Our initial evaluation of the second generation SPOT GPS Satellite Messenger (SPOT 2) was cut short when the unit died after we immersed it in a bowl of water. While we were originally told it was a production SPOT 2, turns out it was one of the pre-production units and wasn’t waterproof. I received what I was assured was really a production SPOT 2 while on the road. Taking advantage of the hotel’s pool with a depth of five feet, I power it on and I tossed it in, waited an hour, pulled it out and it worked fine using Check OK. Once I was home I put together a 20-foot tall test rig made of Schedule 40 sewer pipe, borrowed a neighbor’s balcony and suspended the SPOT 2 at a depth of 5 meters (16.2 ft.) for an hour, the depth and duration to which the SPOT 2 is rated. That’s when things got a bit weird.

When I pulled it out the power button was flashing red. That would mean that after only about 3 hours of use and a half dozen messaging attempts the batteries were run down. So, I turned it off and turned it on again and light was now flashing green. Ran Check OK and it worked. Still puzzling over this strangeness, a few hours later I performed the 16 ft. water test again, but with power off this time. I pulled out and turned it on, green LED and tested Check OK again, which worked fine. Turned it off and then about an hour later I turned it on again and it was now flashing red again. Ran Check OK and it worked fine. Turned it on and off a few times and each time it flashed red. Pulled the battery cover to see if there was any water inside and it was dry. Over the next day and a half I tried turning it on a half dozen times and it flashed red each time. Then, just before retiring for the night, I tried and it flashed green. I left it on all night and it was still flashing green in the morning and a Check OK worked fine. Shared the experience with SPOT and they have been unable to come up with an explanation so far. That left me with lots of questions and no good answers, not what I want in a distress alerting device.

In an effort to see if the depth testing had anything to do with the red battery indication, I set up the test rig again and tried it once more with fresh batteries. This time when I pulled it out it was still flashing green, but the Message Sent LED was also flashing. Given that I hadn’t pressed any of the message buttons, that was unexpected. Pressing the Check OK button didn’t activate that either. As I puzzled over that, I left it flashing in order to take some photos and video. Then GEOS called! Seems they had received an SOS alert once the SPOT 2 was removed from the test rig. After assuring GEOS that everything was okay, I turned it off and called SPOT.

Well, turns out that at its rated depth, the pressure can be sufficient to press the buttons and in this case it switched on the SOS button. Bottom line, while it may be waterproof to 5 meters, you need to be careful because at depth it can turn itself on and the result could be an unpleasant surprise visit from SAR. I suggested to SPOT that they might want to include a warning to that effect in the User Manual. And, still no answers for the apparently erroneous red battery indication.

Other Problems

A few other issues cropped up during our brief test period..

The red SOS dot and white text on the protective cover for the SOS button has started to wear off after only a few days and there is a scratch in the “reaching hands” image on the HELP protective cover. This SPOT 2 was carried in my pocket for a day or so, in aggregate, and spent an aggregate of about an hour or so being spun on its face on a tablecloth during a meeting. None of that is really the sort of abuse you’d expect to result in this wear, and far less than it can expect it to receive in real world use. That doesn’t bode well for its durability.

The instruction label on the back was already starting to peel off and come apart after being exposed to water/wet for only a total of three hours. After the fourth hour in the wet it really started to come apart completely. This is another example of poor durability that suggests either poor quality control or poor selection of materials or design. For a device intended to be used in wet environments, such as sailing, boating, PWC, kayaking, etc., this is unacceptable in my opinion.

Issues such as this suggest a lack of concern for durability in the design and specifications for the SPOT 2 and inevitably raise questions about the entire package.

Also, we were told after our first report that SPOT would include updated battery life information in the email sent to newly registered SPOT 2 units, but when we registered this SPOT 2 last week, it still had not been included.

Testing will continue…

New Zealand

I also sent a second pre-production SPOT 2 that I received after the first failed (also not waterproof) with a close friend who is touring in New Zealand. He has been dutifully turning it on daily and we have been tracking him on his travels down under. No question that it is fun to follow along. Tracking performance has been similar to what we have seen here with SPOT in the past and during our brief initial evaluation. It is doing pretty well, but there are occasional gaps, even with SPOT 2’s redundant tracking transmissions that we discussed in our first report. He’s also carrying a McMurdo Fast Find PLB, just in case.

UPDATED: November 19, 2009: I received an email today from a gentleman who had difficulties with the TSA about his ResQMe. Unfortunately, the TSA Screeners are often not the brightest bulbs on the tree, to put it politely, and often interpret the rules incorrectly. In those instances where I have run into problems with screeners, asking for a supervisor has always resolved the problem (of course, there’s never a guarantee with the TSA, they can still be arrogant, mercurial and unreasonable at times). Bear in mind that that in the U.S. scissors with pointed tips and blades shorter than four inches are legal. All I can add is that I and many others carry them through TSA checkpoints all the time with no problems.

Click to read our Follow-up Report.

