G'day Mark, You're not wrong! Stuart and Freya both had the ability to conjure up images of a day battling extreme conditions in just a few words of an email. And Stuart is a born again entertainer with his presentations and demo's on coping in the wilderness whether its arctical or tropical. Wish he'd put some of those talks on DVD. And I don't want to preempt any so I'll wait a year or two! The one that did horrify me was his account of the two PLB failures. Not so much the potential consequences but horror at the lack of QC in an age where QC is a well established skill. All the best, PeterO *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Peter said: > The one that did horrify me was his account of the two PLB failures. > Not so much the potential consequences but horror at the lack of QC > in an age where QC is a well established skill. Stu's bad experience with 2 failing PLBs have sparked a discussion this week, with a couple of other people here in NZ questioning what best-practice should be. My little McMurdo 210 PLB seems to have survived a reasonably salty 13 months - but I certainly haven't taken it round Australia. It lives in a pouch on my PFD's left shoulder (think epaulet) and thus (being level with my mouth) spends little time immersed. Maybe I should be thinking of duct-taping a small bag over its working end - to reduce its exposure to frequent 'wetting'. I'm reluctant to bag it entirely (like I do my VHF & GPS), as it would need to be de-bagged to activate & unfurl the antenna and that would hugely complicate the tether that I think is vital. Even a partial, de-bagging step might be unwelcome in cold water - I can see teeth getting involved - but if it gives me a better chance of a functional beacon, so be it. Does anyone know of a current study or review of PLB failures ? Best Regards Paul Hayward, Auckland, New Zealand *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Paul wrote: >Stu's bad experience with 2 failing PLBs have sparked a discussion this >week, with a couple of other people here in NZ questioning what >best-practice should be. G'day Paul, Looks like the performance of PLBs is a neglected area when we assess our safety at sea! Perhaps kayakers are just trusting the advertising literature, which just possibly may be misleading. I started searching for specifications and so far have not found a PLB (including yours, mine and Stu's) that is adequately specified as waterproof enough for use by someone immersed in the sea. Considering the expense and the risk involved I think there's a place for kayak clubs (and yachting clubs who require deckhands to carry PLBs, presumably in case they are washed overboard), to band together and publish their own assessment or review of the suitability of products in this device class. I suspect many PLB manufacturers, when pressed, would say their PLBs are not guaranteed to operate correctly over long periods by a person immersed in the ocean. I'd value your and Paddlewise opinion on whether a group effort across clubs and associations in this area is worthwhile, achievable? All the best, PeterO *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Peter wrote: > I suspect many PLB manufacturers, when pressed, would say their PLBs > are not guaranteed to operate correctly over long periods by a person > immersed in the ocean. I've just sent off a screed to McMurdo - asking them for 'best-practice' for their Fastfind units when used in typical sea-kayaking conditions. I defined that as being 'worn' on the PFD - rather than stored in a drybag in a hull compartment. I've also asked them to comment on corrosion, monitoring & maintenance for their products. We'll see what they say. Peter also wrote: > I'd value your and Paddlewise opinion on whether a group effort > across clubs & associations in this area is worthwhile, achievable? I'd think it very worthwhile - but perhaps not so easily achievable. Perhaps Chris Cunningham might solicit emailed responses in a short poll (both in Sea-Kayaker magazine & online) - to wit: (a) have you had a PLB fail ? (b) was it abuse or regular use in sea-kayaking (c) how old was the unit when it failed (d) when was this (what year) (e) what make & model unit That would give a simple picture of failure - but it would also be wide-open for an unscrupulous mfg to spam the oppositions units to terrible effect ;-) Best Regards Paul Hayward, Auckland, New Zealand *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Paul wrote >I've just sent off a screed to McMurdo - asking them for 'best-practice' for >their Fastfind units when used in typical sea-kayaking conditions. I defined >that as being 'worn' on the PFD - rather than stored in a drybag in a hull >compartment. And >I'd think it very worthwhile - but perhaps not so easily achievable. >Perhaps Chris Cunningham might solicit emailed responses in a short poll >(both in Sea-Kayaker magazine & online) - to wit: G'day, Thanks Paul I'll be very interested in McMurdo's response. Another really important question is how long they last in water! They may only be designed for land, or on board disabled ships, or