4 ms·

I carry a PLB at all times in my vehicle [1]. In the US this device will summon rescue via satellite. I recommend it for anyone who spends time in remote area

I carry a PLB at all times in my vehicle [1]. In the US this device will summon rescue via satellite. I recommend it for anyone who spends time in remote areas. If you value your life at $1MM and there's a 1 in 3500 chance [2] that summoning emergency services in a remote area will save your life then this is a helpful risk-mitigating tool [3]. 1. http://www.amazon.com/ACR-Electronics-ResQLink-Personal-Locator/dp/B0064UE5AG http://www.amazon.com/ACR-Electronics-ResQLink-Personal-Loca... 2. $280 / $1MM ~ 1/3500. 3. A useful metric might be 911 calls, of which there are 240 million in 2008[4], for the US population of 305 million. If you assume 5% of the calls are life-or-death, that your daily odds of needing to call in remote areas are the same as the country mean, that you spend 5 days a year in remote areas, and a 5-year useful life for the device, then there is a 0.2% chance the device will save your life. 240/310 * .05 * 5/365 * 5 ~ 0.002 4. http://www.911dispatch.com/info/fact_figures.html http://www.911dispatch.com/info/fact_figures.html

dkarl 14y ago
I carry one of those when I go backpacking. The satellite transmission they send to summon rescue includes your GPS position, and they also serve as short-range beacons to help rescuers zero in on you when they get close. That can be crucial if the PLB can't get a GPS lock, because rescuers might only know that you're located somewhere along miles of road or trail. If you're unconscious and out of site a few yards from the trail, the beacon might be the only way for them to find you fast enough to help.
jzwinck 14y ago
Your statistics are seriously flawed. For example, your math in point 2 assumes you will certainly find yourself in a life threatening situation while carrying the device. And your point 3 probably vastly overestimates the fraction of life-or-death calls.
- Sam_Odio 14y ago
  Your statistics are seriously flawed. Actually, I think you a) misunderstood the claim in point 2, and b) take issue with the assumptions - not the math/statistics - in point 3. your math in point 2 assumes you will certainly find yourself in a life threatening situation while carrying the device. In point 2 the likelihood of a life threatening situation was not assumed or calculated (that's point 3). The conclusion, restated: If there's a 1/3500 chance you'll be able to effectively use the device to save your life, you're breaking even while mitigating risk. And your point 3 probably vastly overestimates the fraction of life-or-death calls. You've stated that I've made assumptions and you're right - which is why they're labeled as such. Feel free to suggest yours.

dkarl 14y ago

I carry one of those when I go backpacking. The satellite transmission they send to summon rescue includes your GPS position, and they also serve as short-range beacons to help rescuers zero in on you when they get close. That can be crucial if the PLB can't get a GPS lock, because rescuers might only know that you're located somewhere along miles of road or trail. If you're unconscious and out of site a few yards from the trail, the beacon might be the only way for them to find you fast enough to help.

jzwinck 14y ago

Your statistics are seriously flawed. For example, your math in point 2 assumes you will certainly find yourself in a life threatening situation while carrying the device. And your point 3 probably vastly overestimates the fraction of life-or-death calls.

Sam_Odio 14y ago
Your statistics are seriously flawed. Actually, I think you a) misunderstood the claim in point 2, and b) take issue with the assumptions - not the math/statistics - in point 3. your math in point 2 assumes you will certainly find yourself in a life threatening situation while carrying the device. In point 2 the likelihood of a life threatening situation was not assumed or calculated (that's point 3). The conclusion, restated: If there's a 1/3500 chance you'll be able to effectively use the device to save your life, you're breaking even while mitigating risk. And your point 3 probably vastly overestimates the fraction of life-or-death calls. You've stated that I've made assumptions and you're right - which is why they're labeled as such. Feel free to suggest yours.