SPOT, LLC has started shipping their second generation SPOT Satellite GPS Messenger (which we will refer to here as SPOT 2) that we took a look at when it was introduced at Outdoor Retailer earlier this year. I was supposedly sent one of the first production SPOT 2 devices to test. During testing, the unit failed (see below). Then SPOT told me that it really wasn’t a production SPOT, it was a pre-production unit hand assembled by Axonn, SPOT’s device designer/manufacturer. Regardless, all I can do is report what I witnessed since I have no way to determine whether or not it is or isn’t production at this point. They tell me that the electronics are identical to production, only the case and assembly are not. They have assured me that the real production units are actually waterproof. They promised to send me an honest-to-God real live production unit later this week or next. The first batch of production units can be found at REI and similar major retailers, but my local REI didn’t have one. I will update this once they get a replacement SPOT 2 in my hands. Click to read our Follow-up Report. As I am off on two weeks of travel and folks have been bugging me for my opinion on the new SPOT, here goes…

This is a very limited look at SPOT 2, due to time constraints and the failure. As such, I’ll stick to the primary improvements and changes and how they will affect the user, and in keeping with our primary interests, my focus is on SPOT as a means of signaling distress, so I will not spend much time on the ancillary value-added capabilities, except as the relate to this function.

Like many first tries, the original SPOT had a number of issues that quickly manifested themselves in real world use, creating problems for both users and SAR. SPOT certainly didn’t lack for criticism from which to garner ideas for improvements. As the second generation product evolved, I had the opportunity to provide my own candid input into the development process. To their credit, SPOT listened for the most part.

First, as an aside, devices such as SPOT now have their own official acronym, “SEND,” standing for Satellite Emergency Notification Device. SENDs are satellite distress beacons other than COSPAS-SARSAT 406 MHz devices (PLBs, EPIRBs and ELTs). RTCM started up a new subcommittee, SC 128, that began meeting earlier this year and which is defining a standard for SENDs, similar to those that exist for PLBs. It is anticipated that this standard will eventually become part of the FCC regulations. The goal is to ensure that the device and the distress function is designed and produced to a minimum standard of performance, so that consumers and SAR can have more confidence in these devices. I am a member of SC 128 and SPOT has been participating since the first meeting. SC 128 is not dealing with the interface between the private call centers these devices rely upon, another problem area, and the SAR services. That issue is being dealt with by a new NSARC (National Search and Rescue Committee) Working Group that will hold its first meeting next month. I am pleased to have been invited to participate in that group as well.

SPOT 2 has a large seal over the battery compartment that says “SERVICE REQUIRED” and provides the SPOT web site address. That hopefully clues in the new owner that they must pay for a subscription before they install the batteries and can use SPOT. I still don’t think the term “service” is all that clear; I’d prefer they were a bit more forthright about it, something like, “SUBSCRIPTION REQUIRED,” both there and on the packaging. The retail packaging does include text that “SPOT requires activation of a basic service plan prior to use,” but I’d be happier if that was in bold on the front of the package, not on the inside of a fold-out flap on the back. SPOT still has an official policy that without a paid-up subscription, they do not respond to a distress message. I am sure you trust computer databases as much as do I.

GPS Performance

As in the original, the GPS receiving and satellite transmitting antenna in SPOT 2 are one and the same. In the original, this antenna favored transmitting performance over the GPS reception, compromising the device’s GPS performance. Since that is the only locating means that SPOT has, there’s no Doppler back-up and 121.5 MHz homer as in a 406 MHz beacon, that proved to be a notable deficiency. SPOT claims the new antenna in SPOT 2 is a breakthrough design which doesn’t compromise either GPS or transmissions. The new GPS chip is also a relatively current generation 50-channel design and inherently delivers much greater sensitivity and performance. The combination should make a big difference in the less than optimum GPS reception situations survivors too often find themselves dealing with.

We weren’t able to thoroughly test the GPS performance in the few days we’ve had the device, that will take some time, but we did run it through some tests similar to what we did with the McMurdo Fast Find PLB. We were able to get an indication of a GPS location from inside my home, including the most difficult locations. In terms of GPS performance, it was far better than the original, which was unable to get a GPS location inside unless right by a window.

The new GPS LED provides the user a very clear indication of GPS status, in contrast to the original. Blinking green is good, blinking red is bad. No questions.

It is worth noting that SPOT transmits full GPS accuracy rather than the potentially degraded accuracy the 406 MHz beacons provide of +/- 4 seconds. Of course, without a GPS location, it’s a different story with SPOT. However, while SPOT does not inherently provide a true back-up for location like a PLB’s Doppler location and 121.5 MHz homer, SPOT does have the potential to at least get SAR into the area if Tracking is engaged. That’s a somewhat big if, in my opinion, but better than nothing. Assuming someone intends to use SPOT as their distress alerting device, they would do well to ensure tracking is always turned on (which must be done manually every 24 hours, something that has occasionally been forgotten by a user, with resulting issues for SAR).

With regards to Tracking, SPOT 2 incorporates some valuable improvements over the original. Beyond the improved GPS that should better ensure you get a location to be tracked, SPOT 2 now sends both the current tracking location and the prior two locations with each transmission to the satellite. These changes are designed to accommodate the all too common situation, in our experience, where SPOT is unable to communicate with the satellite for a period of time, which led to many gaps in tracking with the original SPOT. We didn’t see any evidence in our brief initial testing that SPOT 2 is any better at getting the transmission to the satellite, we saw the same sorts of gaps develop in driving around with it positioned on the car’s dash as we do with the original SPOT. The big difference was that once it did successfully get through, the trail was much more complete than it would have been previously because of the built in redundant location transmissions. We would see the gaps develop with no location displayed for 20-30 minutes and then suddenly appear as it caught up in subsequent transmissions. The result is that it is more likely that the tracking will be useful in an emergency when no GPS location is provided, assuming Tracking was turned on.

Without a homer, Tracking’s value to SAR in part depends on how the user is traveling. With a transmission every 10 minutes, on foot the potential area to search from a last known position is going to be a whole lot smaller than if traveling in a car, boat or especially an aircraft. On the other hand, when on foot you’re probably more likely to find yourself in a situation without a GPS location and more difficulty transmitting to the satellites over time. Either way, it doesn’t provide me a warm, fuzzy feeling, but it is an element to consider in deciding if SPOT is adequate for your purposes.

