Flying 'Cell Tower' for Mountain Search & Rescue?

There have been a number of searches lately for people lost or trapped
in the Cascades--most of which have ended badly--but cell phones have
helped or at least given some hope in finding people. A ping from a
text message transmission helped narrow down the search for the Kim
family, and the intermittent signal from one of the climbers on Mt.
Hood at least let searchers know he was probably alive somewhere, but
it seems like you could use cell phones to really find people, even
when they're out of regular signal range.

This got me to thinking about the possibility of flying an ad-hoc
'cell tower' over a search area to let any old cell phone act as at
least an emergency beacon, if not a fully usable phone. I'm curious
if this has already been tried or would be feasible.

People lost in the mountains, or wherever, are much more likely to have
a cell phone than a $600 satellite-based locator beacon. If you know
someone is lost, how hard would it be to fly over the search area with
a transceiver that could communicate with a regular cell phone, or at
very least to listen for and home in on the phone's ID signal? The
latter seems like it should be dead easy, and I'd think you could
scan a swath a few miles wide, covering thousands of square miles in a
day.

Since apparently nothing like this has been used in these searches,
I'm guessing that this sort of equipment isn't available. Is
anything like this in the works? Could it be done?

---

› See More: Flying 'Cell Tower' for Mountain Search & Rescue?

"Drew Tronvig" <[email protected]> wrote in news:1166677520.717687.267960@
79g2000cws.googlegroups.com:

> Since apparently nothing like this has been used in these searches,
> I'm guessing that this sort of equipment isn't available. Is
> anything like this in the works? Could it be done?
>
>

If you leave a cellphone TRANSMITTING, you get a few hours, at best. It's
not a homing device.

What I DON'T understand is why the climbers' GPS-based cellphones aren't
sending the cops their exact GPS position, which with selective
availability nonsense turned off is now about a 100' diameter circle.
Maybe they don't have GPS phones?? Of course, we're talking about
cellphone towers away from the revenue centers of the cities licensed by an
FCC that hasn't forced compliance across the country, yet.

Anyway, the correct solution, if you value your life, is quite simple:

http://shop.sailnet.com/product_info...ducts_id/26691

It sends the exact lat/long of its internal GPS receiver to the overhead
constellation of 406 Mhz EPIRB satellites, directly to search and rescue
authorities. It's expensive and, unlike cellphones in the countryside,
100% reliable.

It depends on what you think life is worth when you do stupid things like
go mountainclimbing in a blizzard.....a personal decision.

I'm, however, unsure how to properly register an MMSI unique number to
other than maritime/aviation interests like mountainclimbers. I'm sure
this obstacle is solvable.

Larry <[email protected]> wrote in news:Xns98A04BC43208noonehomecom@
208.49.80.253:

> I'm, however, unsure how to properly register an MMSI unique number to
> other than maritime/aviation interests like mountainclimbers. I'm sure
> this obstacle is solvable.
>
>

http://www.beaconregistration.noaa.gov/
Oops...answered my own question...(c;

Here's some PLB info...
http://www.equipped.com/plb_legal.htm


Don't leave home without one...

> If you leave a cellphone TRANSMITTING, you get a few hours, at best. It's
> not a homing device.

I was under the impression that when a cell phone is on but not
actually making a call it regularly broadcasts a little data burst with
it's ID info, so the system knows what tower to use when there's a call
to that phone. When my phone is on but I'm not calling anyone, the
charge seems to last several days, and I think it's regularly sending
out its ID all that time. If I have that right, then it would make a
pretty good beacon, if anyone can hear it. In any case you don't have
to turn it on until you see you're in trouble. I agree that everyone
should have a $600 PRB, but I believe that in fact more people have
cell phones.

> What I DON'T understand is why the climbers' GPS-based cellphones aren't
> sending the cops their exact GPS position, which with selective
> availability nonsense turned off is now about a 100' diameter circle.
> Maybe they don't have GPS phones??

Again, I may not be clear on the technology, but it looks like they
wouldn't have had a good enough connection to query the GPS position.
If they had a good data-level connection they could have exchanged text
messages. The main point is that these people _did_ have phones, _did_
have charge, but didn't have a cell tower they could connect with,
hence the notion of the flying equivalent of a cell tower. Can that be
done?

Make that a $600 'PLB'.

