(Click on images for higher resolution photos)

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.

(Click on images for higher resolution photos)

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.

Initial Hands-on Report – Second Generation SPOT

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

Read our updated Initial Evaluation of the McMurdo Fast Find.

It’s leapfrog time in the PLB business and McMurdo revealed today at Miami International Boat Show their big leap forward, a new FAST FIND range of Personal Locator Beacons. The following information is culled from McMurdo press releases and their Fast Find web site.

UPDATE February 28: The new Fast Find has received FCC approval.

FAST FIND weighs 5.3 oz (150g) with dimensions of 1.34” (34mm) x 1.85” (47mm) x 4.17” (106mm). That’s a major reduction in weight and size over the competition, from 3-5 ounces less, and a couple ounces lighter and more compact even than the SPOT Satellite Messenger. This is small enough to easily fit in a shirt pocket.

There are two models in the FAST FIND PLB range, the FAST FIND 200 and the FAST FIND 210, both to be priced at $299 or less according to the press release. This would be approximately one third to one half less than the price of competitive PLBs. The 210 model has an integral 50-channel GPS receiver. I can’t imagine why anyone would buy a PLB without GPS, but perhaps it’s all about marketing and being to quote lower prices and the like.

FAST FIND also includes a SOS LED flashlight facility which is manually activated. I like the concept of it being controllable by the user. It is not buoyant, so you want to be sure it is tethered if use in the water is contemplated. It is rated waterproof to 30 ft. (10 meters) for 5 minutes. I’m not sure what that translates to just floating in the water, but I suspect its probably perfectly adequate for most uses, even on the water. FAST FIND is a Class 2, rated to -20°C, and its integral battery has a storage life of 5 years.

Activation is initiated by first pulling a red tab on the top of the body which pulls off the yellow plastic cap revealing the antenna, which will uncoil, somewhat like their first generation Fastfind models. With the cover gone, the activation button is now accessible. The GPS antenna is identified as being next to the ON button. The FAST FIND antenna extends up from the “face” of the PLB, so deployment is with it laying on the back, again just like the prior generation. We’ll just have to see how well it works one-handed.

There is a full system GPS acquisition self-test, restricted to a maximum of 10 tests throughout the 5 year storage life of the battery.

Given the size, weight and price point, if there are no hidden surprises (I’m a professional cynic), this would be a game changer for PLBs. The size and price also would make it much more enticing for those considering SPOT as an alternative to a PLB.

For further information about FAST FIND visit: www.fastfindplb.com.

UPDATE February 28: The new Fast Find has received FCC approval.

Read our updated Initial Evaluation of the McMurdo Fast Find.

Two pilots flying a Cessna 337 to Sweden from Canada survived a harrowing 18-hour ordeal recently after they ditched in frigid waters south of Baffin Island, Canada and climbed onto an ice floe. They have received a great deal of well-deserved credit in the general media for surviving and not giving up.

The articles below provide some details and the background you’ll need in order to understand my comments which follow:

The Canadian Press – Two survivors rescued from ice floe after landing stricken plane in Arctic

The Canadian Press – Pilots who survived Arctic crash lucky to be alive

The Sydney Morning Herald – Frozen with fear: how Aussie survived Arctic crash

The more we find out about their experience, the more it seems that they survived despite make some very basic preparation mistakes, so there are some critical lessons to be learned, or perhaps reinforced, from this event. Of course, any conclusions drawn here are based only on the limited information we have so far from these media reports and interviews, and their accuracy is always a bit suspect. Some inconsistencies are obvious, but even so, the lessons are there to be learned. I apologize if I have jumped to any incorrect conclusions based on these reports.

NOTE: Here on ETS we have a great deal of information about ditching and water survival equipment including an article “Surviving A Splashdown” and others. Recommended reading for anyone who might have to deal with a ditching scenario.

In my opinion, the most important lesson to take away from this, at least with regards survival preparations, is that, as I often say, if it isn’t with you, it cannot save you™. These pilots escaped their aircraft with nothing except their survival suits.

It isn’t entirely clear what specific survival and signaling equipment they carried in the aircraft, beyond comments that they didn’t get their raft or any survival equipment out. Nor do we know the quality of the gear. However, that none of it was attached to their person is pretty clear. It also isn’t yet known why they weren’t able to retrieve their raft or any other survival equipment, but that failure alone damn near cost them their lives and certainly contributed to their frostbite injuries from a delayed rescue.

The following quotes from one of the survivors, 25-year-old Oliver Edwards-Neil, sheds some light on the futility of their situation not long after they survived the initial ditching:

“It was dark. But after a couple of hours we started seeing choppers and planes, flying back and forth and back and forth, and they eventually came near us.

“But they just couldn’t see us. At one point they flew about 30 metres (sic) from us … we were shouting and screaming and waving our arms but they didn’t see us.”

