They should, and if they don’t other people should. It’s a life saving feature using a device manage people already carry, and I don’t think many people are aware of it.
Top Gear did this, back when they were still on the BBC.
They dropped one presenter and a camera crew out of a helicopter around the top of a hill-climb OHV track in the Canadian wilderness, and had them activate an emergency beacon. The other two had to perform a rescue race in pickup trucks.
Kinda pricey for the standalone, but not too bad. $300 for a starter Garmin. But you'll have about a $160 per year subscription. (I've had one for years--it's been invaluable peace of mind on solo trips.)
The Garmin uses Iridium; the iPhone is apparently Globalstar. So don't try using the iPhone at the poles. ;)
Great to see it coming to phones. Maybe Pixel will get on board.
Apparently "snowmachine" is what they call a snowmobile in Alaska. I was confused because I thought that was a device that makes fake snow at ski slopes.
Passing judgment on someone when you don't know the relevant facts is generally a bad idea. If this was a tourist near Anchorage or Fairbanks or Denali, that's one thing, but there probably aren't many tourists up near Kotzebue, especially in December.
We know enough relevant facts- they went on a snow machine into the wilderness. Only got saved by an instrument that luckily worked as it’s advertised but not with a guarantee. Only an idiot would go out into the cold in Alaska depending on technology that explicitly says it might not work for you if you have a hill or you’re in a weird latitude.
You can bet his townsfolk are talking about his stupidity as well. Maybe his baby was choking and he was going to get help. But maybe all our corrupt politicians are also held hostage by aliens and that’s why they’re corrupt? If we can’t judge anyone until all the facts are in then we can’t judge anyone ever. I’d prefer to judge with what I have but be ready to amend when new information comes in.
> A spokesperson for the Alaska Department of Public Safety told(Opens in a new window) Insider that search and rescue teams were dispatched at 3:30 a.m. and the stranded man was taken to Kotzebue at 6 a.m. According to Insider, the man did not have another form of satellite communication and was wearing “appropriate clothing” and had “fire-starting supplies.”
If you read the last line above from the article, that sounds like someone with experienced who was prepared for the journey. There are probably dozens to hundreds of people across Alaska making the same type of journey right now. We don't know from the article but could presume they had also shared a trip report in case something went wrong.
How much real life experience do you have with arctic climates? You don't sound very educated or qualified to pass judgement.
The fact that they were located using his device doesn't invalidate other forms of preparation or qualify someone as an idiot or stupid.
Alaska natives apparently don't have much sympathy for those from the lower 48 who get in trouble because they didn't research or prepare for Alaskan conditions before venturing out.
The majority of Alaskans share some version of the opinion that McCandless was deeply out of his element
I think the parent commenter was referring to this incident, not the kid from Into the Wild. Based on the demographics of the two villages he was traversing, it's very likely that this man is Alaska native.
> Only an idiot would go out into the cold in Alaska depending on technology that explicitly says it might not work for you if you have a hill or you’re in a weird latitude.
Many people who live in those remote villages practice at least some degree of self subsistence. You realize they were doing this long before iPhones were a thing, right? This is a way of life for many people in remote Alaskan villages. Do you think they were carrying around iPhones when they went out whale hunting with spears? Just because you don't understand another culture doesn't mean you should disparage their way of life. You basically just called everyone who lives further north than Fairbanks, Alaska stupid.
Source: Lived in Alaska for around 20 years, and have been thoroughly exposed to Inuit and Athabaskan culture.
> Only an idiot would go out into the cold in Alaska depending on technology that explicitly says it might not work for you if you have a hill or you’re in a weird latitude
Tell me you're not from the North without telling me you're not from the North.
I lived in the Yukon for 4 years, spent plenty of time up in the Arctic Circle (in early December the day time high temp was -48C / -55F.
Slept in a wall tent plenty of times bison hunting when it was past -50C / -55F overnight. All our thermometers stopped at -50C so we don't know how cold it was.
When you make a comment like yours you are showing you don't understand the life up there, and you don't understand why people choose to live in the north and go on adventures. The very, VERY vast majority of Alaskans say stuff like "I'm never going back to the lower 48".
People in the north want the adventure life, they want to take risks and they want to live. They don't want to live in a cage and have their water changed three times a day. Let them live the life they want without criticizing and without push your opinion of what is acceptable risk onto other people.
> People in the north want the adventure life, they want to take risks and they want to live. They don't want to live in a cage and have their water changed three times a day.
Doing okay til here, sport.
"You're insulting everyone in the north." And then proceeding to insult everyone else, all us cage dwellers. Perhaps don't throw insults at people you're telling not to insult you.
Let's be clear, it's not me insulting "everyone else", it's the people who moved from the lower 48 up to Alaska and say "They'll never go back because it sucks down there". It's an extremely, EXTREMELY common sentiment across Alaska. I personally think that means there must be something to it.
I suggest you try it. Get some on the ground perspective on what it is people are passing judgment on. Maybe there's something you're missing.
Hear, hear. If you live out in the middle of nowhere and it's routinely -50F in the winter, you have a different attitude than someone living in urban US.
Speaking as one who's only read about it :) But "Coming Into The Country" is a great book to read.
> We know enough relevant facts- they went on a snow machine into the wilderness. Only got saved by an instrument that luckily worked as it’s advertised but not with a guarantee.
We don't know that they 'only got saved' by their iPhone etc. We know they had appropriate clothing and firestarting equipment and that they requested and received assistance. They may have been prepared to wait it out and maybe hike if they had to, but assistance was available, so why not?
“A comprehensive 2003 US study also did "not find any evidence that higher seat belt usage has a significant effect on driving behavior." Their results showed that "overall, mandatory seat belt laws unambiguously reduce traffic fatalities.”
> Sure, you can find an extreme person to argue anything but I certainly am not familiar with this difficult to believe argument
I am not here to say it is either correct or incorrect to apply it to this situation.
But it is a commonly studied theory in behavioral science. And I don’t think it is considered an “extreme” theory in general. It is definitely something that is discussed enough to have a variety of studies on the matter.
Pedestrian risk is an obvious hypothesis of the risk compensation theory, because seat belts can only functionally protect people who are seated and belted in a vehicle. If the driver does compensate for their own risk, the reasonable hypothesis is any compensation would be at the detriment to others.
Traction control is a more likely candidate. Encourages people to think there’s more traction than there really is - only to find out the error when they need to stop
I wouldn't consider being aware of a vehicle's capabilities and utilizing them as being reckless.
One could argue that those folks are incurring a sort of opportunity cost by not learning the limits of vehicles that don't have ABS, and certainly they might be worse off for it, but that's not the same as recklessness.
Intentionally utilizing and knowing the limits of a vehicle is one thing - but driving beyond your capabilities because the vehicle covers for you most of the time is a problem.
The number of people who think AWD + ABS means they can ignore snow and ice and continue to do 60+ mph in blizzard conditions, for example.
There is data to this effect for bike helmets, that the feeling of safety induces more risky behavior. Helmeted riders act more aggressively near both cars and pedestrians, and also drivers allow less of a safety margin near a helmeted rider.
Helmets are still likely a net positive overall, but there is enough reason to at least consider the second-order effects.
Wearing a helmet is a choice (possibly one with legal consequences, but a choice), which gives a bias in any study which might have shown a behavioral difference by the rider.
It will be interesting to see the data roll in as this feature proliferates to standard consumer devices.
Obviously Garmin and others have had dedicated devices like this for years, but if you're in deep enough that you're dropping several hundred dollars on a dedicated satellite SOS device, you've probably also done a lot of work to learn how to keep yourself safe and generally not get in trouble. And you're acutely aware that even if people want to come save you, they might not be able to and ultimately it's on you to self rescue.
A lot of people don't know that at least in the US, search and rescue is free and largely volunteer run. It works great for now, but if the burden of unprepared wilderness adventurers grows to be too heavy, SAR as it currently is won't be able to bear it.
Too bad that PC mag just published its last (digital) issue, ending its 40-year run as a magazine. Does Ziff Davis have any remaining monthly publications?
That’s something like 50 miles (eyeballing the distance).
… as the crow flies
… at 1 am
… in northern alaska
… in the winter
I don’t know that much about living in Alaska, so I don’t know which side of the brave/stupid line this falls. That said, my initial impression is squarely in the “stupid” category.
Many people who live in remote villages use snowmachines (snowmobiles outside of AK) as their primary means of transportation.
The article doesn't get into how they got stranded or why they were out there. But let's not jump to "stupid" as there are many things that could have gone wrong, and they were properly clothed with fire starting material in hand.
> At 1 am the winter, it doesn’t matter if it is 8am or 5pm, it’s still dark out. So why does it being 1am matter?
Again, I’m no AK expert, but my initial thoughts are:
1. There are still 5 hours or so of sunlight. Maybe try then, at least for part of the trip.
2. I’m not sure what sleeping schedules are like with limited sunshine, but I imagine that most people are more tired at 1 am than other times that aren’t the middle of the night.
3. If there is an established route between the two towns, then I imagine that there would be more people nearby to help if something went wrong in the 8am-9pm range rather than the early morning hours. I could be wrong about this, but that’s my guess.
It’s usually coldest right after dawn: the earth has been radiating heat all night, and is thus getting colder. The very early morning light isn’t yet strong enough to start driving the temperature back up.
That guy seems like an idiot.. can't climb up <1000 feet, only .5 mile. The other two guys are able to come down easily... then he follows them up the hill, turns out he can get up it!
Doesn't seem to realize he can simply soak his dehydrated food, doesn't need to heat it.
Obviously they shouldn't have doxxed him, but damn some basic competence on his part..
It’s actually true, as the naive backpacker noted, going up is trickier. That, and him being in an obviously had mental state mean the troopers should definitely be the ones going down to him.
