Tramping author sets off PLB 'cause he was late...

[colinm]

You have to have something formal in place. Some guy in The Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority recieves an epirb alert from his national abroad and contacts ... who? I mean jesus.

Good Question. Perhaps he should contact the list of people in the contacts associated with the PLB.

In the US case referred to http://www.rockymountainrescue.org/3rd- ... -16-13.php a PLB alert was transferred to a purely volunteer organisation, and a successful rescue was effected. It seems clear, then, that formality does not logically or practically entail police coordination.

As it happens, a lot of the Commonwealth and State negotiations pursuant to the international treaty I mentioned above had to do with who pays whom, and who is authorised to call on what resources, when, and for what reasons.

[maddog]

I do think it's dictatorial, and I think we're collectively being waltzed into a situation that I don't want to be in.

Nor me. We should be careful what we wish for, and supportive of our fellow walker.

[Hallu]

Shrugsies . Hes a kiwi. Allowed to shampoo in the creeks *&^%$#! in the lakes trudge mud through the hut and leave the door open for the sandflies.

Not quite sure what all that is about? Bad personal experience?

It's just regular Rob A offensive comment. Ignore him.

Btw why don't they just charge a bucket load of money to persons being rescued ? That's how it works in most countries of Europe, and that's why the beacon isn't triggered lightly... On another matter, you don't have to be very experienced to publish a book about hiking. Have a look at those ones : http://www.nzfrenzy.com/ . The guy has not a lot of experience, but since it's day walks, and not a pure hiking book, it's fine. Besides, it's one of the best NZ guidebooks.

[Chuck]

Thank you for a very thoughtful response.

If it were not for selective enforcement, you'd be right.

Since the regulation is impossibly broad (such that any person in any park could be charged) it's bad law, and it is dictatorial in nature: leaving it up to the executive to determine the nature of the offence, and then to determine when it might be applied.

The Naan+Spuds guy was charged under the national parks regulations - see the thread http://bushwalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11960. In this case, the charge arose from a regulation, not directly from a statute.

The regulation in question was created after a spate of base-jumping incidents in National Parks - base jumping is in fact one of the activities specified in the regulations as examples. One of the defences against the charge is that the activity in question is compassed by the NP Plan of Management ... Bushwalking certainly is, in the case in question. I think the charges couldn't have resulted in a conviction.

In the event, the person charged was from Victoria (and hence highly unlikely to contest) so we will never know whether the charges were appropriate because they won't be heard in open court. The S&R guys publicised the charges, but not enough details to really know whether they were justified.

I also think it's pretty rare for that regulation to be acted upon - that is precisely what the S&R police said in their press release. I'm not sure whether we should feel grateful for that, or what we're intended to take from it.

As every bushwalker can be charged under the regulation, and it's entirely up to the discretion of the rescuers to charge a bushwalker, and those same people chose a particularly soft target, and used the media to publicise that, and this more recent event ... I do think it's dictatorial, and I think we're collectively being waltzed into a situation that I don't want to be in.

Hi Colin

No worries. I am more than happy to have a civil, open discussion/debate on the issue.

I am interested to understand why you think it is "selective enforcement". I do agree that on the surface the relevant section of the regulation is broad. However I don't agree that "any person" could be charged. The offence still has to be proven in court. Whether it is actually tested or not, the evidence still has to exist. I think the fact that very few people have been fined/charged offers comfort for the average hiker/outdoor adventurer who is well intentioned and does the right thing. The police involved in the recent incident in the Blue Mountains said themselves (through their facebook page) that the decision to take such action isn't taken lightly and is only taken in extreme circumstances. Unfortunately the actual circumstances of that case were not publicised, but it is obvious from what was reported that it was extreme. Let me ask you this; should a person not be held accountable for their actions if they were to go out into the wilderness, completely under-prepared, with total disregard for their own safety and intentions of attempting something that will inevitably end in them requiring rescue (or worse)? I think the message the S&R cops were trying to get out (with the Naan guy story) is that if people do go out with absolute disregard for their safety, they can be held accountable for their actions. I don't think their intention is to scare bushwalkers into thinking they are going to fined if they make a mistake. I think they want people to carefully consider their own safety when planning a trip. There are a lot more people engaging in outdoor recreation these days. Technology and information availability has made it more accessible and encouraging. Unfortunately though, I think this has led to more people with less experience becoming involved and taking greater risks. As a outdoor adventurer, I don't want us all to earn the reputation of being inconsiderate, irresponsible risk takers, simply because a small section are just that. I think by holding those small few accountable, when the circumstances dictate, maintains a balance. I think it prevents the situation from becoming what you described earlier in the thread, where therer is a public push for greater regulation or "user-pays" for rescue. From what I have read, I don't think the authorities in question consider bushwalkers and the like a "drain on society" , nor do I think they push this view in the public forum. What they do push is for people to take some responsibility for their own safety, which I think is reasonable.

