In-Reach/Spot-X vs PLB

[sneaky]

I have the full size InReach. The mini just doesn't really appeal to me from its lack of features I have on my full size unit. I hear more complaints of signal strength texting on minis than full size units. I have zero intent on adding a PLB to my repertoire.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Cliffy12]

If you read most of the complaints they are expecting instantaneous responses from texts just like your cell phone. That's not how they work. I haven't heard of any cases yet where the SOS service didn't work as designed. I've even read guys posting reviews where they sent a text, didn't get an instant response and turned the unit off, only to get the reply the next time they turned it on. I've had no issues with my InReach.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I was kind of thinking that was how it was. I didn't read anything about sos not getting through. I like having the full size for GPS location back up if my phone crashes or dies. Thanks for the reply.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[LaHunter]

I have the DeLorme InReach SE and have never had any issues with the text messages not going through within a minute or so. I don't have expectations of being able to have a text message conversation with this device, I primarily have it for the SOS function and being able to send a text or two back home each day letting the family know I am alive and well.

 

[Mosby]

I have a PLB. I wanted something simple that should work, no matter where I am. I always have it when I am alone.

 

[Vandy321]

A good read, with links, for some interesting data on NOAA SARSAT (PLB) vs Iridium (Garmin) rescue satellite networks.

https://backpackinglight.com/forums/topic/acr-plb-vs-inreach/

 

[MTSabo]

I couldnt be happier with my garmin inreach. Ive had no issues and have used it quite extensively.

 

[dla]

A good read, with links, for some interesting data on NOAA SARSAT (PLB) vs Iridium (Garmin) rescue satellite networks.

https://backpackinglight.com/forums/topic/acr-plb-vs-inreach/

Rex is a nice guy, but he's weak on radio theory. I would disregard about 50% of what he said ( I have a background in radio communication).
What you see with all 3 systems is that they work. Nevermind the babbling about transmit power (totally irrelevant) or the distance to satellites - all the systems work and they all can boast "saves".
The usage models differ significantly between COSPAS-SARSAT and InReach/SPOT - a person should really wrap their heads around the differences. InReach/SPOT rely on "lots of messages", i.e. bread-crumbs so that loved ones know your location and status. COSPAS-SARSAT relys on one message when things go bad - nobody knows where you are until that message goes out. Drop dead and guess which systems will lead SAR to you?

So it boils down to features and price. A COSPAS-SARSAT PLB is the cheapest because it offers the least features. A SPOT messenger offers one-way signaling for middle of the pack pricing. SPOT/InReach Communicators offer two-way texting as well as tracking and emergency. The hard part is figuring out the truth about the various plans offered - as it is clear that both SPOT and InReach try to obfuscate important details (they both have gotchas).

We have choices today, which is a good thing. But we have so many choices, which is confusing.

 

[Vandy321]

I dont buy the arguement that transmit power is not relevant (especially when talking about homing frequencies) nor frequency band, not for one second.

Transmit power ALWAYS matters, as does frequency, when performance is concerned. radar waves (think fighter aircraft radar), radio waves, doesnt matter, more power is always going to be better for performance.

I cant speak to his arguement on lower freq bands being less reflective, but that passes the common sense test to me. Do you have any specifics to dispute his claims? Not saying you are wrong, per say, but you didn't provide anything to sell me otherwise.

 

[dla]

I dont buy the arguement that transmit power is not relevant (especially when talking about homing frequencies) nor frequency band, not for one second.

Not sure what your background is, but hat arguement doesn't pass the common sense test, imo. Transmit power ALWAYS matters, as does frequency spectrum.

But, happy you like the inReach.

There's "common sense" and then there is engineering fact. Think what you want - no skin off my nose.

BTW, there is also a new device for use on the Iridium satellite network - Bivy stick. You might want to Google and check it out as it has a very straight forward service plan.

 

[Vandy321]

Engineering fact? "Transmission power doesnt matter" is not a fact. It's your opinion.

