-out from the local coordinator, but on balance I'd still rather everyone go out with beacons and have a good time and hit that button if they need to.

View on HN

> I have heard from other SAR groups that the beacons have been a mixed bag, and they're getting too many call-outs from people who just got tired and want a ride home. Those people deserve a verbal chewing-out from the local coordinator, but on balance I'd still rather everyone go out with beacons and have a good time and hit that button if they need to.

Agreed. Recognizing that you're in over your head and calling for help before a life-threatening situation is an incredibly difficult call to make. A story I've heard is of someone struggling on a trip with friends deciding not to make the call for rescue, and then falling to their deaths from an exposed part of the trail.

The other argument for calling for help when you're in over your head in a non-critical situation (e.g dehydrated and exhausted and a ways out) is that it's hopefully lower risk for the rescuers than other SAR situations.

What are your thoughts on two-way communicators eg; inReach? I've largely replaced my PLB with an inReach (though when in a group I have another person carry the PLB) because in an emergency situation I can communicate with rescuers about the exact nature of the emergency.

Eg; if I need an air evac vs. I broke my leg and can't walk out. Or if I can get medical advice from a rescuer. Similarly I can communicate dangers the rescuers may face.

LOVE InReach and we recommend 'em to anybody that can handle the sticker shock.

The InReach is far superior. You can communicate with rescuers, but you can also communicate with anyone with a phone number or an email address. This is extremely useful if you have a minor emergency and just need a friend to pick you up at a road somewhere or you just need more food or water. On the other hand, you can also tell rescuers that you need a helicopter immediately and not wait for people to hike to where you are.

The InReach also has tracking, so if you go missing and don't activate the beacon, they'll have a very good idea of where to look for you. I've also found it very useful for arranging pickups/meetings if I'm behind schedule or plans change.

The device itself is about the same price as a PLB, but there is a service charge. The basic plan is $15/mo, but you can turn it on and off at any time, so if you only go on a couple of trips per year, the price isn't overwhelmingly more than a PLB.

> I have heard from other SAR groups that the beacons have been a mixed bag, and they're getting too many call-outs from people who just got tired and want a ride home.

It seems like charging people for the cost of the rescue would solve that problem.

How about if a judge gets to decide if they are required to be force-enrolled in to a class that teaches safety in similarly fitting situations and/or some quantity of community service from a list of activities that are fitting of rehabilitation and improving the commons.

I'm pleased to say that a handful of past search subjects have gone on to become SAR volunteers themselves, so some people already do this without needing a judge's involvement.

Those would enormously prohibit calling in, more than money for many people due to the potential public embarrassment, let alone the time, extra required PTO and potential cognitive load from the legal situation.

If it's embarrassing there is already an EXTREMELY high chance some local news agency will cover it sooner or later already. Yes, even more so if those in need don't call and end up dead.

Adding negative consequences to "false calls" could have a chilling effect on real calls. You don't want people to have to weigh whether they should try to tough it out and risk heat stroke vs. risk a charged rescue. On balance, it's probably better to have false positives here than false negatives.

SAR and Mountain Rescue Association groups are almost entirely opposed to any form of pay-for-rescue, including the kind of "negligence fines" that a few agencies like New Hampshire's Fish and Game department levies.

It's not just a theoretical possibility that people will hesitate to call for rescue if they think they'll be charged for it, it's something that has already happened in a lot of cases. When people delay a call for rescue, it complicates search and rescue efforts and may even further endanger rescuers.

A great example of this is injuries that worsen to the point that they require evac by helicopter. Helicopters are an over-used tool in SAR and they are extremely dangerous. It's much safer for us if we can just hike out to you, triage a minor injury, and escort you out on foot or by litter if necessary. If we arrive and you're delirious with pain, exhaustion, or dehydration, those options have just gone off the table.

Another really unfortunate related issue is the number of people that think they have to wait a certain period of time before reporting someone overdue or missing. That's not at all the case, especially where children are involved. We would much rather get out while the potential search area is only a few square miles than get called when it's gone up to 30 or more square miles, even if it means we more frequently get woken up in the middle of the night only to get a "disregard, subject located" notification 20 minutes later.

I have a number of statements available from various SAR groups and other articles on this subject if anyone's interested.

Just as an anecdote I received a fairly significant injury while on a multi-day climb in the French Alps this past summer and my climbing partner and I had a significant discussion regarding the cost of a rescue that definitely factored in to our decision whether or not to keep climbing.

I bought rescue insurance the next day.

In France mountain rescue is provided free of charge by the french state (only exception is when you are skiing on an official ski run). In Switzerland it’s not free, and almost all the population is a member of the 2 main associations that will cover the costs.

I agree in the general case but NH has a special situation since most of the people falling down ravines trying to take the perfect selfie are from outside their taxing jurisdiction (so it's not like they're footing the bill at the end of the day) and much of their government operations are funded by fees at/near the point of service (as opposed to from taxes) so having a "rescue fee" kind of makes sense for them.

> SAR and Mountain Rescue Association groups are almost entirely opposed to any form of pay-for-rescue

However, people that spend much time away from civilization ought to have Global Rescue or something similar. I support government and non profit rescue efforts and funding, but ultimately people participating in relatively risky adventures should bear some responsibility for having rescue insurance — and such insurance is pretty cheap. I’ve seen hikers with $300 hiking poles, $300 hiking boots, expensive GoreTex and yet they scoff at paying for insurance to cover the very expensive costs for rescue. A helicopter can cost $1000+ per hour to operate and people going into the backcountry are assuming a level of risk that they ought to be responsible for insuring.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com