The PLB standard and the draft SEND standard both require that the location of the GPS antenna be identified and instructions included to not obstruct the antenna and to orient it to the sky. On SPOT 2 there’s a small illustration of a SPOT device with an arrow pointing “up.” In my opinion, it isn’t big enough, but it’s better than what the original had, which was nothing. The logical spot (pardon the pun) to place a larger version of that is right where the SPOT logo is, but I expect the marketing and sales types couldn’t cope with that. On the other hand, I’m more interested in saving lives. There is also nothing to warn about blocking the GPS antenna, which I consider just as critical. The only argument is that unlike a PLB, a SPOT user may have prior experience using the device for the value-added functions and may be more familiar with how best to operate the device. That doesn’t, however, cope with a situation where a person totally unfamiliar with SPOT ends up using it for the first time in an emergency, which could occur for lots of reasons.

Human Interface

The interface with the original SPOT was hardly intuitive and created many problems for users and SAR alike. SPOT 2 has six separate buttons, one for on/off and for each mode of operation. They are illuminated with green or red LEDs to indicate their status, plus there are two additional LED status indicators. While not yet a model of intuitive design, it is a huge improvement over the original.

The old “911″ button has morphed into “SOS,” a more internationally recognized symbol of distress. The SOS button is now covered to prevent inadvertent activation, which is very good and required on PLBs and in the draft SEND standard being worked by SC 128. Not so good is that you are unlikely to be able to lift the cover up while wearing even moderately thick gloves. You’ll either need to remove a glove or use a tool with a thin section, such as your knife or such, to lift the cover and possibly to press the small recessed button. This same applies to the HELP button, now showing a symbol of two hands reaching for each other, which is also protected in the same manner. As before, SOS goes direct to the GEOS call center, while HELP sends a message, which you can edit online, to your contacts. A spare set of covers is provided, in case one breaks off I suppose.

I still have one quibble from a distress alerting perspective. You must turn SPOT 2 on before pressing SOS, which is not how I’d do it. If you need SOS, that should be the only button you need to press to signal distress. A placard on the back does tell the user to first turn on the unit and then to press SOS. There is also a caution to move the device to a location with a clear view of the sky if the GPS LED is red. SPOT includes versions of this placard in English, Spanish, French and Portuguese. On the downside, being on the back doesn’t exactly make it readily visible to the unfamiliar user, even more so if in its case and not viewable at all.

The Check OK button is still there. SPOT 2 adds a Custom Message button, which is user configurable to whatever message your want, as is Check OK for that matter, and sent to separately defined contacts. SPOT now sends each of those messages three times at 5-minute intervals, which should make it more likely the message gets through. However, in our tests, conducted under not at all demanding circumstances, we occasionally found that the Check OK message did not go through. That’s a concern for me, as failure to receive an OK message can turn into a Search and Rescue mission very quickly when someone close to the user is worried that something is wrong.

One minor aggravation in the online interface is you cannot copy contacts from one to another,or if it is there I missed it, each must be separately entered. Seems like they ought to be able to make that easier. Also, if you want to enter multiple numbers for any one Emergency Contact, the only way to do that is to enter the same contact with different numbers. Given you are only allowed two Emergency Contacts, this is a problem. They need to allow multiple contact numbers for each Emergency Contact, At a minimum this should include home, work, cell, and instant messaging.

While SPOT 2 will send the SOS or Help messages even if it cannot get a GPS location, as before and updates with GPS is it later gets a location, it won’t send a Check OK or Custom message unless it has a GPS location, which doesn’t make much sense to me. While odds are that you more likely to get a GPS location, with the new GPS, than be unable to send out a message, stuff happens in the real world. Given the fact that failure to receive an OK message has already resulted in panicked calls that have sent SAR forces into the field, why make it any more difficult to get that message out? Moreover, the Custom Message may not even need a GPS to be relevant or useful. At least SPOT 2 makes it much clearer, via the LEDs, whether it has a GPS location and if the message has been sent. That allows/encourages a knowledgeable user to relocate to a better GPS receiving position, which will also most times give you a better transmitting location as well. So, using a somewhat perverse logic, if the user actually understands all this and what the flashing LEDs actually mean, it more likely assures the Check OK message gets through, sort of, kind of. I’m not buying that logic, however, because I know better than to assume the user actually understands how everything works.

With the switch to three AAA-cell lithium batteries from AA-cells, as well as the additional LEDs and such, SPOT 2 has shorter operating times than the original. With fresh batteries, SPOT 2 will transmit an SOS for 2.8 days (approximately 810 messages at one every 5 minutes) at -22 F (-30 C). At the point that the red LED starts flashing. it has 100 messages worth of battery life remaining, or about 8.3 Hours of SOS transmissions remaining. In most situations on land, that’s more than adequate since you aren’t likely going anywhere, you should be waiting for rescue. On the water where you can drift a long ways very quickly and rescue can often take a while, that’s not so great.

