SAR network - an idea.

[Dan]

I've asked you before what you mean by PLBD? As many times as you have used it, I don't guess it's a typo?

I wonder if he meant Personal Locator Beacon Device? However, PLB itself is already a device. Hmm.

 

[DandyDon]

I think he meant Personal Locator Beacon Device.

Good guess; maybe so. Acronyms are great if understood, but making up new ones is asking for confusion. I know of no site or other person using such redundancy. The popularly accepted acronym is PLB, and even so - it's not well recognized. .

 

[Dan]

I think the following videos are good info to those who are not familiar what exactly PLB for.

 

[DandyDon]

Divers are just a special case of man overboard or falling off a cliff. To dedicate resource to them specifically is a waste.

I think so, too. Perhaps more can be done within the existing systems. It starts with knowing the diver is missing, and learning where he is.

Signaling devices are covered, A DSMB is essential and having a beacon gets a mention.

I think that is the glaring shortcoming. The gadgets are more affordable than ever, more rewarding than ever, but the vast majority are not bothering to carry the essential tool to make rescue work. Frankly, I am not interested in paying $100 a year to support a standing service to seek divers who don't bother doing their part, just like I wouldn't want to pay more to seek hikers, touring drivers who travel thru the wildlands, and others who don't bother. I'd rather ask everyone to pay $1 a week to carry PLBs, and save SAR fortunes while making it more successful.

 

[Dan]

We are already paying the SAR team in terms of the income tax that we file every year. The services is available for everyone to utilize. Why not take advantage of it?

Rescued at Sea: Who Foots the Bill?

"...as with the Coast Guard the National Park Service, which also spends millions a year in SAR costs, does not charge those who are rescued. The taxpayers absorb those costs..."

Another words, finding divers, who are lost at sea, sooner would save SAR cost and in the end this would help us as tax payers from having to absorb more and more those costs.

 

[Akimbo]

"...as with the Coast Guard the National Park Service, which also spends millions a year in SAR costs, does not charge those who are rescued. The taxpayers absorb those costs..."

Clear accounting is obtuse. How much additional cost really exists? Military salaries are fixed and they don't pay "overtime" (in the US anyway). It doesn't matter if they are on SAR operations, on standby, or training. How much more fuel is used during SAR operations than would be consumed conducting training and re-qual operations instead? I'm not arguing any viewpoint, only asking how it increases the actual expense to taxpayers. It's not as if their annual operating budget is reduced those years that fewer rescues are performed.

Would charging for rescues effectively be a usage tax? Would the number of rescues measurably reduce as a result? Would the public tolerate charging the "victim" for their rescue? Would the US courts tolerate only charging rescue fees to non-citizens? I suspect the issue is convoluted enough and such a inconsequential part of the federal budget that nothing will change... not that it shouldn't be discussed.

 

[Dan]

Clear accounting is obtuse. How much additional cost really exists? Military salaries are fixed and they don't pay "overtime" (in the US anyway). It doesn't matter if they are on SAR operations, on standby, or training. How much more fuel is used during SAR operations than would be consumed conducting training and re-qual operations instead? I'm not arguing any viewpoint, only asking how it increases the actual expense to taxpayers. It's not as if their annual operating budget is reduced those years that fewer rescues are performed.

Would charging for rescues effectively be a usage tax? Would the number of rescues measurably reduce as a result? Would the public tolerate charging the "victim" for their rescue? Would the US courts tolerate only charging rescue fees to non-citizens? I suspect the issue is convoluted enough and such a inconsequential part of the federal budget that nothing will change... not that it shouldn't be discussed.

Would the more rescues they do and the longer they search add to their expenses? Who pays those expenses?

Any reduction in those cost can be used for improving the SAR process, (quicker response, better signal receivers, etc.) like the improvements we see in car safety (seat belt, airbag, energy-absorbing bumper, etc.).

 

[Akimbo]

Would the more rescues they do and the longer they search add to their expenses?

Maybe, but the money is more likely effectively reducing their training budget since it reduces some of the need for for it. That applies more to military budgets than civilian government organizations who pay overtime and don't train nearly as intensively.

Any reduction in those cost can be used for improving the SAR process, (quicker response, better signal receivers, etc.) like the improvements we see in car safety (seat belt, airbag, energy-absorbing bumper, etc.).

No debate that the money could be better used IF rescues are not required or last a shorter time -- to say nothing of the humanitarian advantage for the rescuees. Unfortunately the task of developing affordable PLB-like devices that could do that, or mandating their use, is not part of the job SAR operations are tasked with. In the grand scheme, such a device would not eliminate the need for the capability but might reduce some of the capacity required.

 

[KenGordon]

Clear accounting is obtuse. How much additional cost really exists? Military salaries are fixed and they don't pay "overtime" (in the US anyway). It doesn't matter if they are on SAR operations, on standby, or training. How much more fuel is used during SAR operations than would be consumed conducting training and re-qual operations instead? I'm not arguing any viewpoint, only asking how it increases the actual expense to taxpayers. It's not as if their annual operating budget is reduced those years that fewer rescues are performed.

Would charging for rescues effectively be a usage tax? Would the number of rescues measurably reduce as a result? Would the public tolerate charging the "victim" for their rescue? Would the US courts tolerate only charging rescue fees to non-citizens? I suspect the issue is convoluted enough and such a inconsequential part of the federal budget that nothing will change... not that it shouldn't be discussed.

In the U.K. sometimes they will whisk people off dive boats just for practice. That is probably cheaper than paying for a boat to pick up from. And more of a laugh.

 

[KenGordon]

I think so, too. Perhaps more can be done within the existing systems. It starts with knowing the diver is missing, and learning where he is.


I think that is the glaring shortcoming. The gadgets are more affordable than ever, more rewarding than ever, but the vast majority are not bothering to carry the essential tool to make rescue work. Frankly, I am not interested in paying $100 a year to support a standing service to seek divers who don't bother doing their part, just like I wouldn't want to pay more to seek hikers, touring drivers who travel thru the wildlands, and others who don't bother. I'd rather ask everyone to pay $1 a week to carry PLBs, and save SAR fortunes while making it more successful.

Course design moves more slowly than the market for PLBs etc. I actually show a bunch of these things including a lifeline.i get to enhance the contents of those lessons as I see fit.

I don’t know how many people are lost on the surface in the U.K., but it can’t be that many, the usual report is buddy last saw the missing diver at some stage on the dive, they were separated and the victim is never seen again, although boats were present to pick up the buddy and the other divers. In these circumstances the body often turns up later.

Only about 10 people die annually, diving in the U.K., so it can only be two or three that vanish. Mostly the helicopters are taking people to chambers.