lifeboats. I might even buy the McMurdo PLB product if they can show its properly certified as suitable. Re your suggestion for a poll. That's a good set of questions. I'd be interested in organising an identical poll in Oz amongst kayak and yacht associations. It could usefully include a question such as have you ever had to use one while swimming for several hours awaiting rescue and was it successful? This could cover the issue of how long they last immersed (the specifications suggest not long at all) Maybe code numbers instead of names would prevent unscrupulous spamming of competing products. In parallel it could be useful to get a number of clubs to agree to a joint email/letter to PLB manufacturers with a list of questions on their specifications and whether they are suitable for sea kayaking or for use by someone swimming for 24 hours. Such an open email, Cc rather than Bcc and with sponsorship from a large number of kayaking and yachting associations and clubs, might encourage development of more appropriate products. It would at least allow a list to be published showing PLBs with specs suitable for sea kayakers or deckhands at risk of falling overboard, as well as showing PLBs that were acknowledged by manufacturers as not suitable, and showing PLBs for which information was not provided. All the best, PeterO *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:00 AM, PeterO <rebyl_kayak_at_energysustained.com>wrote: > > > Thanks Paul I'll be very interested in McMurdo's response. Another really > important question is how long they last in water! They may only be > designed > for land, or on board disabled ships, or lifeboats. > Would it be feasible to include marine VHF radios and hang-held GPS units in this query? I've wondered for quite a while whether my VHF is truly water "resistant" and to what degree out in the real world. I do understand that making this thing more complex by adding items can detract from the quality of the information gathered, but these two items are also used a lot for safety purposes by kayakers and actual failure rates might be very interesting. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.net www.bigboxbikes.com *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Craig wrote: >Would it be feasible to include marine VHF radios and hang-held GPS >units in this query? I've wondered for quite a while whether my VHF >is truly water "resistant" and to what degree out in the real world. >I do understand that making this thing more complex by adding items >can detract from the quality of the information gathered, but these >two items are also used a lot for safety purposes by kayakers and >actual failure rates might be very interesting. G'day Craig, I'm wondering the same thing with my ICOM VHF, which I wear unprotected in my PFD. It shows no sign of leaking, works and I can raise kayakers on the water, but not long distance coastal stations even though they are in line of sight. Coincidentally a friend emailed me on Friday reporting a leak in their identical unit. I've arranged with our Marine Rescue to carry out a series of formal test using a mobile phone link in conjunction with the VHF. I don't think an additional VHF and GPS would complicate the kind of survey that Paul is thinking of is that users would be only too glad to participate if they thought it would lead to improved products and wasn't too long. Likewise it should be for inclusion when I approach manufacturers, depending on the question being asked. The two questions I'm focusing on are: 1. What standard tests should manufacturers be using to adequately replicate a piece of equipment attached to a PFD exposed to the elements above water. 2. what standard tests should manufacturers be using to replicate a piece of equipment attached to a mariner swept overboard and in the sea for 24 hours. I'd think the IEC 60529 standard test IPX8 with a water depth set at 2m to 5m sounds plausible for the second test but it's not clear if manufacturers are coming close to something like that that. (See response to Doug Lloyd). I'd love to set up a real world experiment in which a range of PLBs were switched off, tied to a buoy and left in a 1 to 2m sea for 24 hours then tested; but it might risk an unwanted activation and AMSA would need to be notified in advance. Worth discussing with manufacturers and the appropriate authorities along with asking for details of their testing. A fair bit of research needed before contacting the manufacturers but I'm going ahead with it All the best, PeterO *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Peter said > What standard tests should manufacturers be using to adequately replicate > a piece of equipment attached to a PFD exposed to the elements above water I've followed the success (and/or lack of it) of many of my Auckland paddling buddies as they have used VHFs, GPSs & cameras with various IP ratings. Many brand names from the top-line Icoms & SH VHFs to various Garmin Etrex units - which are 10 year veterans in the market. I don't think any of these consumer-grade devices are built to standards that let them