We were not able to conduct battery run-down tests. Of course, using the Tracking (approximately 4.3 24-hour days worth on a set of batteries) or other messaging functions will reduce the battery capacity available for an SOS or Help message. From my perspective, the take-way from this is to make sure you always have a spare set of batteries with you if you are going to be depending on SPOT for rescue. Also on the topic of batteries, we have noticed that unlike AA-cell lithium batteries which seem to be readily available these days, finding AAA-cell lithium batteries locally can be a challenge. I expect that to be an even greater challenge out of the country. A word to the wise…

On a related note, neither the User’s Guide or the “Important Changes Regarding How SPOT Functions!” addendum have accurate information on battery life, other than messages remaining in the latter. That represents a decided deficiency, in my opinion, especially considering that the limits impact how a user might use or manage battery life for possible use in distress alerting. SPOT say they are updating the User’s Guide, but seems to me they ought to not deliver units until that critical information is provided. At the least, they should include that information in the email message they already send you upon registering your SPOT.

The original SPOT was buoyant and the specifications we were provided for SPOT 2 when introduced at Outdoor Retailer indicated it would also be buoyant. Somewhere between prototype and production things went awry and the production model does not float. Since I don’t consider buoyancy all that important for personal devices, that’s not a significant deficiency in my opinion. Buoyancy is a nice-to-have feature, but anyone using any personal distress signaling device in situations where it might be lost in the water should have it tethered to their person at all times, regardless. I would definitely suggest that marine users secure the SPOT 2 with some Velcro if they are just going to set it on the console, as seems to be common with the original SPOT.

When we registered our SPOT, we got a message via email that included the following information: “In its carrying case, SPOT-2 will float until the carrying case becomes saturated with water, which will provide you with a limited time to retrieve SPOT from the water (as little a ~1 minute if using SPOT + case + armband). Whitewater conditions shorten the time until case saturation. SPOT highly recommends that you keep SPOT in its case and either attached to you or your gear.” So, there you go. I think a closed-cell neoprene pouch might be a better choice.

SPOT 2 Failure

Click to read our Follow-up Report.

SPOT 2 is rated as waterproof to 5 meters (16.4 ft.) for one hour, a five-fold improvement over the original. We submerged it briefly in a shallow bowl of water (2 inches worth) while attempting to determine how much buoyancy it lacked to be able to float and afterward it was dead. We checked to see if water leaked into the battery compartment, but it was dry. After a few hours the red LED in the Tracking button lit up, which isn’t even in the list of possible indications. That red LED eventually grew dimmer. When we subsequently picked it up, it was very warm. Removing the recalcitrant battery cover, the batteries were almost too hot to handle. Obviously, that failure ended our functional testing. The unit is heading back to SPOT as you read this. As noted earlier, now they tell me that the SPOT 2 we tested wasn’t a production unit as originally we were told, rather a hand-assembled pre-production unit.

Click to read our Follow-up Report.

Like the original SPOT, SPOT 2 is made in China by Axonn who provide a 1-year limited warranty. SPOT does not warrant the device they sell, the warranty is from the manufacturer. Axonn’s warranty doesn’t cover warranty shipping costs either way and neither is the warranty extended if they replace or fix the problem. All currently available PLBs (or, at least those sold in the U.S.) come with a minimum 4-year warranty, most are 5-years or more.

You can expect to lay out $150 for SPOT 2. A basic subscription, including SOS and the other messaging, is $99.99 per year. If you want tracking, add another $49.99. GEOS rescue cost insurance, to the tune of $100,000, costs $7.95 per year. If you upgrade from the original SPOT to SPOT 2, you don’t need to buy a new subscription, your existing one will work with the new SPOT 2.

Conclusions

With only a couple days to play with SPOT 2, and given the failure we experienced and the questions about whether or not this was a production unit, there’s a limit to how far I’m willing to go with any conclusions. Still, it was pretty obvious that SPOT has a much better human interface, which should cut down some on false alerts, and the GPS clearly performs much better.

On the other hand, the failure we experienced after a brief dunking in a shallow bowl of water does not give us a lot of confidence in the device. Was the unit they sent me really pre-production or not? I cannot tell as I sit here. Given all the emails I get about SPOT 2, I also wouldn’t feel right delaying publication of this report. So, take that for what it is worth.

We’ll take another look at SPOT 2 once they have send me a replacement and I am, hopefully, convinced that the production units are actually waterproof. In the meantime, I cannot recommend this second generation SPOT. Even if we get past this hiccup, there are lots of other issues to consider before you decide on a SPOT.

Click to read our Follow-up Report.email me your results.

SPOT, LLC introduced their second generation “SPOT Satellite GPS Messenger” at Outdoor Retailer Summer Market in Salt Lake City, Utah, this week. The new device (I’ll refer to it as SPOT 2 to differentiate between it and the original SPOT) appears to address many of the deficiencies we found in the original SPOT, both in terms of ergonomics and human interface issues as well as GPS performance.

SPOT provided the following list of new features in their press release and I have annotated the list with my thoughts and comments:

30% smaller and lighter than the original model at 5.2 ounces – As the images show, it is quite a bit smaller, which is rarely a bad thing. In comparison to the new McMurdo Fast Find PLB, it is a bit shorter and thinner, but wider. I suspect volume would be similar.

New enhanced satellite antenna for improved performance in foliage or canopied environments and Advanced GPS performance chipset – The original SPOT suffered from less than stellar GPS performance in challenging environments and even some not so challenging. In part it was the GPS receiver, which wasn’t leading edge, but in larger part it was caused by the fact that the GPS receiving antenna and the satellite transmitting antenna were one and the same and it was optimized to transmit to the Globalstar satellites. SPOT claims the new dual use antenna is a major breakthrough and doesn’t compromise GPS performance. I’ll take that with at least a small grain of salt, but expect that there will be a significant improvement in GPS performance between having a current generation, high sensitivity GPS receiver and a better antenna. Only testing and field experience will show how much better.