"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Drew Tronvig" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:1166677520.717687.267960@
> 79g2000cws.googlegroups.com:
> What I DON'T understand is why the climbers' GPS-based cellphones aren't
> sending the cops their exact GPS position, which with selective
> availability nonsense turned off is now about a 100' diameter circle.
> Maybe they don't have GPS phones?? Of course, we're talking about
> cellphone towers away from the revenue centers of the cities licensed by
an
> FCC that hasn't forced compliance across the country, yet.

GSM phones don't use GPS, rather they use the ranges from several towers to
calculate the phone's position. If only one tower is receiving the signal
then all you have is an arc of ranges within the view of a particular
antenna (sector).

--
Donald R. Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

On 20 Dec 2006 22:08:47 -0800, "Drew Tronvig" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> If you leave a cellphone TRANSMITTING, you get a few hours, at best. It's
>> not a homing device.
>
>I was under the impression that when a cell phone is on but not
>actually making a call it regularly broadcasts a little data burst with
>it's ID info, so the system knows what tower to use when there's a call
>to that phone. When my phone is on but I'm not calling anyone, the
>charge seems to last several days, and I think it's regularly sending
>out its ID all that time. If I have that right, then it would make a
>pretty good beacon, if anyone can hear it. In any case you don't have
>to turn it on until you see you're in trouble. I agree that everyone
>should have a $600 PRB, but I believe that in fact more people have
>cell phones.
>
>> What I DON'T understand is why the climbers' GPS-based cellphones aren't
>> sending the cops their exact GPS position, which with selective
>> availability nonsense turned off is now about a 100' diameter circle.
>> Maybe they don't have GPS phones??
>
>Again, I may not be clear on the technology, but it looks like they
>wouldn't have had a good enough connection to query the GPS position.
>If they had a good data-level connection they could have exchanged text
>messages. The main point is that these people _did_ have phones, _did_
>have charge, but didn't have a cell tower they could connect with,
>hence the notion of the flying equivalent of a cell tower. Can that be
>done?

When my cell phone is on and lying next to my computer monitor, it
transmits a short burst every few minutes. I know because the
interference is audible and visible.

DK <[email protected]> wrote in news:arjro29tnb21dgqqpfg1j7otv68g99ng9m@
4ax.com:

> When my cell phone is on and lying next to my computer monitor, it
> transmits a short burst every few minutes. I know because the
> interference is audible and visible.
>
>
>

The keyword is BURST....Even when it's talking to someone, it converts your
voice to data inside the phone and sends out little bursts of data to the
tower....hardly any RF at all and CERTAINLY not any RF that would heat up a
flea behind your ear! Call someone and watch that effect on your
monitor...click...click...click...click...little data packets.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Drew Tronvig" <[email protected]> wrote:

> There have been a number of searches lately for people lost or trapped
> in the Cascades--most of which have ended badly--but cell phones have
> helped or at least given some hope in finding people. A ping from a
> text message transmission helped narrow down the search for the Kim
> family, and the intermittent signal from one of the climbers on Mt.
> Hood at least let searchers know he was probably alive somewhere, but
> it seems like you could use cell phones to really find people, even
> when they're out of regular signal range.
>
> This got me to thinking about the possibility of flying an ad-hoc
> 'cell tower' over a search area to let any old cell phone act as at
> least an emergency beacon, if not a fully usable phone. I'm curious
> if this has already been tried or would be feasible.
>
> People lost in the mountains, or wherever, are much more likely to have
> a cell phone than a $600 satellite-based locator beacon. If you know
> someone is lost, how hard would it be to fly over the search area with
> a transceiver that could communicate with a regular cell phone, or at
> very least to listen for and home in on the phone's ID signal? The
> latter seems like it should be dead easy, and I'd think you could
> scan a swath a few miles wide, covering thousands of square miles in a
> day.
>
> Since apparently nothing like this has been used in these searches,
> I'm guessing that this sort of equipment isn't available. Is
> anything like this in the works? Could it be done?

One company is thinking or using balloons to provide service to
the Dakotas: http://tinyurl.com/yk4qe3
The project is being delayed because the company has a contract
with the military for something more pressing.

Dean

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Great link, Dean.

If this works like they say it will, the balloons would do the job just
fine. Take the balloons and equipment upwind of the search area and let
'em go. From twenty miles up, they should have clear line of site--even
in the mountains--over a pretty wide area. If signal strength over
twenty miles is an issue, you could still hang a toaster-size package
on a plane and sweep the area.