“Once the choppers flew so close and didn’t see us. After that I didn’t even want to see the rescue plane any more – because it was totally pointless. They were not seeing us at all,”

Sometimes being lucky is better than being prepared (but you cannot plan on being lucky). Although they didn’t have a 406 MHz PLB, or even the less robust SPOT Satellite Messenger (if might have survived the dunking, possibly), with them to provide a distress alert and location, and the Cessna’s ELT went down with the plane, they did get out a timely Mayday call with an accurate GPS location and heading.

That gave the Rescue Coordination Center in Halifax enough information to get Search and Rescue aircraft into the area. To a certain extent, they were lucky to have gotten the mayday call heard in such a relatively remote area, a PLB would have provided a more robust and reliable means of distress alerting and location, particularly one with GPS. There’s just no excuse not to carry a PLB on one’s person, even more so on a flight such as this. But, once they have a location, SAR still have to actually locate you and at night that is especially difficult if you cannot signal them somehow, as these survivors discovered to their chagrin.

Whether or not Edwards-Neil’s distance estimate is accurate, obviously the SAR aircraft were very close and there’s no question that even the most basic nighttime signaling devices would likely have cut short their ordeal. The SAR resources arrived in short order and they would have been rescued if only they could have signaled them. A laser flare or even a modestly bright flashlight would have made a world of difference. Even a simple locator light or strobe light attached to their survival suit would likely have done it. And, while I am no fan of them, even pyrotechnic flares would have likely resulted in their being noticed that night. Heck, for that matter, the sparks from the Spark-Lite fire starter in one of my Pocket Survival Paks might well have been visible, particularly if the searchers had night vision equipment.

Upping the ante, they should have had a handheld VHF transceiver in the aircraft, the majority of pilots carry one as back-up and for ground communications, but they aren’t waterproof. If they had placed it in a waterproof pouch, and taken it with them when they egressed, they would have been able to communicate with the search aircraft.

As it was, the aerial search was called off, at least for the night, and they were damn lucky to be rescued the next day by a commercial vessel.

As a side note, “shouting and screaming” at search aircraft is an utterly pointless exercise that only serves to waste precious energy. There’s no question that this is a reflexive reaction, but better to keep your wits about you and conserve your limited resources. They can’t hear you. At night, they also probably cannot see you waving.

In any normal ditching, if properly prepared and trained, it isn’t really all that difficult to get survival equipment out of the aircraft, even assuming it’s sinking and filled with water. That assumes both proper training and preparations and that you do the right things without panic. So, what happened after they ditched?

From one of the articles, “Edwards-Neil said he braced for impact by holding his door open, ready to get out of the plane before it sank. The windshield smashed on impact, and forced his door shut, but he managed to stick his head far enough out of the window and smash the glass with his back. The water was to the roof in five seconds, he said.”

This doesn’t make a lot of sense as written, as the windscreen caving in should not have affected the door at all, but I think I can guess what may have really happened, or at least use this to make my point.

It is impossible to “hold” the door open in a ditching of a high-wing aircraft like this Cessna. It can be difficult, at best, on any aircraft. There is simply too much water flowing past. I and all the ditching instructors I know teach that you jettison the door(s) (on those few aircraft that provide for that) or you either block the door open with something (a book of approach plates is often a readily available choice) or lock it open (on those aircraft that allow for this).

This ensures the door cannot be wedged shut by the airframe being twisted. Assuming the quote is close to correct, this suggests that either he didn’t listen closely in class, or he hadn’t received good instruction (or never attended class nor read any good ditching information), or, perhaps, he panicked and simply forgot what he was taught, a common side effect of panic.

However, that’s only step one. Assuming a well-executed ditching in a high-wing aircraft, such as this Cessna, or if your low-wing aircraft flips, another thing you are taught is that you cannot open the door until the water pressure equalizes. Nobody is that strong, not even Arnold. That is one of the potential drawbacks of a high-wing aircraft in a ditching. Unless it flips over just right (and don’t bet your life on that), you are not going to just open the door and step out onto the wing, as is often the case with a low-wing aircraft after the ditching. You have to either be patient and wait for the water to come in before you exit, underwater possibly, or, if there’s time and you are small enough, perhaps go out through a window before the water rises that high, a poor alternative.

For whatever the reason, again the same possibilities exist, he chose the window. That’s a tight fit at best, more so if you’re wearing a bulky survival suit. That likely contributed to the reason why he didn’t take any survival equipment with him.

I could go on at length about this, but other matters are pressing. The fact that these pilots survived proves only that they are lucky and that the old saw about never giving up will often be the difference between life and death. Bottom line take away from this incident is simple. If you are going to attempt risky endeavors such as flying the North Atlantic, make sure you are well trained for potential survival situations (which helps reduce panic and poor decisions in the midst of the emergency) and are well equipped with the right survival gear, carried in a manner that it might actually be available if needed. Remember, if it isn’t with you, it cannot save you™.