Because SPOT 2 still relies only on GPS to provide location information in the distress signal, improved GPS performance would be a significant advantage. If you are already a fan of SPOT, and plan on it being your distress alerting device, that alone would be worth the upgrade, assuming it delivers on the promise. At this point, particularly without having tested it, I am not suggesting that SPOT is, in my mind, a replacement for a 406 MHz Personal Locator Beacon for distress alerting, but if you intend to use it for that purpose, the improved GPS would be good to have.

GPS Acquisition light and “Message Sending” indicator light – dedicated indicating LEDs should help eliminate some of the confusion that was caused by the many different flashing LED indications on the original SPOT. That was a continual source of annoyance and, in many cases, serious problems when a user misinterpreted what the device was doing. The lighted buttons (see below) are part of that solution.

Dedicated GPS Tracking button – Again, this should help make it less confusing and easier to use the tracking function. This is actually pretty important because the tracking function can provide a degree of back-up in case the device does not transmit a GPS location in a distress alert. SPOT 2 will transmit a distress alert, even without a GPS location. If you have tracking engaged and you have an emergency, but the distress alert does not include a GPS location, then Search and Rescue might have the digital bread crumb trail to provide a starting point for a search. The key here is that you have to manually engage the tracking feature and you have to do that on a daily basis.

SPOT has improved the tracking feature by recognizing the issue that often showed up with the original SPOT when in the field, that a tracking point or points were often not received by the system, which could occur for a variety of reasons. In an effort to mitigate this issue, SPOT 2 now sends the current tracking location and the previous two locations in every tracking data burst (three bursts every 10 minutes). Thus, if the system doesn’t receive a few of those tracking data bursts, for whatever reasons, it can recover to a degree. Obviously, if there are more than a couple tracking locations not received, as we would sometimes see or have been reported with the original SPOT, it cannot recover more than two locations previously. There is no suggestion that satellite communications have been improved, so satellite visibility may likely still be an issue in some cases.

New, dedicated pre-programmable Custom Message button – This could be very helpful by allowing an alternative message to the Help or I’m OK messages available to the original SPOT user. Uses for this message function are limited only by your imagination.

Protective covers over S.O.S and Help button to prevent inadvertent message transmissions – This should help prevent accidental activation and the unexpected arrival of SAR at your location. This is a requirement for PLBs and I’m glad to see SPOT adopt this to their device.

Illuminated buttons – Helpful at night, for sure. But, even better, each is used to indicate that function is engaged and working, which will address the confusion caused by the LED indicators on the original SPOT

Choice of orange or silver – I think this is aimed primarily at their SPOT Assist vehicle assistance market where perhaps bright orange isn’t considered quite so fashion forward. Orange makes a lot more sense for our wilderness, marine, aviation and other similar uses

Included case and neoprene fastening band – There’s no integral clip like on the original SPOT; they provide a cell-phone style soft case with a clip. The Velcro dot can be used for mounting on your car dashboard or aircraft glare shield, etc.

The new model includes globally recognized symbols for its message buttons to accommodate use in international markets and stimulate distribution to a growing customer base in North and South America, Europe, Asia and Australia – 911, as used on the original SPOT, is not universally understood, but S.O.S. is. The button symbology is pretty straightforward and much better than the original SPOT.

SPOT 2 is powered by three AAA-cell lithium batteries (compared to AA-cells for the original SPOT) which will provide a bit over 4.6 days of S.O.S. transmissions every 5 minutes with a full charge. Of course, if you are using the tracking and other features, that will shorten the S.O.S. transmission time. There is a low battery warning, the Power On LED flashes red, when battery capacity reaches 30% remaining. Just like on the original Spot, two screws retain the battery compartment cover on the back of the unit.

SPOT 2 reportedly meets or exceeds the same environmental and abuse resistance standards as the current PLB standard requires. It is claimed to be significantly more waterproof than the original SPOT. That was rated to one meter for 30 minutes, but we are aware of a number of instances where that appeared not to be the case or insufficient for use while running a river and the like, even when it wasn’t immersed that deep or that long. SPOT 2 is rated to 5 meters (16.4 feet) for 1 hour and that should be adequate for most users.

Pricing will be the same as the current SPOT, with an MSRP of $169.95 and an expected street price of about $149. As before, a subscription is required and cost of that remains the same; $99.99 for distress alerting, HELP and Check OK messages and use of the customizable message button. Tracking adds another $49.99. GEOS insurance for costs incurred in a rescue remains at $7.95 per year. Normally this hasn’t been much of a concern for those adventuring in the U.S., but given all the publicity recently about persons being stupidly charged ridiculous amounts for rescue in some cases, unfortunately, I suspect that will be a strong sales point for SPOT.

As before, if your subscription lapses or the computer loses you, they won’t pass along your distress alert or messages. No money, or record of money, no rescue. I still have a serious issue with this policy.

GEOS continues to provide the distress alerting interface, and my concerns about how they accomplish that remain as well. While they seem to have improved significantly since they first started, often with a push from authorities, I am still not impressed by some of the reports I receive about them stumbling to make contact with the correct SAR service in some instances. Giving credit where due, they have plenty of saves to their credit, but I cannot ignore the issues that remain or the difficulties that have manifested themselves in the reports I get.

GEOS reportedly provide a generally responsive interface with the listed emergency contacts during the search and rescue phase, but they still need to improve how they interface with SAR, based on reports, and they need to become more proactive in doing so. Their proprietary position towards their system and performance and lack of openness makes it even more difficult to both access their performance and service and to come up with better solutions. This continues to be the subject of much discussion in the SAR alerting community. GEOS remains an issue and question mark for me with regards to using SPOT for distress alerting.

