Re: VHF Radios vs. Satellite phones for wilderness programs - anyone want to bite?

From: Rick Curtis <bounce-Rick_Curtis@outdoored.com>
Subject: RE: [General Forum] VHF Radios vs. Satellite phones for wilderness programs - anyone want to bite?
To: gettingtoteam@yahoo.com
Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 1:07 PM

Kris, we use cell phones and sat phones depending on location. The things I would think about is where are your trips and who do you plan to talk to? If you are on water then VHF marine radios are used all the time with easy access to emergency channel 16 to call for help and the ability to communicate to a marine operator to make phone calls and access to the Coast Guard. In a land setting it’s a little less clear who you are communicating with and what they can do for you. The other issue with VHS is the requirement to be licensed to use it.

 

The other device we have used successfully is the SPOT (www.findmespot.com ). It has three modes

 

Emergency – which contacts rescue authorities

Ask for Help – alerts people you select that you have a problem

Check-in – I’m okay mode

 

All three versions can send SMS, email messages to selected people with coordinates. Here’s a sample

 

SPOT Check OK.

ESN:0-7469368

Latitude:61.7531

Longitude:-150.6948

Nearest Location:not known

Distance:not known

Time:03/02/2009 21:53:56 (US/Alaska)

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=61.7531,-150.6948&ie=UTF8&z=12&om=1

 

____________________

Rick Curtis
Director, Outdoor Action
Princeton University
609-258-5621

www.princeton.edu/~oa/

P Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this e-mail.

 

From: DrewLeemon <bounce-DrewLeemon@outdoored.com>
Subject: Re: [General Forum] VHF Radios vs. Satellite phones for wilderness programs - anyone want to bite?
To: gettingtoteam@yahoo.com
Date: Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 7:53 AM

Kris, 

When considering VHF radios over satellite phones you need to consider the geography of where you are going and the range of the radio. Radios are line of sight. Marine and aircraft VHF radios work well because there are few if any obstacles to block the signal. On land VHF radios can be quite limited because of terrain features unless there are repeaters that you can hit. Land management agencies often VHF radios and have repeaters. You likely would not be able to gain access to the repeaters. 

Satellite phones work well, but you have to understand their quirks. I would not advise using Globalstar. Their voice communication services are suffering because the voice antenna on their satellites is (and has been) degrading. They have announced plans for replacing satellites, but it appears that they have been unable to do this. The Iridium system works well. However, calls do get dropped, but that is mainly because of all the links the signal has to go through from sat phone to land line. The signal chain breaks and the call is dropped. Simply call again. It can be frustrating but with patience you'll get through. Terrain is a limiting factor in sat phones too (think line-of-sight radio except the line of sight is to the sky not across the land) - if you're in a deep canyon or heavily forested area you may have trouble acquiring the satellites and getting a call out. The pro's of sat phones is two-way communication and you know if your message was received or not. The Con's are expense. We've been using sat phones with great success for many years. I've not heard of many problems except at the risk conference last fall one gentleman recounted stories of woe as his Iridium sat phones worked poorly in Canada.

Spots are promising. They work on the data antenna of Globastar satellites. This antenna is not degrading and functions fine. (My understanding is it is in a more protected location on the satellite.) We have been testing spots around the world for the past year. Southern hemisphere reliability has been poor. Northern hemisphere reliability has been good. Spots are influenced from the same terrain limits as satellite phones, but it seems not as adversely. This may be because the message size is small and simple compared to a voice communication with a sat phone. We had very good results transmitting from the canyons of Southern Utah, but had very poor results from some canyons in Southern Arizona. The Pro's of spots is they are inexpensive (though the annual service fee is a recurring cost) and they are small, light and durable. The Con's are one-way communication only and no good way to know if your message got out. 

For a small scale program, and if you rely on local SAR for evacuation, spot may be the way to go. For a large program, complex evacuation logistics from very remote location, or international expeditions sat phones offer more capability and the two-way communication can give more peace of mind.

Good luck.

Drew

Drew Leemon

Director of Risk Management

NOLS 

284 Lincoln St.

Lander, WY 82520

307-332-8800 ext. 2256

www.nols.edu

_________________________________________________

Please join us in Durham North Carolina October 14,15 &16, for the 2009 Wilderness Risk Management Conference www.nols.edu/wrmc

Click to show quoted text

On Mar 11, 2009, at 8:03 AM, Rick Curtis wrote:

Kris, for satellite phones we shifted to Iridiums because of the problems with the Globalstar satellites. We haven’t had any problem with the SPOT but since we have only one unit we haven’t used it extensively in lots of different locations. After many years of experience with both Globalstar and Iridiums we’ve found that many times a text message will get through even though a voice call won’t (presumably a text message can get by with a weaker signal). Since SPOT is similar to a text message it could function the same way.

 

Rick

 

____________________

Rick Curtis
Director, Outdoor Action
Princeton University
609-258-5621

www.princeton.edu/~oa/

P Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this e-mail.