You have to have something formal in place. Some guy in The Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority recieves an epirb alert from his national abroad and contacts ... who? I mean jesus.

Good Question. Perhaps he should contact the list of people in the contacts associated with the PLB.

In the US case referred to http://www.rockymountainrescue.org/3rd- ... -16-13.php a PLB alert was transferred to a purely volunteer organisation, and a successful rescue was effected. It seems clear, then, that formality does not logically or practically entail police coordination.

As it happens, a lot of the Commonwealth and State negotiations pursuant to the international treaty I mentioned above had to do with who pays whom, and who is authorised to call on what resources, when, and for what reasons.

From what I understand of the arrangements in the US, I think it is a bit of a disjointed set-up. S&R in come locations is managed and completed by a police unit (Vegas for example - permanent and volunteer staffing), in other places it's managed by the national parks service (Yosemite - permanant staff and casual paid "specialists"). In some counties S&R comes with a user-pays system, which I personally think is dangerous (due to the reasons set out in the link you provided). I'm not saying the S&R system over there doesn't work, but for many reasons I don't think it would work here.

[tom_brennan]

Btw why don't they just charge a bucket load of money to persons being rescued?

Because if people are deterred from setting off PLBs prompty (when needed), the cost of rescue and risk of danger to rescuers can actually be increased. They don't want people worrying about the cost when lives are potentially at stake.

From one of the SMH articles about Mr Naan Bread:

A former president of Bushwalking Australia, David Reid, said charging hikers for their rescue could prove harmful.

''To introduce a broad-based penalty for people who get into trouble could well deter them from seeking assistance when it's important to do so,'' he said.

[Hallu]

It's a two way street, Tom : if you know you'll be rescued you could also venture into areas above your skill/fitness level... whereas if you can't afford a rescue, you'll keep to safer and easier tracks. Only statistics would give us which is the right method.
I personally think owning a PLB may give a false sense of security and therefore is dangerous (not in all cases of course, it does save lives). In Australia/NZ with all the stories we hear it looks like a device used by inexperienced hikers for hikes above their level, while a lot of experienced hikers don't even carry one. The same goes for GPS : I'm a bit old-fashioned that way, and think that GPS/PLBs sometimes prevent people from learning to navigate with a map and compass. I'd rather spend 200 $ on detailed maps for a 10 day trip than on a GPS.

[MrWalker]

It's a two way street, Tom : if you know you'll be rescued you could also venture into areas above your skill/fitness level... whereas if you can't afford a rescue, you'll keep to safer and easier tracks. Only statistics would give us which is the right method.
I personally think owning a PLB may give a false sense of security and therefore is dangerous (not in all cases of course, it does save lives).

I think we sometimes need to venture into areas above our current skill/fitness levels or we would just keep walking the same local tracks all the time. A PLB can give us the confidence to do things that we might not attempt without having it as backup. But I doubt if many people go for a walk with the intention of setting off the PLB if it gets a bit tough.

In NSW I believe they hire out beacons, effectively at no cost to the user. They obviously believe that the costs of rescue are reduced so much in finding a PLB compared with a search without one, that the occasional misuse still leaves them ahead.

[colinm]

I am interested to understand why you think it is "selective enforcement".

I think it's been selectively applied because the person charged came from Victoria and the charges would not have stood up in court (the regulations specifically provide that an activity which is permitted by the Plan of Management can't form the basis of the charge,) and when I mentioned this in Facebook comments the comments were deleted and I was blocked from further comments.

I think it's selective because I've seen other instances of this kind of thing with no charges preferred, and I don't trust that the published information was complete.

I do agree that on the surface the relevant section of the regulation is broad. However I don't agree that "any person" could be charged. The offence still has to be proven in court. Whether it is actually tested or not, the evidence still has to exist.