SPOT 2, like the original SPOT, is assembled in China.

SPOT 2 is scheduled to be available “later this fall” according to SPOT. All SPOT was showing at Outdoor Retailer was a non-functional model. We have been promised one of the first units manufactured and we’ll bring you an initial evaluation as soon as possible, once we have it in hand.

Initial Hands-on Report – Second Generation SPOT

In speaking with members of Canada’s National Search and Rescue Secretariat at the 2009 RTCM Annual Conference, they indicated that the regulation is still in the Canadian Minister of Transport, John Baird’s, office and still under consideration. Government agencies are still discussing the implications and means of moving forward.

Canadian Owners and Pilots Association (COPA) President Kevin Psutka’s interpretation of what this all means as reported in AVweb may not necessarily represent the entire picture, as you would expect from any organization pushing for their agenda. There is obviously another side to the story that my sources are not at liberty to discuss in detail for public dissemination. Aircraft operators should not necessarily count on major changes to the proposed regulation. May happen; may not.

Stay tuned…

See AVweb story here

This is good news for U.S. pilots planning to fly into or through Canada who have been at loose ends about what to do. Regardles, I’d urge all pilots to make sure they carry a 406 MHz PLB, at a minimum. From my perspective the unreliable ELT, even a 406, is back-up to a PLB, not the other way around.

I am attending the RTCM SC110 committee meeting and NOAA Beacon Manufacturers Workshop the end of this week and expect to recieve a report from the Canadian Search and Rescue Secretariat on this matter.

Stand by for more.

See latest update here.

They now claim that subsequent testing indicated that our collective assumptions as to the severity of the problem were not substantiated and that, “the Ultra mirror will do what it is intended to do under all reasonably encountered circumstances for the end user – it will perform as an emergency signal mirror – wet or dry.”

You can read their short announcement posted on their Web site and the full text of the announcement can be read here.

There were two issues we originally identified as concerns. One was the effects of immersion, the other the apparent variability in production quality. They produced a 26-page report on their investigation into the immersion issue, a preliminary version of which was shared with me subject to my signing a non-disclosure agreement (NDA).

To summarize the following information (though I urge you to read through for important details) for us the current bottom line for the StarFlash Ultra is that it is probably a good to very good signal mirror for use where it is unlikely to be immersed for a significant period of time. Rain, splash or a quick dunking are not an issue, only longer term immersion (see our initial report for details). That covers the majority of those looking for a signal mirror. This assumes that they have solved their production issues. In my opinion, it is probably okay in wet conditions if it is packaged in a sealed waterproof manner so that it stays dry until needed, for example, inside their Aqua Survival Kit.

Production Variability

Let me first address the production variability issue. While I was told I would receive a report on how they solved that issue, it was never provided, so all I can go on is the reference in their posted document:

A notable phenomena was observed in our initial run of a few hundred parts that caused a measure of variation in reflective surface dispersion separate from temperature shock or water absorption. This occurred during the manufacturing operation and was immediately recognized and corrected. UST went to the added expense of installing custom machining bits that allowed alternate manufacturing methods to be used to reduce to a minimum the heat build up during the fabrication of the mirror.

In our small sample of mirrors we experienced a wide range of reflectivity from better than the 90% of glass they claimed to as low as 60%. That’s not grossly poor, as plastic signal mirrors go, but hardly the performance promised (and more on par with the best of the previous generation StarFlash that we had tested, in our experience). If they have, indeed, solved the production issue, then that is good news for consumers. A high quality (90%), low cost mirror would be a great find. Whether they have actually solved the problem we are not in a position to say and won’t be until we are able to get some mirrors to test. That will take a while since they have to get this new production into the retail distribution chain first before we can obtain truly representative samples. Then we have to schedule testing and perform the tests. Hopefully, they will mark the new production in some clear manner so that consumers will be assured they are getting the improved production mirror.

Back in October, I was told that once they had resolved the issues, they would offer existing owners an exchange. There’s nothing about that in their release or posting, but I sincerely hope they follow through with that. Existing owners of the initial production StarFlash Ultra mirrors (sold both independently and as part of various UST survival kits, most notably their Aqua Survival Kit) have no way of knowing if they have a good or poorer performing mirror. Most consumers never even try out their signal mirror; it is stored in their survival kit until needed in an emergency. I’m not sure that there is any simple test that a consumer can do to determine how good a performer their mirror is. We use a test set-up that requires a sophisticated light meter. Lacking a simple test, replacement seems the only practical solution. If there are only “few hundred parts,” that shouldn’t be an undo burden in UST.

In case there’s any question about the variability in the performance of those initial production mirrors, just this past week there waa s signal mirror test conducted for an upcoming magazine article. A short summary was posted on KnifeForums.com Outdoor Survival Forum in which the Ultra was at the bottom of the tester’s “acceptable” group, instead of at the top where it should have been if it actually delivered consistent 90% performance. Since production is only just resuming and the mirror was obtained at an earlier date, the conclusion is that this is an initial production mirror. This would appear to bear out the fact that some owners of the initial production Ultra mirrors didn’t get what they paid for. We also have no way of knowing if this mirror is representative of the worst, or just somewhere in the middle.

Immersion Issue

With regards to the immersion issue, they claim that the warping of the mirror does not significantly alter its performance, even though the short range indications suggest otherwise. Mind you that the initial warning of poor short range reflectivity being representative of poor long range performance was based on many years of signal mirror testing that has proven to provide a direct link between the two. A poor quality short range reflection has always correlated with poor long range performance. Of particular note, when we consider long range performance we are talking about ranges in the 10-20 mile range for smaller mirrors such as this.