Doxing him was wrong and should lead to meaningful consequences, writing an anonymized account of the guys rescue and his mistakes that led him into the situation would have been fine. Dressing him down a bit privately after he was in safety would also be okay, giving him attitude during the rescue was not.
The guy’s account leaves much to be desired as he doesn’t seem to have actually accepted what led him to make his way into the situation and instead seems more to justify his decisions. He did a few things that were good practices but completely neglected many non-optional wilderness best practices. He’s lucky to be alive.
The most egregious issue is he seems to believe the garmin means he does not need back up plans and it gives him a false sense of security. The rescue button is absolute NOT a backup plan. Having a premium plan means nothing. Having insurance means nothing. None of those mean one should be any less cautious but the way he described having those things it seems like he was taking more risk than otherwise as if having insurance to pay for it means it’s less of a big deal to call for rescue.
In his situation pushing sos was absolutely the right thing to do. But he should not have been in that situation in the first place, and that’s left out of his analysis.
Yeah I agree. In his story it sounds like he put himself into a situation with no backup if things went wrong. He didn't have water, only had dehydrated food, and only bought a single gas bottle. He hiked down a steep mountainside which he felt he couldn't hike back up.
It sounded like thought he could use the SOS button as an instant escape button. In the end the Sheriff's department literally came and got him and his complaint is that they made a snarky Facebook post. That wasn't professional, but personally I'd prefer them doing that than me freezing to death.
He also didn’t read the elevation map, thinking terrain would be relatively flat between two points because they were at about equal height.
Also, he said he took for maybe a week of food for a 4-day round trip, and, because, not finding water, he had to melt ice, he got a fuel shortage after day two that forced him (or at least he thought it forced him) to start rationing food after day two.
In addition, he wasn’t at his destination at the end of day two, by a long stretch.
I would think either of these would be a reason to turn around immediately. Or do I overlook something or misinterpret what he says?
So someone did the thing advertised in the thing, and it did the thing as advertised. Sounds like they should have been more careful, maybe have a compass and overall know what they were doing.
Presumably he could have just followed the road he was on and maybe reached town before freezing to death.
And all conventional wisdom says to stay put if you find yourself in a situation like that. Years ago I was listening to the local radio on my way to Denver when a big storm was coming in and they were talking about how many people die in blizzards every year with most of the deaths being people who tried to walk to safety instead of staying in their stuck cars.
More presumption but I’d say the standard thing to do in that part of the world is to just hunker down and wait until the next traveler comes along — or press the magic button on the iPhone and get to town before last call.
—edit—
And damn straight I’d be pushing that button if I got stranded.
So would I. But if I decided to traverse dangerous largely inhabited terrain and my only means of salvation are my phone with a brand new largely untested feature, then I'd be an idiot who took a big risk.
I mean, what do you want the guy to do? Not travel during winter?
Always travel with a snowmachine in tow, except when the lead snowmachine has failed, in which case, well probably still tow the broken machine with the secondary machine, so you can repair it at your destination instead of in the middle of your return journey?
Travel by car, again while towing a secondary vehicle, because having a vehicle fail during a trip is clearly irresponsible?
So I guess until Apple came up with this, people living in remote parts of Alaska where pretty much screwed unless they had a satellite phone.
I'm no expert in what living efficiently and safely in such a place is, but I know that in places like Svalvard, you are expected to be 100% independent and responsible for yourself because nobody is coming to your rescue. To the point that you shouldn't go out by yourself if you don't have a rifle that you know how to use, because you could run into polar bears or wolves.
So yeah, I think this guy most definitely could have been better prepared, don't ask me how, it's not the point. Clearly if your only means of survival when something goes wrong is your phone, you are unprepared to live in a place like that.
So he was appropriately dressed to be in a snowmachine in the Alaskan outdoors, and could start a fire. Which to me reads that he cleared the absolute minimum essentials to not be a complete idiot. That still doesn't explain how he was so unprepared for anything going wrong that his best recourse was to resort to using a brand new feature which is largely untested in the real world.
Do we know whether they had a compass, as you felt they didn’t? Whether they had another emergency contact option? We know the driver was dressed appropriately.
Sure, there are a plethora of things we don't know. But he was reportedly going from Noorvik to Kotzebue: https://imgur.com/a/GYfKk5w which is one tiny town in the middle of nowhere, to another slightly larger town in the middle of nowhere. The emergency alert was received at around 2AM, so he was doing this in the middle of the night.
It stands to reason that when you are in such conditions, you should be prepared for circumstances such as "what happens if my means of transportation breaks down".
It seems like a risk was taken, and when you take a risk and things go wrong and you need to be rescued, you are putting the lives of other people at risk.
Maybe it was all completely justified, but on paper it doesn't seem that way.
Noorvik gets 2-3 hrs of sunlight a day. The “middle of the night” argument doesn’t really hold for the arctic this time of the year. It’s basically always dark.
i mean theres the compass on the iphone but i have no idea how accurate that is or even if works at high latitude. hopefully someone with more knowledge can enlighten us.