Earlier this year, Ultimate Survival Technologies, manufacturer of the popular mil-spec StarFlash signal mirror, introduced a “new” signal mirror, the StarFlash Ultra. The Ultra mirror was claimed to be significantly superior to the regular StarFlash; UST claiming it was 90% as reflective as a glass mirror, the gold standard. They also claimed other improvements and advantages, including a hard coating to protect the surface from scratching.

While claimed to be “new,” in fact, the Ultra is very similar in concept to the original StarFlash mirror that was offered years ago, a few companies before the current company existed, and prior to introduction of the StarFlash most everyone knows with the molded surround/case. I have one of those original mirrors from School of Survival Specialties, predecessor to SOS Survival Life Support, predecessor to Survival, Inc. and now, UST, in my mirror collection (and Sue wonders why I never throw anything out). I think I got all the companies over the years, I apologize if I missed one.

The new Ultra is produced from polycarbonate mirror sheet laminated to a closed-cell foam backing (see photo above, lower image) to enable it to float and with an inserted retro-reflective aiming aid. As with the original StarFlash, this aiming aid has a piece of retro-reflective material with a star-shaped cut-out (though larger) and the aiming “hot spot” or “fire ball” is formed on the edge of the star. The polycarbonate material used for the mirror is just a wee bit heavier than water, so it won’t float without some added buoyancy.

Initially, I was quite excited over the prospect of a production mirror that might approach the performance of Malcom Murray’s Rescue Reflectors handmade mirrors, and at a reasonable price and without having to wait months. My excitement was tempered as associates and I noticed issues with the first sample mirrors. The first batch leaked water into the aimer and there were lamination issues and UST quickly called me to tell me to throw those out. Okay, stuff happens and as long as they caught it before sales to the public, no harm, no foul. UST followed up with new production, supposedly with those issues solved, which they did indeed appear to be.

However, as more of these new Ultras got in the field, associates and friends of ETS reported widely varying results. Further testing suggested that there was quite a bit of variability in the mirrors. Some were as good or better than claimed, but others were quite a bit worse, some being no more than 60% as bright as glass when we measured. That’s closer to what the original StarFlash typically provided.

About that same time, we tried testing the new mirrors for water resistance almost by happenstance noticed that after floating in water, the reflectivity of the mirror degraded significantly, to the point in some cases is was effectively unusable after 30 minutes of floating in water. This wasn’t a case of water getting inside, the mirror was being warped in some manner. The wetted mirrors we tested simply lost virtually all their reflectivity. Given that these are supposed to be mil-spec mirrors, meant for use in all environments, and that certainly includes in the water, this would be a problem. This is a far greater problem than the production variability in reflectivness. It can render the mirror useless to a survivor in need of signaling Search and Rescue.

I contacted UST and discussed my findings and concerns and asked them to confirm the issues. After all, we had results only from a handful of mirrors. To give them full credit, they were very responsive at an executive level and started a serious look at the issues. Over a period of weeks we communicated regularly, with UST providing me updates on their testing. While a sunny day to test was easy enough to find here in the desert Southwest where I am located, up in the Seattle area where UST is located it is a problem and they had to also develop other tests that could be done using artificial lighting. In the end, they essentially confirmed the problems and said they were working on solution with their contractor who actually manufactures the mirror for them.

One theory was that by floating the mirror, which results in one surface being exposed just above the water surface, there was some unequal expansion going on between the laminated layers, causing the mirror to warp and the reflectivity degradation. I recently conducted some additional testing (which results I shared with UST); fully submersing the mirror, including overnight, so as to at least ensure it had reached a stable temperature throughout. The degradation problems remained, and if anything got worse.

To illustrate the problem, examine these images: On the top is the normal round reflection of the unsoaked Ultra mirror at about noon (+/- one hour) when aimed directly at the wall from 60 feet away. This is about what you expect, with varying sharpness and brightness, from a reasonable quality 2 x 3 signal mirror (the sun’s round disk, reflected off a reasonably flat mirror). On the bottom is another photo taken after the mirror has been fully immersed in water. This was taken with the mirror only 18 feet away because from 60 ft. the reflection was so dispersed and dim it was not photographable with the equipment I had, and it also was far larger than the 16 x 20 inches paper we were using as the target.

At this point, in my opinion, there’s just no question that there’s something wrong with these Ultra mirrors. If you own one of these StarFlash Ultra mirrors, you need to be aware that if it is soaked in water for any appreciable length of time, it may well not function adequately. Under dry conditions the reflectivity degradation issue doesn’t seem to be a problem. The production variability is an issue, however, regardless. Without the right test equipment, you probably cannot tell if your mirror is one of the really good ones or one of the not so good.

When I spoke to UST today, they advised that they have ceased shipping Ultra mirrors to their retailers and customers. UST continues to examine the issues and are working to integrate solutions into new production and have assured me they intend to solve the problems. Once they have resolved the issues, they say they will offer existing owners an exchange. I’d say that this is a responsible and reasonable reaction to these problems we have identified. Kudos to UST.

Note that these issues have nothing at all to do with the standard StarFlash, identifiable by the molded surround/case and triangular lanyard hole. (see comparison above – note that the Starflash was produced in various iterations over the years and by a number of precurser companies to UST. Military version backs were gray, like the Ultra pictured, not yellow, and some came with a black plastic adhesive light shield on the mirrored side.)

UPDATE: Three days after the inital posting on this blog, on Octorber 27, UST posted in the News section of thier web site a “StarFlash Ultra Water Immersion Notice” regarding a “decrease in mirror performance in the rare situation where the StarFlash® Ultra™ mirror is immersed in water for extended periods of time.” Click here to read their complete notice.

I will update details as I receive them from UST and we’ll have a full review of the new production mirrors when they arrive.

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.

My report on Outdoor Retailer Summer Market 2008 continues (click here for the previous installment):

Spotlight on the Spotlight

The “Spotlight,” distributed in the U.S. by Essential Gear, is a rechargeable LED flashlight with a unique charging mode. It is designed to recharge by slipping into the 12-volt power outlet/cigarette lighter receptacle in your vehicle. The trick is that internal regulation ensures that the nickel-metal hydride battery doesn’t overcharge from being left in the power source. That’s death for Ni-MH batteries and a potential Achilles heel for any such concept. Building the regulation circuitry into the flashlight was the key innovation.

Having a fully-charged flashlight always available and conveniently at hand in the vehicle addresses the flashlight-as-storage-for-dead-batteries syndrome that’s common for the typical flashlight in the glove box.

Inserted into the outlet, only the head is visible. It glows dimly red while charging. You can simply leave it there until needed. The anodized 6061 aluminum body, available in 10 colors, is 2 inches long by 0.875 inch diameter at the head, 0.81 inch body diameter. Weight is 1.6 oz.

The switch is a rotary head switch with a very noticeable detent for Off and On. The 0.5-watt 5mm LED produces a tightly focus beam claimed to shine 90 feet and is protected by a toughened glass lens and the light is submersible to IPX7 standards, 1 meter for 30 minutes. Run time is given as 120 minutes with charging time from a totally drained batter of 7 hours. MSRP is $19.95

Various accessories will be available including a neck lanyard, “Super Socket” adapter to allow continued access to the power outlet while charging the Spotlight, a “Fender Friend” with a flexible neck and magnetic base for roadside repairs and a 120V wall-outlet adapter

Leatherman’s Getting Serious About Lights

Leatherman had previously dipped it’s proverbial toe into the LED flashlight waters with combo packs of some of their tools and a pretty generic key-chain light and then a branded 3 x AAA-cell LED light exclusively for Costco (the Monarch 500), but at OR they debuted their new Serac line of pocket-sized LED flashlights, a far more serious and much better effort.

While these are again made overseas, they represent Leatherman originated design and engineering concepts and a higher build quality of the sort that we expect from a Leatherman product. Their stated aim was to provide a higher value for the consumer in each size and illumination power.

Common to all three lights are Type III hard anodized 6061 T6 aluminum bodies, tail-switches, gold-plated contacts, single battery regulated power and a 10-year limited warranty. The switches require a noticeable amount of pressure to get them to “click” and there is no momentary ON, reducing the potential for inadvertent activation and battery depletion. Flats are machined around the bodies for a better grip. All the lights are rated as waterproof to 3.28 ft (1 m), though the literature did not give a time period.

The Serac S1 and S2 are both single AAA-cell lights with a common body and non-recessed tail switch. The S1 has a Nichia 5mm GS-K1 LED recessed into a conical aluminum bezel “reflector” opening and providing 6 lumens output. Battery life is listed at 11 hours with the provided alkaline battery.

The S2 features a 3-watt Cree XR-E LED with two illumination levels, 4 and 35 lumens. It is seated into a stippled reflector inside a stainless bezel. A toughened and double anti-reflective coated lens protects the LED. Once switched ON, the S2 alternates between the low and high settings by tapping the tailcap switch lightly. When initially turned on, it will provide the alternative illumination level to what was last used. So, if you were using low, it turns on next at the high level, which I found disconcerting. I’d prefer to see it always turn on at the low level since it’s so quick and easy to switch to high. You often don’t need the high level of illumination and there are many times when it can be counterproductive, even if on just briefly. It’s not a terribly serious issue, but I did find it annoying.

Battery life is rated at 10.5 hours on low and 45 minutes on high. The latter isn’t too surprising given the minimal capacity of the alkaline AAA-cell. They don’t provide any specs for a lithium AAA-cell. That would provide more power density and better cold-weather performance, as well as saving 3.9 grams (0.14 oz).

