PLB, SPOT, and similar services; is there any relevant difference in reliability?
There's some discussion here about SPOT vs. PLB. The article recommends that PLB's (Personal Locator Beacons) are more reliable than SPOT (Satellite Communications), a comment says this is not true, the result appears inconclusive.
Is there any significant difference in reliability between SPOT, PLB, and similar services?
(Personal use case: mountains at high latitudes, but I'm interested in generic answers)
This post was sourced from https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/q/4332. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
1 answer
A SPOT will only work if you can see the sky. If you're in a deep canyon where there's not simultaneous line of sight to enough GPS satellites, it won't work. PLB's these days all include GPS, but GPS isn't needed in order to make the device work.
There seems to be some anecdotal evidence in real-world use that SPOTs are extremely unreliable: http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=25583&skip_to_post=291623#291623
A SPOT will continue signaling for longer than a PLB.
You didn't ask about price, but the yearly subscription for a SPOT is a huge rip-off. You're paying for the features such as messaging and "I'm OK," which may reassure your family but will not do much for your safety.
SPOT and PLBs are for use on land. If you were going to be, e.g., sailing across the Pacific, you'd want a different, specialized device.
This post was sourced from https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/a/4334. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads