Re: (E)PLB as Kidnapping Insurance
- Here is an follow up: Lt Karlson's reply to the question I posed to
this group. As I read this, Karlson does not exclude the possibies
of designated third party SAR mobilization upon alert, assuming that
thrid party's contact info is listed the devices registration
papers. Perhas some of our non-military folks in Iraq could use a
little insurace of this nature. It's a thought: Contractors rescuing
contractors in a war zone... perhaps only a thought. Then again,
this is a "Global War" on terror.
Unfortunately, responding to a PLB doesn't quite work like that.
When an emergency beacon goes off, a host of government agencies are
involved in the process and we cannot pass responsibility off to just
any third-party. In the U.S. for instance, once the Air Force Rescue
Coordination Center receives a PLB alert from us here at the USMCC
they will work to resolve the distress until the case is closed.
Even if they have state or local agencies responding to the PLB
alert, it ultimately still falls under their perview. Its very
similar to a E-911 call. There are a host of gov't agencies that can
respond to any one E-911 call, but ultimately it still resides with a
single gov't entity. It is Public Law which binds the various
national SAR agencies to this policy. To the best of my knowledge,
this policy probably prevails elsewhere throughout the world.
Doug Adomatis wrote:
Patrons are still writing about "Kidnapping Insurance."
So, I have another question for you:
Is it possible for the owner of the EPLB to register the device as:
"Notify only _____ on alert." ?
That is, can the owner of the device specify how the alert is to be
handled, providing contact info for a third party who would receive
location information and take responsibility for responding to the
Your reply would be greatly appreciated,