live reliably for more than the warranty period of 1 or 2 years when used in a salty kayaking world. I'd say that it's conclusive - the only way to keep these devices alive reliably is to bag them (Aquapac or similar) and then to rinse them gently in fresh water fairly frequently. One good buddy is an ex-Navy electronics guru & treats his gear well (as you might expect). He went through 3 Etrexes before he bowed to the reality that irrespective of what it says on the box, an IP7 or 8 rating doesn't survive for more than a couple of years in the real world. Whether it is salt-crystal buildup on rubber seals or some other mechanism, I'd say you get 10x better reliability if it's both waterproof & bagged. Then if the waterproofing is a bit tired, all it has to survive is a bag leak - and if the bag cracks & leaks a bit - the device's waterproofness should be able to cope with such a gentle immersion. At least it becomes a two-point-of-failure issue. Kayaking is a tough environment. Best Regards Paul Hayward, Auckland, New Zealand *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
On 06/08/2011 6:21 AM, Paul Hayward wrote: > Peter said >> <snip> > > I'd say that it's conclusive - the only way to keep these devices alive > reliably is to bag them (Aquapac or similar) and then to rinse them gently > in fresh water fairly frequently. One good buddy is an ex-Navy electronics > guru& treats his gear well (as you might expect). He went through 3 Etrexes > before he bowed to the reality that irrespective of what it says on the box, > an IP7 or 8 rating doesn't survive for more than a couple of years in the > real world. > I know my watch repair guru informed me that I really needed to replace the tiny rubber gaskets on my "waterproof" diving watch every few years as they dry out and begin to allow water past. I would assume that there would be a similar degradation of the gaskets on GPS, VHF and other "waterproof" or "water-resistant" devices. -- Darryl > Whether it is salt-crystal buildup on rubber seals or some other mechanism, > I'd say you get 10x better reliability if it's both waterproof& bagged. > Then if the waterproofing is a bit tired, all it has to survive is a bag > leak - and if the bag cracks& leaks a bit - the device's waterproofness > should be able to cope with such a gentle immersion. At least it becomes a > two-point-of-failure issue. > > Kayaking is a tough environment. > > Best Regards > Paul Hayward, Auckland, New Zealand *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
The UK McMurdo site does say the PLB are waterproof and good for canoeists - which is their term for kayakers. The word waterproof does suggest immersion protection - but for how long. Doug Paul wrote >I've just sent off a screed to McMurdo - asking them for 'best-practice' for >their Fastfind units when used in typical sea-kayaking conditions. I defined >that as being 'worn' on the PFD - rather than stored in a drybag in a hull >compartment. And >I'd think it very worthwhile - but perhaps not so easily achievable. >Perhaps Chris Cunningham might solicit emailed responses in a short poll >(both in Sea-Kayaker magazine & online) - to wit: G'day, Thanks Paul I'll be very interested in McMurdo's response. Another really important question is how long they last in water! They may only be designed for land, or on board disabled ships, or lifeboats. I might even buy the McMurdo PLB product if they can show its properly certified as suitable. Re your suggestion for a poll. That's a good set of questions. I'd be interested in organising an identical poll in Oz amongst kayak and yacht associations. It could usefully include a question such as have you ever had to use one while swimming for several hours awaiting rescue and was it successful? This could cover the issue of how long they last immersed (the specifications suggest not long at all) Maybe code numbers instead of names would prevent unscrupulous spamming of competing products. In parallel it could be useful to get a number of clubs to agree to a joint email/letter to PLB manufacturers with a list of questions on their specifications and whether they are suitable for sea kayaking or for use by someone swimming for 24 hours. Such an open email, Cc rather than Bcc and with sponsorship from a large number of kayaking and yachting associations and clubs, might encourage development of more appropriate products. It would at least allow a list to be published showing PLBs with specs suitable for sea kayakers or deckhands at risk of falling overboard, as well as showing PLBs that were acknowledged by manufacturers as not suitable, and showing PLBs for which information was not provided. All the best, PeterO *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Doug wrote >The UK McMurdo site does say the PLB are waterproof and good for >canoeists - which is their term for kayakers. The word waterproof >does suggest immersion protection - but for how long. G$B!G(Bday Doug, I think one answer is 5 to 10 minutes at 10 metres depth as a description of waterproof! I$B!F(Bve just been looking at specifications on a few well known