Wednesday, Dec 06, 2017 at 22:40
The airforce "100% failure" rate, totally irrelevant to land PLB use in Australia.
If you read the report (and not try to write something into it that isn't there), it is very clear on the reasons for the failure of the specially developed units for the USAF.
"5 years of the temperature
swings, vibration and shocks the
beacon would experience on an aircraft." . . . fighter aircraft and placed into injector seats.
I am aware of one case where a GME PLB malfunctioned and sent a signal out (for one minute) unintended, not really a failure to operate when needed, but this was in a marine environment (it leaked !) where an EPIRB would have been more suited.
No piece of kit like a PLB or spot should be 'thrown around in a vehicle' for years, that is pure and simple equipment abuse.
If you know the KTI unit, you would know it has a beaut hardcase cover that is excellent protection, fluro yellow with long neck lanyard same fluro colour, perfect for the vehicle console or backpack.
I have no idea what a GME or other units include with theirs.
There is no valid reason to call in doubt the operational reliability of a PLB on land, it's intended use.
You can find anything to support your argument if you google enough.
I just tried > Spot failure < finds one relative topic only, so it is pretty rare for any of these beacons or trackers to not work.
Anyway, and this topic on imaginary unreliability is far too minuscule to pursue further.
If people feel the need to have a way to contact authorities in dire circumstances, use a plb, use a spot, inreach, whatever you like after researching properly, some will like the tracking and simple messages, and weight up pro, cons, and costs to get what they feel best for their needs.
FollowupID:
886385