Again, it seems like someone should have already thought of this, but
since it seems technically possible I'll see if I can connect with the
mountain rescue people to suggest it.

Thanks,
Drew


On Dec 25, 5:59 pm, Dean Hoffman <dh0496@i%ne^bras*&ka.com> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Drew Tronvig" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > There have been a number of searches lately for people lost or trapped
> > in the Cascades--most of which have ended badly--but cell phones have
> > helped or at least given some hope in finding people. A ping from a
> > text message transmission helped narrow down the search for the Kim
> > family, and the intermittent signal from one of the climbers on Mt.
> > Hood at least let searchers know he was probably alive somewhere, but
> > it seems like you could use cell phones to really find people, even
> > when they're out of regular signal range.
>
> > This got me to thinking about the possibility of flying an ad-hoc
> > 'cell tower' over a search area to let any old cell phone act as at
> > least an emergency beacon, if not a fully usable phone. I'm curious
> > if this has already been tried or would be feasible.
>
> > People lost in the mountains, or wherever, are much more likely to have
> > a cell phone than a $600 satellite-based locator beacon. If you know
> > someone is lost, how hard would it be to fly over the search area with
> > a transceiver that could communicate with a regular cell phone, or at
> > very least to listen for and home in on the phone's ID signal? The
> > latter seems like it should be dead easy, and I'd think you could
> > scan a swath a few miles wide, covering thousands of square miles in a
> > day.
>
> > Since apparently nothing like this has been used in these searches,
> > I'm guessing that this sort of equipment isn't available. Is
> > anything like this in the works? Could it be done? One company is thinking or using balloons to provide service to
> the Dakotas: http://tinyurl.com/yk4qe3
> The project is being delayed because the company has a contract
> with the military for something more pressing.
>
> Dean
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

On 26 Dec 2006 13:03:48 -0800, "Drew Tronvig" <[email protected]> wrote:
: Great link, Dean.
:
: If this works like they say it will, the balloons would do the job just
: fine. Take the balloons and equipment upwind of the search area and let
: 'em go. From twenty miles up, they should have clear line of site--even
: in the mountains--over a pretty wide area. If signal strength over
: twenty miles is an issue, you could still hang a toaster-size package
: on a plane and sweep the area.
:
: Again, it seems like someone should have already thought of this, but
: since it seems technically possible I'll see if I can connect with the
: mountain rescue people to suggest it.

An even more effective, and much less expensive, solution would be for
arrogant showoffs to stop trying to climb dangerous mountains in the winter.

I agree with this as it really makes the most sense. During dangerous
conditions, the life guards on the beach keep swimmers out of the water. The
roads to the mountains should be blocked and anyone that disregards the
rules should have to pay for the search and rescue effort. If they cannot
afford the search and rescue operation, then their wages should be garnished
for the rest of their life. The tax payers should not have to pay for their
showing-off.


>
> An even more effective, and much less expensive, solution would be for
> arrogant showoffs to stop trying to climb dangerous mountains in the
> winter.

Per Mij Adyaw:
>I agree with this as it really makes the most sense. During dangerous
>conditions, the life guards on the beach keep swimmers out of the water. The
>roads to the mountains should be blocked and anyone that disregards the
>rules should have to pay for the search and rescue effort.

I liked it the way it was when I lived on Oahu a long time ago.

The lifeguards would put up flags:
------------------------------------------------
- Green: No problem.

- Yellow: Only people who really know what they're doing should go out there.

- Red: You can go out, but we're not coming to get you if you get into trouble.
------------------------------------------------
--
PeteCresswell

The Kims were taking a drive in the mountains, on a road that appeared
to be open, since someone had broken open the gate.


On Dec 26, 6:56 pm, Robert Coe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> An even more effective, and much less expensive, solution would be for
> arrogant showoffs to stop trying to climb dangerous mountains in the winter.

I think this was in regard to the Mt. Hood climbers.

"Drew Tronvig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Kims were taking a drive in the mountains, on a road that appeared
> to be open, since someone had broken open the gate.
>
>
> On Dec 26, 6:56 pm, Robert Coe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> An even more effective, and much less expensive, solution would be for
>> arrogant showoffs to stop trying to climb dangerous mountains in the
>> winter.
>