PLBs, summarised below. Some of the Kannad range and the McMurdo range are very similar and I think the companies have merged in some way, so I've just noted the Kannad specs as they were easier to access. The Kannad Marine SafeLink SOLO PLB cites IP68 and IPX8 tests for permanent Immersion, where the manufacturer usually sets the immersion depth. However, Kannad appear to qualify the 10m test by saying temporary immersion in some places and waterproof in others - definitely worth following up to ask what the permanent value was. The Kannad Marine Safelink PRO PLB is interesting as their web technical specification says it is waterproof to 5m, temporary immersion to 10m. And they are very definite that "The PLB is totally waterproof" Copied below are a few notes taken from the manufacturer web sites on standards and comments. But I think they are inadequate to make a well informed decision on whether a PLB is going to survive 24 hours in the sea and it looks to me to be worth contacting the manufacturers for more information. I wonder if some manufacturers carry out their own tests that go beyond the standard? INFORMAL SURVEY FOLLOWS Accusat GME MT410G http://www.gme.net.au/products/emergency-beacons/plbs/MT410 Standards COSPAS-SARSAT Certified to C/S T.001 (Class 2) IMO A810 (19), as amended AS/NZS 4280.1 and AS/NZS 4280.2 MED Wheelmark ETSI EN 302 152-1 Web Page comment Sealed waterproof design (exceeds IP67) (PLB Cover page) Buoyant Will float in fresh/salt water (RTM Cat 1) Waterproof Submersion to 1m exceeds IP67 (Specification) ACR AquaLink(tm) 406 GPS http://www.acrelectronics.com/ Standards Cospas-Sarsat, FCC, Canada, RTTE Web Page 16.40 ft (5m) _at_ 1 hr., 33 ft (10m) _at_ 10 min.(Specification) Factory tested _at_ 70$B!k(BF, exceeds RTCM waterproof requirements Kti http://www.kti.com.au/index.html Standards COSPAS-SARSAT CS.T001 class II, AS/NZS 4280.2 Web page comment on waterproofing None MucMurdo - Kannad Marine SafeLink SOLO PLB http://www.kannadmarine.com/ Standards COSPAS-SARSAT T.001/T.007 class2 RTCM SC110 STD 11010.2 ETSI EN 302-152-1 AS/NZS 4280.2 NSS-PLB06 Environmental (water) Sealing Waterproof to 10m (30ft) (IP 58, IPX8) (User manual) Sealing: Temporary immersion to 10m (30 ft) for 5 mins. (IP58, IPX7)(technical specification) Web page comment SafeLink SOLO is waterproof to 10 metres and buoyant when used in its flotation pouch. (PLB Cover page, user manual and further information page) SafeLink SOLO is only recommended for use on or in water when fitted with the supplied flotation device (User manual) McMurdo - Kannad Marine SafeLink PRO PLB http://www.kannadmarine.com/ Standards COSPAS$B!>(BSARSAT T.007 Iss4 Rev1 Oct 2006, EN 300$B!>(B066 V1.3.1 (2001$B!>(B01), RTCM SC110 STD 11010.1, Complies with AS/NZS 4280.2. Web page comment Safelink Pro is waterproof to 10m and designed to withstand the harshest of environments (Cover page for the PLB) The PLB is totally waterproof but is not designed to operate when floating on the surface of the water. (User manual) It is buoyant and will not sink if dropped into water. (User manual) If possible keep it out of the water when in use. (User manual) Buoyant, waterproof to 5m, temporary immersion to 10m (User Manual - Technical Specification) Note The McMurdo FASTFIND 210 and FASTFIND MAX-G look very similar to the Kannad PLBs but not as many standards listed SOME CITED STANDARDS THAT ARE READILY AVAILABLE AND A FEW EXTRACTS ETSI EN 300 066 V1.3.1 (2001-01) ..........SNIP............. 6.8 Immersion test 6.8.1 Definition The immunity against the effects of Immersion in water is the ability of the equipment to maintain the specified mechanical and electrical performance after the following test has been carried out. 6.8.2 Method of measurement A hydraulic pressure of 100 kPa, corresponding to a depth of 10 m shall be applied for a period of 5 minutes. At the end of the test the self-test of the satellite EPIRB (subclause 4.8) shall be carried out. ..........SNIP............. C/S T.007 issue 4 Rev1 2006 (superceded) ..........SNIP............. $B!H(Btests A.3.8.2.1 and A.3.8.2.2 shall be conducted with the beacon in all the configurations declared by the manufacturer in the application form (Annex G) consistent with the manufacturers operational instructions and in accordance with the guidance provided below. "..........SNIP............. Floating. The beacon shall be completely submerged in salt water [composition 5% salt solution by weight], activated while submerged, and allowed to float to the surface under its own buoyancy.