The S1 and S2 are 3.23 inches (8.2 cm) and 3.48 inches (8.84 cm) long, respectively, and 0.56 (1.42 cm) in diameter. They weigh in at 1 and 1.1 oz. (28.3 and 31.2 g), respectively. A stainless, reversible split arrow clip and a removable split ring (for keychain carry) provide lots of carry options. MSRP is $25 and $50, respectively.

The S3 is powered by a 123A 3-volt lithium cell. The 3-watt Cree XR-E LED provides three illumination levels, 7, 43 and 100 lumens, which are accessed the same as in the S2, by tapping the tailcap switch in sequence. Like the S2, the S3 turns ON at the next level of brightness in the sequence. If you were at low, you get medium, at medium you get high and at high you get low. The recessed tailcap switch, which I prefer, adds to the protection against inadvertent activation. Not quite as good as a lock-out tail cap, but a big improvement.

I liked the reversible wire clip which is held securely in a groove machined into the body, one at each end. As with the S2, the S3 has a stainless steel bezel, stippled reflector and toughened and double anti-reflective coated lens.

Length of the S3 is 3.2 inches (8.13 cm) with a diameter of 0.9 inch (2.29 cm). Weight is 2.6 oz. (73.7 g). Battery life is rated at 36 hours (low), 4 hours (medium) and 1 hour (high). MSRP is $70.

All in all, an impressive first effort by Leatherman as they make a serious push into the LED flashlight market.

Cord Lock Light

A new company, Black Crater, introduced their unique Cord Lock Light. That’s pretty much as accurate a description as you could come up with. They have integrated a white 3mm LED into a cord lock. Their tag line, “where you need it, when you need it,” succinctly makes their point. Cord locks are pretty much ubiquitous on all sorts of outdoor gear and outerwear. Power is provided by a pair of CR1220 lithium coin cells.

A rubberized switch is recessed into the side of the plastic body. Two levels of illumination are provided, plus a flashing mode. It is claimed to be “water-resistant.” All in all, a nice enough package. Though they necessarily have to add in some bulk compared to a simple cord lock, it’s still small enough and light enough that this doesn’t appear like it will be a problem in most cases.

With a $10 MSRP, the Cord Lock Light will likely be a big hit, and it wouldn’t surprise me to see it installed in a number of OEM applications on packs and sleeping bags and the like. However, the more I thought about it, I have to admit, the less generally useful I found the concept, even if it was a great concept.

Not that having a light always handy on your equipment is ever a bad thing; that’s why many of us have compact keychain-sized lights clipped all over our gear, on zipper pulls and the like. However, generally you need to be able to take the flashlight and move it to where you need light. That’s going to be hard to do when it’s tied to the cords of wherever you have installed it. You can’t so easily unclip it, as you can with typical a small flashlight.

It may be all well and good to have it installed on a sleeping bag hood, as an example they illustrate, and it may allow you to light up the shelter a bit to find and grab something or other inside, but it can’t easily and quickly go out with you to water the forest like a dedicated flashlight or headlamp can. One of their illustrations shows it being used to read a map, but tellingly, it’s not connected to any cords.

So, my conclusion is that it’s still a great idea and appears to be a good implementation for a start, but I don’t think in its current iteration that it’ll replace anyone’s flashlights.

See more gear in the next installment

My report on Outdoor Retailer Summer Market 2008 continues (click here for the previous installment):

A New Saint of Light

Surefire’s long-awaited and much anticipated headlamp has arrived. Surefire showed off prototypes of the new “Saint” model that are very close to the final specification, particularly with regards to the critical elements. Some of the machined parts in the prototypes will be done in high-tech engineered reinforced plastic for production, but the light housing itself will be aluminum in the same manner as traditional Surefire flashlights with Type III mil-spec hard anodizing.

Like some other recently introduced headlamps, Surefire has gone the tubular light housing route. However, the similarity ends there. The housing itself rotates completely around, using a knob on the left side (as worn), so that the lens can be protected when not in use if required. There is a rotary switch on the right end (as worn). The switch has a slight detent at 10 lumens, but the power adjusts smoothly from zero to 100 lumens. The switch and the housing rotation knobs look like they would be easy enough to operate with typical operator’s gloves, part of the design brief. A Cree 3-watt XRE LED is used.

The lens itself is aspheric in shape with apparently some manner of Fresnel type rings evident looking into it. Surefire calls it a “refractive optic.” The end result appears to be an extremely smooth flood of light that ramps up smoothly. I did not see any evidence of hot spots, rings or noticeable graduations in the beam.