It is extremely broad. The regulation provides that any person whose actions put anyone at any risk in a NP is guilty of the offence. I can't imagine any action which is immune from that, saving the explicit exclusions of caving and an activity permitted by the plan of management. If what Mr.Naan was doing wasn't a permitted activity, then no bushwalking is immune from prosecution. I want to stress that the activity doesn't have to be negligent or reckless to be illegal (remarkably, there is no such qualification in the regulation) it's ANY activity which puts someone at risk.

Any law which is so completely broad, so totally open to completely subjective interpretation, which makes it a crime merely to be at risk, regardless of whether the risk is properly managed or not, and which leaves it completely to the discretion of the Police to criminalise an otherwise legal activity, is simply begging for selective enforcement.

I think that one crucial piece of information was left out of the press release. We were given a series of allegations (that his route was unrealistic, that his provisions were insufficient, that he wasn't sufficiently injured) and the fact he was charged. We were not explicitly told which alleged circumstances were considered evidence of the offence - we weren't given the Police case, but were given a bunch of suggestive allegations and invited to draw conclusions.

I think the fact that very few people have been fined/charged offers comfort for the average hiker/outdoor adventurer who is well intentioned and does the right thing. The police involved in the recent incident in the Blue Mountains said themselves (through their facebook page) that the decision to take such action isn't taken lightly and is only taken in extreme circumstances. Unfortunately the actual circumstances of that case were not publicised, but it is obvious from what was reported that it was extreme.

Right. What was reported by the prosecution made a very good case. Unfortunately, press releases aren't required to present exculpatory evidence.

Let me ask you this; should a person not be held accountable for their actions if they were to go out into the wilderness, completely under-prepared, with total disregard for their own safety and intentions of attempting something that will inevitably end in them requiring rescue (or worse)?

I have never met anyone who acted with total disregard for their own safety, but I accept that there are people who attempt suicide, for that is what you are describing, and that is what was presented by the prosecution by press-release. I'm not certain that's really what we were seeing.

May I pose a more realistic hypothetical? "Should a person who is ignorant and unaware that their actions will inevitably lead to requiring rescue be held accountable for their actions?" I would say they should be made responsible for them. I wouldn't mind if recklessness or even a high degree of negligence or studied ignorance lead to prosecution, I wouldn't mind if there were an implicit contract for the triggering of PLBs, and breaching that (by triggering a PLB for a lift home) had some consequences.

Accountable has many meanings - I don't think people should be made to pay for their rescue, for the reasons we're (I suspect) agreed upon. I strongly suspect that the press release is a kind of propaganda, I fear that we'll see more of these kinds of story, building to a crescendo. I suspect we won't see stories about how some old lady slipped on the path while visiting the Three Sisters while wearing completely unsuitable footware, on a path that wasn't properly maintained by NPWS, but we will see more 'foolish wilderness rescue' stories culminating in a 'public outcry' requiring 'urgent action' by authorities to recover costs.

I think the message the S&R cops were trying to get out (with the Naan guy story) is that if people do go out with absolute disregard for their safety, they can be held accountable for their actions. I don't think their intention is to scare bushwalkers into thinking they are going to fined if they make a mistake. I think they want people to carefully consider their own safety when planning a trip.

If that were the case, why didn't they suggest that people planning ambitious hikes should perhaps (say) join a bushwalking club? It may have been a ham-fisted attempt to use a baton to beat some sense into people, I guess. To the man with a hammer, all problems are nails.

But then how do we interpret this new FB post by S&R, where the NZ codger was explicitly said to be knowledgeable, but implicitly really just lazy?

There are a lot more people engaging in outdoor recreation these days. Technology and information availability has made it more accessible and encouraging. Unfortunately though, I think this has led to more people with less experience becoming involved and taking greater risks. As a outdoor adventurer, I don't want us all to earn the reputation of being inconsiderate, irresponsible risk takers, simply because a small section are just that. I think by holding those small few accountable, when the circumstances dictate, maintains a balance. I think it prevents the situation from becoming what you described earlier in the thread, where therer is a public push for greater regulation or "user-pays" for rescue. From what I have read, I don't think the authorities in question consider bushwalkers and the like a "drain on society" , nor do I think they push this view in the public forum. What they do push is for people to take some responsibility for their own safety, which I think is reasonable.