It is the “range” issue that becomes the crux of the matter, in many respects. Their long range tests were conducted at 3 and 6 miles, based on prior email correspondence, and showed what they estimated to be a 10% deficit at 6 miles. That actually correlates reasonably well with our own testing where we saw no noticeable difference between dry and wet at 1 mile and about 20% deficit at 5 miles. So, it is fair to say that at those ranges, the warping of the mirror probably doesn’t have any terribly significant effect.

According to our email correspondence, their local conditions in the Northwest precluded testing at greater ranges and weather issues made testing difficult. Easy enough to understand. I invited them to join us in the Phoenix area numerous times where the weather is more conducive to signal mirror testing and we have a good location for testing at longer ranges. UST did not take me up on the invitations.

Our tests were conducted on March 3, 2009, from 10:15 – 11:40 AM MST with the signaler on top of South Mountain at the base of the antennas (for those familiar with the area) signaling south from there. This provides near ideal geometry. Myself and one ETS volunteer each judged the strength of the flashes independently and without prior knowledge of which mirror was being flashed with the dry mirror being deemed a 10 on a scale of 1-10 at each location. The results of our tests were shared with UST.

We also performed tests at 10 and 15 miles and to our eyes there was a significant fall-off in performance at these greater ranges. At 10 miles we estimated a 50% reduction and at 15 miles an 80+% reduction, wet compared to dry. We have no way to know if our samples were representative of all the StarFlash Ultra mirrors, but they both tested better than 90% when dry.

It is worth noting another perspective on the performance degradation when wet. Assuming a 90% mirror, it could lose approximately 30% to 40% of its performance and still be no worse than the previous generation StarFlash. Somewhere in the middle distance, beyond the 5-6 mile point and before the 10 mile point, based on our testing, there will be a balance point beyond which the wet Ultra mirror would likely perform worse.

Bottom Line

For us the current bottom line for the StarFlash Ultra is that it is probably a good to very good signal mirror for use where it is unlikely to be immersed for a significant period of time. Rain, splash or a quick dunking are not an issue, only immersion (see our initial report for details). That covers the majority of those looking for a signal mirror. This assumes that they have solved their production issues and are consistently delivering the promised 90% performance. In my opinion, it is probably okay in wet conditions if it is packaged in a sealed waterproof manner so that it stays dry until needed, for example, inside their Aqua Survival Kit. I wouldn’t consider that ideal, but useable if you work to keep it from being immersed after removal from the waterproof packaging.

Since UST make a big deal out of the fact that their mirror is inherently buoyant (floats without additional floatation attached), I think I might as well voice my opinion on the matter. While a buoyant mirror may have some small advantage over one that does not float, the bottom line is that the mirror should always be tethered to you for security in any situation where it is likely to be lost in the water.

Relying upon the mirror’s buoyancy provides a false sense of security, in my opinion. In many, if not most cases, if you do not immediately notice that the mirror has been dropped, it will either float away out of reach or be carried away by the current. If you are likely to need your mirror in a maritime environment, you better secure it, if you don’t want to lose it, buoyant or not. In my opinion I am not convinced that buoyant vs. non-buoyant is a significant differentiator. Buoyancy is nice to have, but not essential. All other things being equal, buoyancy is an advantage, not a critical necessity. Tethering is essential in a maritime environment.

Signaling performance is much more important and if the StarFlash Ultra delivers on its 90% promise, that’s what counts. However, in my opinion, buoyancy doesn’t compensate for the performance degradation after immersion that we saw in our tests at longer ranges.

Where do we go from here? We’ll wait until we can procure a larger selection of the new production StarFlash Ultra mirrors off-the-shelf and we’ll perform another test, likely in conjunction with tests of some other new signal mirrors coming to market. In the meantime, I and my ETS volunteers are working on an improved test set-up that will make signal mirror testing a bit quicker and easier.

DISCLOSURE: Doug Ritter helped design the RescueFlash Signal Mirror produced by Adventure Medical Kits and which is included in the Doug Ritter designed Adventure Medical Kits Pocket Survival Pak. Ritter and The ETS Foundation receive a royalty on sales of Pocket Survival Paks. No royalties are received on the RescueFlash mirror itself.

Click here to go to the BoatU.S. Foundation visual distress signal article.

As you might expect, their tests focused on the marine environment where use of flares for distress alerting originated. They are required by regulation for many boaters and, regardless, should be part of every mariner’s survival equipment.

The tests included SOLAS handheld and parachute flares, SOLAS smoke canister flares, USCG approved gun-style flare launchers, parachute, meteor, handheld and smoke flares, and pocket aerial flares.

By and large BoatU.S. Foundation did a pretty good job and their results pretty much fall in line with my own experience and recommendations. They didn’t test all available pyrotechnic flares, but they did cover the most common ones available to boaters at retail. I’ve used and recommended the Comet SOLAS flares for a number of years and now that Pains Wessex bought Comet and has converted their product line over to that superior one, they are much more readily available to consumers given Pains Wessex’ much broader retail presence.

I was a bit disappointed that they didn’t test the Comet/Pains Wessex MiniFlare, which I have found superior to the Orion Pocket Rocket for a compact pocketable aerial flare, both in terms of ergonomics and the kit container.