The battery box, which will be engineered plastic in production, is attached at the rear and holds three 123A 3-volt lithium cells as the primary power source. The Saint will run on one or two 123A’s if desired, and in a pinch, two AA-cells, alkaline or lithium, can be used, but with reportedly much reduced output and life, especially if alkalines are selected. Surefire calls this “Dual-Fuel capable,” but it seems to me to be mostly designed as a means to allow for redundancy and back-up under less than ideal field conditions, not for regular use. In any case, having options is a good thing.

Instead of the typical closed-cell neoprene pad on the battery box and headlamp, Surefire has used “Breath-O-Prene” pads that are designed to wick away moisture. That could certainly add to the comfort in many situations. There is also a recess in the battery pack, behind the pad, to accommodate the occipital protuberance that moist of us have at the base of the skull. The pads are washable and are installed with Velcro and easily removed and replaced. Replacement pad sets will be available.

The robust elastic headband is adjustable, as one would expect, but also offers a few advanced features. On the left side (as worn), the power cable has a loop that is retained in a fabric three-snap closure. The extra cable provides for adjustment and strain relief as well as allowing sufficient length to allow the Saint to be easily mounted on a helmet. The top strap is removable, snapping easily in or out as needed.

Click here for higher resolution and more detailed images of the Saint prototype.

Colored filters will be available to snap into place over the lens. MSRP will be $185 with first deliveries expected later this Fall. The Saint is expected to be just the first of a range of headlamps from Surefire, so stay tuned
.

Floating Glass Signal Mirror?

A floating glass signal mirror seems like something of an oxymoron, but Coghlan’s new “Sight-Grid Signal Mirror” does just that. This signal mirror is an attempt to provide some of the desirable attributes of some plastic signal mirrors with the generally higher reflectivity you get from a glass mirror. How well they succeeded remains to be seen.

Nominally a 2 x 3 inch mirror, the actual reflective portion measured 1.78 x 2.81 inches on my scale, with one corner removed for the lanyard hole. Total reflective area is probably more or less the same as their traditional laminated glass mirror which is 2 x 3 inches, but has four radiused corners, plus a riveted lanyard hole. The glass mirror is surrounded on four sides and the back by an acrylic plastic enclosure, very reminiscent of the original plastic Star Flash mirror from Ultimate Survival Technologies.

Instead of two laminated pieces of glass, the Sight-Grid mirror has a single piece of glass along with a piece of foam backing and the instructions on the back, encased in the acrylic surround. It ends up about 0.03 inch thicker than their laminated mirror. Weight is 1 oz versus 1.8 ounces for the laminated mirror. I can confirm that it floats.

It has the same excellent retro-reflective sighting grid as their laminated mirror, except there’s no cut-out in the center, as is traditionally provided. I don’t expect that to be a problem; it’s easy enough to see through the grid, which you have to do anyway to merge the aiming “hot spot” and the target. For that matter, it surely simplifies production if they don’t have to try and get that hole centered in the aimer, an eternal problem with signal mirror production. Like its laminated sibling, this mirror is made in Japan.

(Image right: Coghlan’s Sight-Grid Signal Mirror (left) and laminated mirror (right))

The instructions on the back are clear and easy to read, white text on a black background, especially easy compared to the barely readable low-contrast red text on black background found on their laminated mirror (copied from traditional subdued mil-spec glass mirror designs).

As far as robustness, it’s unlikely to be shatter proof; it is glass after all. How much the acrylic surround helps and how it compares to a traditional laminated glass mirror remains to be seen. When we have a bunch of samples we’ll start dropping them.

In a quick and dirty check reflecting a spot on a wall 50 feet away at noon, our sample didn’t seem to have quite as powerful a reflective spot as their laminated glass mirror which is right up there with the best in terms of reflectivity. It did provide a concentric and bright spot, a good start. However, we’ll wait to test a number of production samples in the new signal mirror test rig we are building before we make a final judgment as to its comparative performance. For the moment, we’d not rush out to buy one until we can conduct a full evaluation, but it holds a good deal of promise as a compromise between a heavy laminated glass mirror and the best plastic mirrors.

The Sight-Grid Signal Mirror should be in stores shortly with an MSRP of $12.99.

(DISCLOSURE: I helped develop the Adventure Medical Kits “Rescue Flash” plastic laminated signal mirror which is included in the AMK Pocket Survival Pak, sales of which provide royalties to myself and the ETS Foundation. The Rescue Flash is also sold separately.)

Check Back Soon for More New Gear

In an effort to speed up the process, I’m going to publish this review of new products from Outdoor Retailer Summer Market 2008 in stages over the next few days. Check back for more new gear, hopefully tomorrow.

Competition sometimes results in companies using questionable tactics to protect their turf or gain market share. It’s the nature of the beast. The line is often fine between a great marketing concept and one that wasn’t such a good idea. Sometimes it’s just how it’s done that raises a red flag. Oftentimes it is one of those “sounded like a good idea at the time” sort of thing. Moreover, whoever said all is fair and love and war, should have also added in commercial competition. When dollars are involved, the gloves come off.