When I look at the series of comments S&R left on their Mr.Naan FB post, they were almost all in the "Damn reckless bushwalkers! they should PAY for their rescue. THEY WILL PAY!!!!" style - a greek chorus of support. The fact that they removed mine, suggesting that perhaps the guy was improperly charged ... well, makes me wonder what's going on.

PS: I really hope I never have to be rescued by these guys I'm lambasting I can just imagine the conversation with me in a stretcher, and the bumpiness of the ride.

[Chuck]

Colin. I think we can agree that the reg's are broad, certainly in situations where activities such as bushwalking/canyoning are permitted by a plan of management. What perhaps adds more confusion is where the regs state "if a plan of management for a park makes provision for the undertaking of an activity in the park, the person undertakes the activity in the park in accordance with the plan of management". What is considered "in accordance with"? A look at the plan of management doesn't really assist. It refers to "regulation to ensure visitor safety" and makes reference to promoting relevant publications etc, presumably publications that provide guidance and promote safe adventure activities. Perhaps the rules need to more specific, so everyone knows where they stand. On the "soft target" issue... I remember a couple of years ago a group was charged under the same section (and a few other sections) for entering a canyon in the Blue Mtns following copious amounts of rain, bearing in mind canyoning is also "permitted" under the plan of management (http://emergencylaw.wordpress.com/2010/ ... s-at-risk/). This case went before the Court and the offence was proven. From memory there was concerns back then that the case would "start something". To my knowledge, there hasn't been another canyoner charged since this case 3 years ago, and I'm sure there have been many canyon rescues in that time. Maybe I'm too trusting or just naive. It is a shame that the full story of Naan-guy won't be made public, because I'm sure there was a lot more to it than what was relayed in the media etc. "Ignorance for ones safety" is probably a better term then "total disregard", but I suggest there is varying levels of ignorance. It is easy to be ignorant at times, but at other times ignorance can be inexcusable. In this sense I agree with your comments regarding recklessness/grose negligence and I would suggest this is the test that should be applied. I think generally the S&R cops do a good job of defending their "customers". On more than one occasions I have seen them ask their FB following to refrain from passing judgement etc. Based on what is often written in their posts, I think their biggest focus is promoting/encouraging safe outdoor adventure, without fear of ridecule if you find yourself needing help. Thats how I see it anyway.

[colinm]

Thanks, Chuck, that was an interesting read. I note SMH reported “The three are expected to be charged with four offences under National Parks regulations, including putting others at risk, entering a closed park and disobeying park notices.”

No wonder they lost the case - as the park was closed and notices posted, their canyoning activity could not possibly have been "in accordance with the plan of management."

[Chuck]

Thanks, Chuck, that was an interesting read. I note SMH reported “The three are expected to be charged with four offences under National Parks regulations, including putting others at risk, entering a closed park and disobeying park notices.”

No wonder they lost the case - as the park was closed and notices posted, their canyoning activity could not possibly have been "in accordance with the plan of management."

I'm not sure how the park closure impacted on the Cl.22 offence, as the closure and associated notices were a result of long-term trackwork in the area, not due to weather conditions etc. Obviously if the closure was due to the severe weather, it would be a no brainer, but......

[GD4Up]

Why are people living in Australia getting indignant over the spending of taxation revenue in New Zealand? A more important consideration was whether or not the rescue service was diverted from more pressing need. If not, what harm was done?

Most amusing in my opinion.

I'm sure the rescue team found it as amusing as you did

[colinm]

No wonder they lost the case - as the park was closed and notices posted, their canyoning activity could not possibly have been "in accordance with the plan of management."

I'm not sure how the park closure impacted on the Cl.22 offence, as the closure and associated notices were a result of long-term trackwork in the area, not due to weather conditions etc. Obviously if the closure was due to the severe weather, it would be a no brainer, but......

I think the term of art is that they got 'one with the lot.'

If the park was closed they weren't allowed to be in it bushwalking, so the activity wasn't in accordance with the park management plan, so that defence was unavailable to them. I'm guessing PMPs include the general park management functions by reference or implication.

Now if they'd been *caving* on the other hand ...

[wildwalks]

I personally think owning a PLB may give a false sense of security and therefore is dangerous (not in all cases of course, it does save lives). In Australia/NZ with all the stories we hear it looks like a device used by inexperienced hikers for hikes above their level, while a lot of experienced hikers don't even carry one.