$B!I(B ..........SNIP............. IP67 (IEC 60529 standard - definition below from Wikipedia) Immersion up to 1 m Ingress of water in harmful quantity shall not be possible when the enclosure is immersed in water under defined conditions of pressure and time (up to 1 m of submersion). Test duration: 30 minutes IP68 (IEC 60529 standard - definition below from Wikipedia) Immersion beyond 1 m The equipment is suitable for continuous immersion in water under conditions which shall be specified by the manufacturer. Normally, this will mean that the equipment is hermetically sealed. However, with certain types of equipment, it can mean that water can enter but only in such a manner that it produces no harmful effects. Test duration: continuous immersion in water. Depth specified by manufacturer IPX8 (IEC 60529 standard - definition below from Wikipedia) * The first digit indicates the level of protection that the enclosure provides against access to hazardous parts (e.g., electrical conductors, moving parts) and the ingress of solid foreign objects. * The second digit ......Protection of the equipment inside the enclosure against harmful ingress of water * Where there is no protection rating with regard to one of the criteria, the digit is replaced with the letter X. All the best, PeterO *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Peter wrote: > 5 to 10 minutes at 10 m depth as a description of waterproof! The Fastfind's spec of 30 minutes is shown on McMurdo's main UK web site (they are a 75 year old UK company - well known for their Pains & Wessex flares, life rafts and various other bits of SAR kit). The Fastfind 210 submersion capability (of 30 minutes at 10m) seems to be considerably better than the minimum standard you mention. I assume that the 5-10 minutes is an international requirement for ay PLB - and individual manufacturers may choose to exceed the minimum as they see fit ? I assume that this also holds for the Fastfind 211 - which, AFAIK, is identical except for its floatation jacket. The 211 was created solely for NZ & Australia, as these countries require PLBs to float. So McMurdo put the 210 in a neoprene sleeve and called it a 211. I don't know what prompted this special requirement, as the great majority of the world seems eager for PLBs that value smallness & better portability over the additional bulk required for floatation... Best Regards Paul Hayward, Auckland, New Zealand *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Peter wrote a list of specs from various sources. Peter Thanks for such a great collection of data ! I have been amused that various national websites seem to sing different songs about the same products. McMurdo USA says the Fastfind is good for 5 minutes at 10m (the basic requirement for any PLB, I believe) and their competitor (ACR) crows that ACR's units beat the Fastfind in this category with a 10 minute capability (see http://www.acrelectronics.com/media/products/1467/1942011141720760/FF%20Vs%2 0SARLink.pdf). However, on the McMurdo UK site, in a comparison between their own models of PLB (some with much longer than 24-hour battery lifespan) they give the 210 a 30 minute rating at 10m. So, were the US marketing guys just stating the obvious (that it meets the basic standard) and avoiding a claim of longer survivability because they're in a liability-intensive environment like the US ? Or did they seriously think the head office had got it wrong and the 210 was only good for 5 instead of 30 minutes ? Given that ACR is about their only serious competition in the US, it's hard to believe that they never noticed ACR's comparison page... Best Regards Paul Hayward, Auckland, New Zealand *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Don't stand still in this techno world - or something will trample you as it rushes past ;-) As of two weeks ago (July 21), the FCC approved for sale the American ACR ResQLink. It's slightly smaller & lighter than my McMurdo Fastfind 210 - and has a user-re-foldable antenna as well as compatibility with an optional service for sending the occasional message home. It's only about 12% lighter and 8% smaller - so I'm not rushing out to replace the Fastfind - and it has taken ACR 2 years to catch up. Their older models are all twice the size. http://www.acrelectronics.com/news/product-announcements/2011/07/resqlink-pe rsonal-locator-beacon/ Looking at this new service for sending occasional messages home - using a standard PLB instead of a Spot - it is clearly in answer to the advantage enjoyed by the Spot. There are a few gotchas. It appears that this service is run by a separate company 406link.com - who seem to have worked out a deal to piggy-back on the SARSAT system. Good on 'em - but the buggers don't seem to have made it work with my McMurdo 210 unit. They do with about 40 other McMurdo models - so who knows why no 210... Note that all the PLBs seem to allow about 10 fully functional checks (including a GPS lock-on) - that's built into the unit & supported in the battery-life specs. Of course, each test consumes some battery power - which will come out of your final transmission window. That's why they limit the # of tests. Under the new 'send a message home' service for 406 PLBs, each one of the messages sent counts as a 'test'. So after 10 messages, you looks like you are either cutting into your 24-hour transmission rating or you are up for a 100+ $US battery replacement. That might temper your enthusiasm for keeping mum up-to-date with your location & well-being... Nice little unit from ACR though. The new champeen 'baby' PLB. But no extended waterproof rating ;-) Best Regards Paul *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:55 PDT