By now you’re starting to wonder what the heck is Doug going on about? I’m getting there, stay with me. In the media community it is referred to as sowing FUD, which stands for Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. What this involves is taking some facts which may only be tangentially related to a particular issue and presenting them in a way that directly or indirectly serves to convince the consumer that some product they are considering buying has some sort of flaw, thereby convincing them not to do so. It is a time-honored marketing tactic, even if I don’t think there’s much honor to it. (Outright lying about your product or a competitors is another issue entirely and not time honored at all, though it happens often enough, sorry to say)

Which, finally, brings me to the point. Last week ACR Electronics, who make 406 MHz EPIRBs and PLBs, went the FUD route in their ongoing competition with SPOT, which operates outside the traditional COSPAS-SARSAT distress alerting system. To make matters worse, this piece of FUD was issued shortly after I offered up on this blog my own “shot across the bow” to SPOT and other commercial distress alerting service in the works. Some folks, especially some who only read the introduction and viewed the PowerPoint presentation and didn’t listen to the audio of the presentation, have added 1+1 and come up with 3, somehow concluding that I’m saying the same thing ACR was (and the fact that I used this image (above right) to illustrate the traditional SAR vs. commercial distress alerting relationship probably didn’t help).

As such, instead of getting caught up on the multi-page list of stuff I need to do this weekend, here I sit typing on this damn computer trying to set the record straight and clear up the FUD.

First, to view ACR’s FUD media release, click here. Just remember when you read it, that it is just that, FUD. While you might get the initial impression that it was issued by the Coast Guard, it is, in fact, just another press release from ACR, which is clearly indicated by the quotations included from ACR officers and the statement at the bottom. In my opinion, it would have been far better to make this clear from the outset, but then, I’m not a fan of FUD to begin with.

Technically and factually, the ACR release is correct. The conclusions that someone not familiar with either SPOT or how the Coast Guard works may come to from reading it may well not be correct at all.

For a look at what SPOT is and how it works, please click here.

It was written to imply that if someone were to send a distress alert from their SPOT device, somehow the Coast Guard is going to not take it as seriously as a distress alert from a PLB or EPIRB. “Not exactly!” as the popular advertising goes. If GEOS, SPOT’s contracted emergency call center, calls a Coast Guard RCC (Rescue Coordination Center) and delivers a distress alert, which will typically include a GPS derived location, the Coast Guard is going to act just as if it were a PLB or EPIRB distress alert. This SPOT distress alert clearly falls into the “Distress Phase” category, as outlined in the procedures mentioned in the release.

In a case where a SPOT alert is provided without a location, it is still going to be taken seriously, but necessarily there becomes the question of where to search. In some such cases there might be a trail of bread crumbs, so to speak, from SPOT’s tracking capability. This may not be as good as a Doppler location from a 406 MHz beacon, but it will be enough to allow the Coast Guard to launch a search.

Lumping SPOT with TracMe is another misleading part of the presentation. TracMe isn’t a distress alerting device. It is simply a homing beacon. The odds the Coast Guard would ever get an alert from someone from a TracMe beacon is down in the infinitesimally small range. In the unlikely case they did, they would be wise to be a little skeptical about it until they had more information to determine an appropriate response. SPOT is a distress alerting device using a commercial satellite system for alerting and a private commercial call center for notification. Two very different devices, deserving of different responses.

I never met a watch stander for the Coast Guard who would ignore such an obvious and clearly presented distress alert as one coming from SPOT/GEOS, or even one from Uncle Joe who just knows Bob, who is cruising on his sailboat, didn’t check in as usual this morning. The fact that the Coast Guard has procedures in place to define how they treat calls shouldn’t be news to anyone; it’s how large organizations deal with things. They put in place generic procedures so that all involved operate the same and things, hopefully, don’t slip between the cracks.

Bottom line, I’m not impressed with ACR’s issuance of this media release. I think it’s a classic case of FUD and I don’t think they need to resort to these sorts of questionable marketing ploys to sell a, from my point of view, clearly superior distress alerting product. If you are looking for a distress alerting device, in my opinion, you need a 406 MHz PLB, EPIRB or ELT. SPOT has some nice features, but isn’t as robust a distress alerting device at this point in its evolution. But, having said all that, it isn’t because the Coast Guard is not going to respond if they get a SPOT distress alert.

Now, having hopefully gotten the FUD part of this discussion out of the way, let me make it clear that though I do have questions and concerns about with how SPOT/GEOS interfaces with the traditional SAR alerting network, and other issues with SPOT from a distress beacon and marketing standpoint, I never said nor implied that the Coast Guard wouldn’t take a SPOT distress notification seriously. I’m quite convinced, particularly after visiting GEOS last week (more on that at a later date), that they are quite capable of getting the message across in a professional manner, regardless of which SAR dispatching organization they deal with. Getting the distress alert to the right SAR dispatching organization at the onset (and I don’t believe that is an issue with the U.S. Coast Guard at this point) or even issuing one at all if a subscription lapses, may be an issue, and those are some of the many issues I was raising in my presentation.