There is some debate that added safety features are soon traded off - eg give a taxi driver better tires and breaks so they can stop quicker and they then start to drive faster - discounting (trading) the value of the extra safety for speed - therefore the rate of accidents stay the same. This is an area where there has been a lot of general research but none I can find in the the area of PLB. Generally speaking there is usually some trade off occurring but there is usually a net gain in safety outcomes.

PLB's are different from other safety systems. In this case they usually remove the need for a search from a "search and rescue". A search is very expensive a rescue is relatively cheap. so having the odd PLB set off by someone who does not need it is usually a very small cost compared to the many searches prevented. There is also the huge medical cost reduction saved by the state by getting the person to care quickly. PLB's are not just for inexperienced walkers - even fit experienced walkers can have a heart attacks or get a stick in the eye. Every minute sooner they get to hospital the less treatment and long term expensive rehab required - making the helicopter flight a very cheap option.

I am not going to assume that this media coverage is accurate they are often misleading in this kind of situation. Regardless it should be made very clear to the public how and when PLB's are to be used. But we have to be careful about punishing people to ensure that we do not discourage people setting of a PLB when required. It is similar to calling 000 - it is a hard balance ensure people feel they can use the service but avoid the service been clogged up by people who do not need it. I have heard it suggested that PLB's could do with extra messaging capability - eg relay a 30 second voice message outlining what the issue is - giving the ability for the SAR to prioritise simultaneous calls.

I would encourage every walker to carry a PLB in their group. Hopefully you will never need to use it - but if you do you will be very thankful you have it.

Matt

[colinm]

PLB's are different from other safety systems. In this case they usually remove the need for a search from a "search and rescue". A search is very expensive a rescue is relatively cheap. so having the odd PLB set off by someone who does not need it is usually a very small cost compared to the many searches prevented.

This is very true, and one can see it by observing that, of the last 20-30 operations reported by the Blue Mountains LAC S&R (on facebook) at least three were rescue of animals (two horses, one dog.) Clearly the rescue component is very inexpensive, so once the owners of the animals located them the State decided it's worth intervening. Good on them, I say.

[Chuck]

PLB's are different from other safety systems. In this case they usually remove the need for a search from a "search and rescue". A search is very expensive a rescue is relatively cheap. so having the odd PLB set off by someone who does not need it is usually a very small cost compared to the many searches prevented. There is also the huge medical cost reduction saved by the state by getting the person to care quickly. PLB's are not just for inexperienced walkers - even fit experienced walkers can have a heart attacks or get a stick in the eye. Every minute sooner they get to hospital the less treatment and long term expensive rehab required - making the helicopter flight a very cheap option.

I am not going to assume that this media coverage is accurate they are often misleading in this kind of situation. Regardless it should be made very clear to the public how and when PLB's are to be used. But we have to be careful about punishing people to ensure that we do not discourage people setting of a PLB when required. It is similar to calling 000 - it is a hard balance ensure people feel they can use the service but avoid the service been clogged up by people who do not need it. I have heard it suggested that PLB's could do with extra messaging capability - eg relay a 30 second voice message outlining what the issue is - giving the ability for the SAR to prioritise simultaneous calls.

I would encourage every walker to carry a PLB in their group. Hopefully you will never need to use it - but if you do you will be very thankful you have it.

Matt

Very well said Matt.

[wayno]

if the report is accurate. you have to wonder if this experienced tramper who set off his PLB has supposedly also written a book on tramping is still playing with a full deck of cards?
there was a worse case a few weeks ago where a group were at a road end on the heaphy track who set off their beacon because they wanted a ride.,
the rescue helicopter for the area was already on a call out, another helicopter had to be diverted from a different region, taking several hours of it's time up... i think a scenario like that calls for people to be charged and made an example on... they removed the rescue helicopter from the west coast to another region altogether for no valid reason

[nq111]

There is some debate that added safety features are soon traded off - eg give a taxi driver better tires and breaks so they can stop quicker and they then start to drive faster - discounting (trading) the value of the extra safety for speed - therefore the rate of accidents stay the same. This is an area where there has been a lot of general research but none I can find in the the area of PLB. Generally speaking there is usually some trade off occurring but there is usually a net gain in safety outcomes.