Their tests of the Orion Skyblazer covered their aerial and visual performance adequately, but I have to note that our experience has been that we see a significant number of failures as these Skyblazer flares age. That does not seem to have improved since Orion took over production from the original company. If you are going to rely on Skyblazer flares, make sure you carry lots and make sure you replace them every couple years.

Their tests of Greatland Laser’s Laser Flares were disappointing and, in my opinion, a bit misleading. I don’t disagree with their test results, but they only tested them at a quarter-mile range, hardly representative of their likely use in real life. They are far more effective at longer ranges.

The problems they noticed in aiming the lasers at such close range disappear to a great degree at longer ranges as the expanding laser line makes it much easier to hit the target. That’s how they are designed to work. In our experience, the laser flares work very well at longer ranges. I include them in all my survival vests and larger survival kits because we found them so effective. Click here to read our comprehensive review of the Laser Flares.

They also didn’t cover one of the best marine signaling options for use in a life raft, the RescueStreamer. It’s not clear that they really considered what works best for aerial Search and Rescue, vs. sea level SAR. I recommend the RescueStreamer for all my life raft survival equipment pack clients, marine or aviation, and include the smaller version in my overwater vests.

BoatU.S. Foundation’s test results serve to confirm my recommendation that unless space is an issue, such as in a survival vest, boaters will do best to rely upon SOLAS flares for consistently best performance, safety and ease of use and that the best currently available, in my opinion, are the Comet/Pains Wessex MK8 series.

Click here to go to the BoatU.S. Foundation visual distress signal article.

Mind you, it’s not that there have been failures and such that leads me to be concerned. 406 MHz beacons have proven extremely reliable and I confidentially bet my life on this technology every time I go into the wilderness, flying or boating. However, it’s just human nature to prefer to really know something works because we can see it work. The more technology involved, the more it helps raise our confidence level.

Part of the problem has been that Beacon Testers, such as we use in our extensive evaluations, are very expensive. The other part of the problem is that the satellite ground systems are almost entirely government owned and run and not accessible by mere mortals. So, even though most 406 MHz beacons send out a single test-coded 406 MHz burst during a self-test which the satellites can pick up, we haven’t been able to take advantage of that. Enter Procon, Inc’s SafeLife Systems. They have established their own ground stations (technically called Local User Terminals or LUTs) to receive those signals from the satellites, the same as do the government’s LUTs. Actually, that’s not exactly correct. Procon’s LUTs actually are more capable in some respects because they aren’t bound by some of the limitations inherent in the government’s somewhat archaic systems and software.

The bottom line for thee and me is most of us will now be able to test our beacons through the satellites at a reasonable cost. I have been working with them to test their system for some time now as it has been under development. They have asked me to invite others to come help wring out their 406 Beacon Test System on a wider scale.

If you live within the continental U.S. you may be eligible to participate in a free Beta Test of the system, and just by applying to participate in the Beta Test, you will be eligible to receive 30% off the cost of the various SafeTrip and beacon testing services SafeLife offers. No downside to this that I can see.

Some older beacons do not send out a test burst, so this will obviously not work with those. Not a big problem, really; just not that many out there like that. On the other hand, it will also not work with newer PLBs such as the McMurdo Fast Find PLBs that store the antenna rolled up or coiled in the case and have no means of erecting the antenna for a test. So all those who own the previous generation FastFind or are buying their new compact and lower cost PLBs are out of luck as far as this test is concerned.

Click here to apply to be part of the Beta Test program.

SafeLife lists the following advantages for a beacon owner who takes advantage of the 406 Beacon Test Service:

• Confidence that their beacon transmits a signal that can be picked up by the satellites
• Confidence that the digitally encoded signal can be decoded by the ground stations
• Confidence that the identification information programmed into the beacon is correct, helping to speed up a rescue should the beacon be used in a real emergency
• Confidence, in the case of newer beacons that transmit a GPS location in the test signal, that the beacon’s GPS is working correctly
• Overall confidence in the complete system from end to end in case of an emergency

I’ll have more information in the near future on their SafeTrip programs and 406 Beacon Test Service when they roll it out, but for now I’d urge you to sign up for the Beta Test program, get yourself a free beacon test and help them wring out their system.

As the Coast Guard ended its search for three missing football players whose boat tipped over in high Florida seas, the lone survivor said two of those lost gave up after hours in the frigid water and the third tried to swim to safety.

South Florida player Nick Schuyler told investigators that all four of the friends on a fishing excursion were initially wearing life vests and clinging to the 21-foot boat belonging to Oakland Raiders linebacker Marquis Cooper.

But two to four hours after the boat capsized, one of the NFL players removed his life jacket and let himself be swept out to sea, the St. Petersburg Times reported. A few hours later, the other one followed suit.

“We were told that Nick said the two NFL players took their life jackets off and drifted out to sea,” said Bob Bleakley, whose son Will Bleakley, 25, is also still missing.

After Cooper, 26, and Corey Smith, 29, were carried away, Bleakley and Schuyler hung on until morning — but then Bleakley decided to swim to get help when he thought he saw a distant light, the paper said.

He, too, took his life vest off, 24-year-old Schuyler told the families.

“I think he was delusional to think he could swim someplace,” the Times quoted Bob Bleakley as saying.

Original story: http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/accidents/article980972.ece
Follow-up with some additional information: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,504464,00.html

This once again highlights the importance of the critical positive mental attitude (PMA) that I talk about in all my survival presentations. One critical key to survival is to NEVER GIVE UP. The other is Preparation, which goes a long way towards providing that PMA and ensuring you don’t ever reach the point where you are tempted to give up.

The popular dictum, “hang in there,” was never more appropriate than in a survival situation.