On a related, note, while my promised report on my actual experience in testing SPOT has been delayed by lack of time and other priorities, the folks over at BackpackingLight.com have done their own pretty thorough testing and evaluation of the SPOT and its performance and found it wanting in some respects. Their experience is somewhat similar to my own in this regard and their conclusions with regards its shortcomings also follow closely on my own.

Unfortunately, the full report is only available with a subscription or purchase. My pleas to them to make their report publicly available have fallen on deaf ears, so this important safety information will not receive the wider reception it deserves. If you are considering purchasing a SPOT for use as a distress beacon, I suggest investing the $4.99 to gain access to the full report.

My bottom line is simple. If you want to carry a SPOT because of the added features it offers, that’s great. It has a lot of nifty features. I believe that any distress alert from a SPOT will be taken seriously, though I question the robustness of that alerting capability and have other issues with the service and the device. At this point I am not willing to bet my life, or that of anyone I care about, on SPOT as a distress beacon of last resort. I’ll stick with my recommendation of 406 MHz beacons for that.

And, now, I need to get back to that list, lest a certian person I am wedded to takes issue with me….

The RTCM (Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services) Annual Meeting and Conference was held the week of May 5, 2008. I was asked to make a presentation as part of a panel discussing “Innovative Satellite Technologies.” Invitations to be included on the panel were sent to a number of organizations currently marketing distress alerting and distress communications services, or planning to do so (SPOT, the only service currently being marketed to consumers, was invited according to RTCM, but did not attend). My topic wasn’t about any particular service, per se, but rather was addressed to those attending or considering such service. The provocative title was, “What Price Your Life? Distress Alerting as a Commercial Service.”

While RTCM is ostensibly about maritime service, by the vagaries of such things, they have also become the standard setting body in the United States for PLBs (Personal Locator Beacons). The RTCM SC110 sub-committee develops standards for PLBs, as well as EPIRBs. I have been involved for some time now as the sole “consumer advocate” on a committee made up of industry, manufacturer, government and search and rescue representatives. A revised RTCM standard for PLBs was approved just prior to the annual meeting (click for more about this revised standard). A revised RTCM standard for EPIRBs is next on the agenda.

With this as background, RTCM is mindful of other technology that either competes or compliments the 406 MHz distress alerting technology and system, all of which impact the end user and SAR providers that RTCM serves. Thus, the impetus for this program at the annual conference.

My PowerPoint presentation can be downloaded here as an Adobe PDF file (287KB). The audio of the presentation can be downloaded as a WAV file (1.9MB). I’m sure that someone with technical competence could combine the two, but as I lack such skills, I suggest you download and open both the presentation and the audio and follow along simultaneously.

In summary, commercial distress alerting has hit the mainstream with the introduction of the SPOT Satellite Messenger. Others are on the way. I am not opposed to such services, nor against the concept of making a profit providing such services. They can offer a lot of advantages to consumers. However, there can be, and are in the case of at least SPOT, key differences between traditional distress alerting and commercial distress alerting. Traditional distress alerting measures its Return on Investment (ROI) in “lives saved,” not dollars earned. Adding profit incentive can potentially adversely affect outcomes if those involved don’t share this philosophy. It would appear that at least some involved may not have such vision. Otherwise, their policies with regards to subscriptions issues and lapses and the services provided, or not as is the case of SPOT, would be different.

Both individuals and society have expectations of what a distress alerting service should deliver. If you don’t deliver on these expectations, you can find yourself in big trouble. In other areas of Emergency Services, fire and emergency medical for example, commercial operations have found ways to put the emphasis where it belongs, saving lives. So, it’s certainly possible to do so and make a profit. You just have to have the vision and the right attitude.

In this regard, meeting societal expectations, SPOT has already stumbled in their implementation, but so far without any known fatalities. They and their chosen interface with SAR, GEOS, are learning and hopefully will do so quick enough to prevent problems. But, that is far from certain. Moreover, if every new commercial distress alerting service has to go through such a learning curve, sooner or later tragedy will strike. In addition, the lack of standards for this equipment and service has a huge potential for abuse and ruinous liability, aside from any tragedy. My message to SPOT and the other upcoming commercial distress alerting services is simple; get ahead of the problem or government will do it for you.

Again, this is just a brief summary of the short 12 minute presentation. Please download my PowerPoint presentation and the audio of the presentation for the full story.

NOTE: These comments are NOT at all related to a recent media release by ACR Electronics that  seems to imply, incorrectly, that the Coast Guard won’t respond to a SPOT distress alert the same as a 406 MHz beacon alert. Please read about ACR FUD here.