PLB's are different from other safety systems. In this case they usually remove the need for a search from a "search and rescue". A search is very expensive a rescue is relatively cheap. so having the odd PLB set off by someone who does not need it is usually a very small cost compared to the many searches prevented. There is also the huge medical cost reduction saved by the state by getting the person to care quickly. PLB's are not just for inexperienced walkers - even fit experienced walkers can have a heart attacks or get a stick in the eye. Every minute sooner they get to hospital the less treatment and long term expensive rehab required - making the helicopter flight a very cheap option.

I am not going to assume that this media coverage is accurate they are often misleading in this kind of situation. Regardless it should be made very clear to the public how and when PLB's are to be used. But we have to be careful about punishing people to ensure that we do not discourage people setting of a PLB when required. It is similar to calling 000 - it is a hard balance ensure people feel they can use the service but avoid the service been clogged up by people who do not need it. I have heard it suggested that PLB's could do with extra messaging capability - eg relay a 30 second voice message outlining what the issue is - giving the ability for the SAR to prioritise simultaneous calls.

I would encourage every walker to carry a PLB in their group. Hopefully you will never need to use it - but if you do you will be very thankful you have it.

Matt

Very good post.

With the behavioural responses the effects are many. For example I get more 'licence' from the other half for adventures because I am carrying a PLB.

Whilst I instinctively shudder a bit when I hear stories like the one that started this thread, I don't dare judge without the full facts.

And agree that an efficient PLB assisted extraction is preferable to a prolonged search and rescue (even if the party is ok). Every situation will be different.

[wayno]

Yeh it's heaps funny. Not.
What a stupid thing to say.

The gist of the story is that a silly old coot misused a PLB to hitch a ride, when he found the walk too arduous. Given the sheer gall of the man, I am amused. He was not injured but:

The 67-year-old...told the crew he had significantly underestimated the amount of time to get out of the area and was struggling with the challenging terrain.

So he may have just found he had bitten off more than he could chew, but many people do stupid things and then require assistance. Should they all be condemned, subjected to routine humiliation, and be made to pay for their stupidity in not choosing to stay in a nice safe place?

What a glum and sterile world you wish for - the world of the kill-joy, the accountant, and the debt collector.

And despite the tabloid sensationally of PLB misuse reports, and the banal chorus of righteous indignation, we strangely ignore the fact that the cost of rescue services is largely a fixed one.

Cheers

maybe he didnt want to admit he couldnt hack the trip he was doing at his age. maybe he wasnt up to the task any more.

[wayno]

cant find the link, but a link was posted on this forum about the future of locator beacons.
consideration is being made to use the satellite systems used for the spot and inreach type devices as the main system for emergency locators. if this happens then your primary emergency communication device could have a two way communication system.... so emergency services will try and make contact and query the person who has set off the alarm as to the nature of their emergency... if they don't fit the necessary criteria for a rescue then the helicopter may never leave the helipad...
you can see how the rescue services would favour the technology for locator beacons being changed.
if people lie to rescue services in this scenarios you can use the law to prosecute them for deliberately obtaining the services of rescue resources under false pretenses. you may even have rescue services reading a spiel over the sat comm device to the potential rescuee to avoid any confusion about the circumstances they can invoke rescue and the consequences of false representation of their circumstance to obtain a rescue

[wayno]

we're in a society that thrives on instant relief from stress, reach for the alcohol or drugs, prescription or illegal. you're in town you call a taxi or ring someone for a lift, maybe its so automatic its just a switch you flip automatically, call for a lift, that overides the reality of the situation of what you're doing setting off a locator beacon

[fitdingo]

Lot's of issues here folks.
PLBs are great, they are a lifesaver, and if anyone going off the beaten track on foot, in a car, whatever carried one less people would die needlessly. I heard recently about a corpse in a car in the outback, dead for 2 weeks, car broke down, no water or phone service. Nobody passed by on the road. If we harp on about "appropriate use of PLBs" then one day, somebody who should activate it will not for fear of getting in trouble.
Generally, people make poor decisions - that's why TEAMWORK is so important. If this chap had hiked with friends then maybe he would have been talked out of making a poor decision. Maybe in this fellow's case he did need help - unless you were there you don't know. Second hand information is poor information.
Maybe a Satellite phone would be better for this guy - hell I'd like one. Or one of those new Sat antennas for a Smart Phone (SPOT).
How does this relate to us?
DON'T WALK ALONE, HAVE A COMMS PLAN.

[wayno]

people deciding to have a field day at one mans expense. just going on the surface information....