inReach SE: No tracking points, no messages went through today!

>> Chip and DeLorme are exceeding my expectations so far.<<

+1 on that!

Rex – I did exactly the same as you (Delorme test email, set it outside for hours and got the constantly flashing red light). Seems very odd to me that there would be two identical hardware failures at the same time with units that we operating perfectly just before a firmware upgrade. I know it's possible but…

In the future I will be testing mine "before" the firmware upgrades and immediately after.

"for example a GPX import for the new Explorer would be nice"
Apparently, that feature is in the works and should come with one of the next firmware upgrades.

" got the constantly flashing red light"

I've only had one for a while, but doesn't it also flash when you have an unread message, such as the reply to your test. Anyway, just checking.

I'm kinda with Greg (his older post about the network), seem like a lot of people are jumping to the conclusion it is an issue with the device. Is it impossible it is a glitch in the Iridium network? Coverage? Load? We treat a lot of or technology like it is magic, and when the magic doesn't work right we want to blame the nearest thing we can see. Does seem more likely it is the device given the relative sophistication of the technologies, not to mention getting a crap chip from some cheap supplier. Just saying.

I just dragged mine out of the drawer to test. It updated itself, without asking, when I acquired a signal. Still, I'm on Firmware version 2.6.24021. Sent a test message/received a reply fine.

I'll try updating the firmware and see what happens.

I'm also on hardware version 2.

Edited to add: Delorme site is down for maintenance at the moment.

Okay, updated to firmware 2.6.25624. Sent test message. No confirmation message received yet. It's only been 5 minutes, but the test I did before the update received a near instantaneous response.

Perhaps the firmware updates are only being tested on 2.1 devices?

Edited to add – Like Rex, I now also just get the flashing red light.

So, interesting (to me anyway).

I did another sync to the site, and it said I needed updates (which surprised me since I just updated 15 minutes or so ago). This time it updated my contacts/messages/etc., but did not do any more firmware upgrades. The flashing red light was now off.

So I took it outside and asked it to check for new messages, and in came the reply to the test message I sent 15 minutes ago.

Sent another test message (there's 3 of my 5 for this month! :-). Didn't get an immediate reply, but did get one when I asked the device to check for new messages. And flashing red light continues to no longer be flashing.

Seems to be fine. So maybe you just need to sync twice for some unknown reason, once to upgrade the firmware and once to update everything else.

"So maybe you just need to sync twice for some unknown reason, once to upgrade the firmware and once to update everything else."

That is what I've been complaining about to Delorme for the last six weeks. I think the tech support department has cut me off now, because the only questions that I ask are the ones for which they have no answers.

–B.G.–

Hmmm. The DeLorme tech support group finally responded to me after more than a week. Then the response was a non-answer.

I wonder how far I can throw this thing.

–B.G.–

to know that the technology you are relying on to save your butt in a crisis may not work.

That's exactly why I only carry a PLB that goes direct to Federally funded search and rescue coordination. 406mhz PLB's may not have the bells and whistles, but its EXACTLY the same technology used in all US aircraft, and search and rescue is coordinated by the same agency.

I flat refuse to rely on some commercial website with a, "who knows what" dispatch system and buggy website that is probably manned by someone in India to get me out when and if I have a life threatening emergency.

Leave the texting app at home and enjoy being unplugged from the universe for a few days, it will do your soul good.

OK. It took me just a few attempts to update the firmware – usually it actually takes me WAY too much time and way too many attempts. This was the easiest update I did.

I also did the test messages and everything went through just fine.

I have hardware version 2.0 and firmware 2.6.25624

Kerry Wilson wrote – "That's exactly why I only carry a PLB that goes direct to Federally funded search and rescue coordination. 406mhz PLB's may not have the bells and whistles, but its EXACTLY the same technology used in all US aircraft, and search and rescue is coordinated by the same agency."

Enjoy your talisman.

nm

PLB fans are not only overlooking the failures in the (very) few tests of PLB transmission, but also the ability of inReach to convey detailed information to GEOS.
By contrast, all that a PLB conveys to COSPAS-SARSAT is your location and registration information. Is the PLB owner in need of assistance, or another party? Does someone require immediate medical attention, or just extrication from the backcountry? How timely is the need for assistance?
With inReach, all of this can be conveyed in a two-way exchange.

