[/quote]mrphil wrote:I get alleviating worry and all, but let's say for a minute that you're planning to be out for 10 days. You've sent an "I'm OK" text for the first eight of them, then on the ninth, your batteries die/you're in a deep canyon/under heavy canopy/leave it on a rock... with no signal to be sent or received...Do eight days of comforting moments then get replaced with two more days of staggering panic because the established norm has gone out the window? You're otherwise fine, but a technical glitch or reliability issue (which is part and parcel to most devices with two-way communication capabilities) begins a situation where fear of something far more serious (worse case scenario) is then expected, and SAR teams are dispatched and potentially placed in unnecessary danger, and resources that could've or should've been better expended elsewhere are deployed on a "false alarm" when they didn't need to be. All because of a misunderstanding that was based, first on fear, followed closely by an overreaction to it. Lessers of evils? Realistic and rational scenarios aren't usually what an already worried mind will create and run with.
We hear way too many stories about the regular communication expectations of family members not being met and triggering SAR incidents needlessly. For example: Maverick recently posted a SAR report for a 70 year old PCT hiker. Not hearing from him for several days (as was the expected norm) after he resupplied in Bishop, his family became concerned and notified the authorities. They issued an inquiry and probably some sort of initial search. Herr Vitt was thankfully not in trouble, and who knows what happened with his comms falling off, but he was found absolutely booking it up by Burney Falls. So, what was the real problem that needed responding to?
I've never heard of an instance where SAR responded due to a 1-2 day break in communication from a sat-based device. Until then, it's not a possible scenario to consider. Spot failed to trasmit for 2-3 days in August 2014. My wife was worried, yes, but "staggering panic"? No. And despite that incident, she still wants me carrying a device. She very much has a say in my decision.
Maverick posted the thread about Mr. Vitt 12 days after he was expected to be at Red's Meadow. I assume that Mr. Vitt told someone he'd check in with them when he got there. Not sure what this has to do with the decision to carry a PLB.
When I'm 70, and my family doesn't hear from me for 12 days after they expect to, I hope they contact the Ranger.
We often see stories of hikers missing for several days, but nobody knew they were missing because they didn't tell anyone where they were going and when they were expected to return. Searches sometimes begin only after authorities see the same parked several times, collecting dust. By then it's often too late.
There's a balance, and it's a personal decision. I just don't see how these scenarios are relevant to that decision.