No skin off my nose, but if you are going to jump on a forum and state that 50% of the info that a pretty smart fella has posted is wrong, at least provide some actual facts to support that claim.

Glad you like your inReach.

 

[Porthunter]

Love my inreach! Especially the fact that you can connect it to your phone and use your phone to send texts or check the maps from wherever(maps arent the best but they work)

 

[dla]

Engineering fact? "Transmission power doesnt matter" is not a fact. It's your opinion.

No skin off my nose, but if you are going to jump on a forum and state that 50% of the info that a pretty smart fella has posted, at least provide some actual facts to support that claim.

Glad you like your inReach.

I use SPOT. I got a last minute price break to keep me as a customer.

You don't understand where the COSPAS-SARSAT satellites are - do you? Well they are about 22,500 miles away. Do you know where SPOT's (Globalstar) satellites are? About 800 miles away. And I doubt you know much about antenna design, so you don't realize that the patch antenna used by SPOT is waaaaay more efficient than the other systems - at the cost of directionality.

Anyways, transmit power is irrelevant - as evidenced by the fact that all 3 systems work very well. They are all well-designed and they just work. All 3 systems have been tested over and over and over.....

 

[Vandy321]

I'll stick with 406mhz and SARSAT, designed and used by the US mil for search and rescue. A system installed in almost all US mil aircraft or ejection seats as well as the majority of civilian aircraft ELTs...but I'm sure the makers of Spot knew something they didnt... Aside from how to add a text message function to a less reliable system and sell subscriptions to turn a profit.

To each his own, but if you are going to claim Rex is wrong, and claim instead to be the expert...at least provide some data to support those claims, aside from just opinions. I didnt post the link with his info to start an internet arguement, but instead found it as a useful reference to do my own research and thought others might. I've found nothing to dispute his claims, but if you have actual data to the conterary, I'm all ears.

 

[Kevin Dill]

For extended backcountry jaunts, I'll stay with my PLB and a sat phone. Several thoughts: I don't want to manage the battery or power level on my sos device. I want full battery power available if I need to signal. If it's a semi-emergency which doesn't require the cavalry, I will prefer to talk live vs sending texts which can result in significant delays of transmission. I have yet to see a satellite device which pushes texts through rapidly, allowing for quicker conversations. Live talk doesn't leave any doubt as to context or meaning. I do think text is great for general updates and exchanges, and I use the satellite phone for that. I don't have to manage an account and pmt for my PLB service. The SARSAT network is unquestionably reliable across North America, and first-responder service (rescue and evacuation) is almost invariably at no cost as provided by government or public funded entity like law enforcement, military, local S&R, etc.

 

[THBZN]

I'm on the fence and looking for some input. I currently have a super packable, waterproof PLB that I carry in the woods. It's on the Cospas SARSAT network, one button push and directly to rescue assets. There is no subscription, no fees, nothing.

For those of you that have an In-Reach or the like, do you find the text function handy/worthwhile? Is there a concern that if you were badly injured or maybe suffering from severe altitude sickness, you may not be able to type/text to communicate efficiently?

I'm just looking for some real world inputs from folks,maybe who've gone from beacon to In-Reach or spot X. I'm just not sure the subscription is worth it, but I'm considering putting the beacon up in favor of trying the garmin.

I already have a garmin GPS for backup, use OnX on the phone for primary, so the only reason for the I-reach would be for the text function vs just the beacon signal.

I am not an engineer, satellite expert or NASA approved lab rat, just a hunter who likes to get way off the beaten track, and be able to communicate with my wife, friends, etc. if needed.
Here is my system:
Cell phone with OnX Maps -- I use the maps all the time, and have had no issues. Love that app.
InReach Mini -- I only use it to check in at home in the evening, or if I get an animal down and am solo, to throw out a text to a friend for the pack out help/location. It is paired up with my cell phone, so texting is easy. I also have the pre-programmed messages for quick check ins, and the SOS feature is easy to find when needed (hopefully never.)

So, my two cents are if you are in the market for your first satellite communicator, the Mini is a great option, especially if paired with your phone. And the battery life is insanely long when it is just used as a check in tool.