(Meanwhile, my units has been sending messages fine over the last few days.)

"PLB fans are not only overlooking the failures in the (very) few tests of PLB transmission…"

Details please.

Are you referring to "operator error" or some sort "behind the scenes" systems failures?

Some excerpts follow below.

Yes, this test is old, and PLB models are probably better now, especially since this old test had better results than an even older test . . . but nobody really knows that for sure.

SPOT and inReach often get a bad rep because their capabilities are always being tested, and the relatively few anomalies (on a % basis) generate lots of internet posts.
But for PLBs, there's no readily available way to test them other than inadvertently calling out the cavalry. (Well, except for the ACR 406Link feature.)

http://www.equipped.org/406_GPS_beacon_test_2005_summary.htm

"The few anomalies experienced in this evaluation bear out the reality that even electrically operated emergency signaling devices manufactured and tested to very high quality standards may still be less than 100% reliable in the field and that it remains good practice that users should always self-test beacons prior to embarking upon any excursion or being involved in any situation where they may have to be relied upon in an emergency."

"NOAA and other government agencies involved in the operation of the COSPAS-SARSAT system should investigate the apparent anomalies experienced during these tests that could possibly be attributed to faults in the system."

"There is an obvious and urgent need for government agencies involved in operation and regulation of these beacons and the COSPAS-SARSAT system to develop a more expedient means by which real world testing of these beacons can be conducted with a minimum of bureaucratic hurdles. It should be possible for any legitimate organization representing consumer interests to schedule a test of beacons on relatively short notice. For relatively small numbers of beacons, the use of operationally coded beacons should be facilitated, as the need to use test protocol-coded beacons is a very substantial impediment to the independent testing of these beacons."

"Delay in receiving system performance data (satellite data) is detrimental to the expedient and effective testing of 406 MHz emergency beacons with the potential for devastating data loss and potential for invalidation of testing that, at best, is difficult and expensive to organize. This evaluation experienced just such a loss of irreplaceable data on one test. It should be a priority for the government agencies involved to enable testing organizations to receive immediate automated feedback, perhaps via the Internet, of the system performance during a test."

"SPOT and inReach often get a bad rep because their capabilities are always being tested, and the relatively few anomalies (on a % basis) generate lots of internet posts."

Quoting Zorg blows a lot of credibility. Really.

As for Ritters 2005 review –

"The few anomalies experienced in this evaluation… " Operator error or "System"?

Yes civilian testing of government equipment is difficult. So?

Yes, his testing ran into difficulties. So?

The government entities behind COSPAS-SARSAT test the systems.

I'm sure there can be a failure. But the multiple systems in place, the redundancy, and the automation, reduce that possibility to a very small number.

Can you cite ONE instance, not "operator error", suggesting a system failure or shortcoming?

I didn't quote Zorg.
And I wasn't referencing him in what I wrote either (even if the two of us independently arrived at the same thought).

As for PLB activation failures, can you provide me with the inReach equivalent, i.e., "SOS" activation failures?

I'm not the one who said –

"PLB fans are not only overlooking the failures in the (very) few tests of PLB transmission…"

– and that is what I am seeking clarification on.

[edit: I see the PLB or "commercial communiator" decision as a personal choice. But if someone is going to denigrate one or the other, they should do so with facts.]

Go read the hundreds of pages in those two reports and decide for yourself whether PLBs are absolutely always perfect.

I haven't said they are perfect. I explicitly said a failure is possible.

You said that we are overlooking PLB failures.

Cite One instance of system failure.

"it remains good practice that users should always self-test beacons prior to embarking upon any excursion or being involved in any situation where they may have to be relied upon in an emergency."

Isn't this SOP for PLB users? I self test mine every year at the beginning of the season for both internal function and GPS signal acquisition, and would assume most others do as well. If not, well, that's what the Darwin Award was created to recognize.

That's lawyer talk for "If you should win the Darwin Award we don't have to pay your family a lot of prize money."

"Product is not intended to be used orally. Do not use with flammable liquids. For entertainment purposes only."

""Product is not intended to be used orally. Do not use with flammable liquids. For entertainment purposes only.""

All three of those statements can be found on a package of suppositories….