 

[dla]

The SARSAT network is unquestionably reliable across North America, and first-responder service (rescue and evacuation) is almost invariably at no cost as provided by government or public funded entity like law enforcement, military, local S&R, etc.

You should realize that neither the Coast Guard nor local SAR care what service you signaled your emergency with. Whether you get a nice Coast Guard helo rescue or carried out on foot in a stretcher depends on where you're at - not what service you signaled with.

 

[Kevin Dill]

You should realize that neither the Coast Guard nor local SAR care what service you signaled your emergency with. Whether you get a nice Coast Guard helo rescue or carried out on foot in a stretcher depends on where you're at - not what service you signaled with.

Agreed, but that was not the point of my post. I'm simply saying the responder will most likely be an entity which is completely funded via taxpayers, government, military, volunteers etc. The SARSAT system is free to use, completely within the realm of NOAA and is not tied to any pay-for-services entity. With paid subscription plans a person is utilizing a for-profit group to make decisions on how to effect a rescue and evac if an SOS is received. The same responders might show up, but we all need to understand the monitoring is not done by NOAA and the protocols are likely quite different. Thanks

 

[dla]

With paid subscription plans a person is utilizing a for-profit group to make decisions on how to effect a rescue and evac if an SOS is received.

Not quite. The job of GEOS (used by SPOT, InReach,etc.) is to contact the appropriate agency responsible for SAR and relay location information,etc. to them. In the US, SAR is usually handled by the County Sheriff. The Sheriff's office SAR team takes over the command of the SAR operation - GEOS/NOAA bow out. What resources are committed, charges, risk decisions, etc. are made by the Sheriff's office. Since SAR can be a wild-card, if you are counting on them you should check them out in your area ahead of time.

Here's a C&P from NOAA
"The SARSAT system uses NOAA satellites in low-earth and geostationary orbits as well as GPS satellites in medium earth orbit to detect and locate aviators, mariners, and land-based users in distress. The satellites relay distress signals from emergency beacons to a network of ground stations and ultimately to the U.S. Mission Control Center (USMCC) in Suitland, Maryland. The USMCC processes the distress signal and alerts the appropriate search and rescue authorities to who is in distress and, more importantly, where they are located. Truly, SARSAT takes the "search" out of search and rescue! "

I have seen SAR call in the Air National Guard for mountain rescue on Mt. Hood in Oregon. And I've seen the Coast Guard doing a rescue way the heck inland in Washington - I have no idea why. I've also seen the vast majority of rescues done as walk-ins in the Columbia gorge.

I have heard of Colorado Sheriffs SAR charging for rescues. But here in Oregon I've never seen that.

 

[Vandy321]

In the US, SAR is usually handled by the County Sheriff.

Not quiet.

The USAF is responsible for inland rescue coordination. The agency is the AF Rescue Coordination Center (RCC). If a land based PLB/ELT activation is received, they take the hammer for coordination of the rescue efforts, if its maritime based, the USCG handles the coordination.

Here are the facts...

"As the United States' inland search and rescue coordinator, the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center serves as the single agency responsible for coordinating on-land federal SAR activities in the 48 contiguous United States, Mexico and Canada.

The AFRCC operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The center directly ties in to the Federal Aviation Administration's alerting system and the U.S. Mission Control Center. In addition to the Search and Rescue Satellite Aided Tracking information, the AFRCC computer system contains resource files that list federal and state organizations, which can conduct or assist in SAR efforts throughout North America."

 

[sneaky]

Interesting read through the inReach/PLB dick measuring debate.

It's laughable if you think that all SAR operations are free. If it requires an asset SAR doesn't have, or you get transferred to another aircraft, the second you go on a helicopter ride for a private provider you better hope you have rescue insurance or you're in for a shock. Also, the lower cost of the 2 plans offered by Garmin does NOT cover air ambulance costs. You have to pay for the more expensive of their coverage, or carry your own LifeFlight insurance separately. RipCord insurance is another option.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk