ResQlink View RLS vs 410 RLS

[Jaan]

Thanks @-JD-

We do have the TXL that will work but it’s really quite big with interior dimensions as follows:
Length 10.35″ (263mm)
Diameter 2.75″ (70mm)

We made it originally for some deep sea research projects to house large batteries.

That said we’ve had some interesting dive use cases including the long 8” ais/plb unit, divers wanting to bring multiple units, and even a medical diver that carried surgical tools ..

You could definitely get this unit with the floatation pouch in one and still have room for other safety equipment.

In terms of attachment or carrying it : I had a spare-air holster ordered which got lost so I’m waiting for a replacement to see if it can house the unit. Otherwise bungee onto the back of the tank or backplate with some hose clamps could work or some other large pocket.

 

[RIHappyDiver]

I'm looking at a Resqlink as well. Can I ask why you aren't considering the 450? In addition to the GPS and RLS, it's also got ALS for local, faster response.

I did consider it, but the form factor is throwing me off of it. I want it as manageable as possible, and an 8” long unit in an 11” Dryfob is not something that I want to have to deal with in an emergency situation. Also, I keep seeing conflicting information about how useful AIS would truly be in this type of situation. Honestly, at some point it came down to do I keep researching different units or do I pull the trigger on what seems to best suite my needs based on what I have found. It started to feel like analysis paralysis.

Sorry for the long winded response, but hope it answered your question. Ultimately, as you know, what works best for one person doesn’t always work best for another.

Erik

 

[Racer_X]

Sorry for the long winded response, but hope it answered your question. Ultimately, as you know, what works best for one person doesn’t always work best for another.

Erik

Not at all, you're thinking the same thing I am. the extra tech is helpful, but the form factor is problematic. I don't need it as quickly, so I can afford to wait. Just wanted to see if there's anything I might have missed. Who knows if they'll reduce the form factor at some point given the feedback already on it from mariners as well.

 

[Jaan]

Also something to be said for two separate units should you want to carry both technologies ….

 

[Racer_X]

Also something to be said for two separate units should you want to carry both technologies ….

Not really. The technologies all have the exact same use case - you're fine (mostly) and the boat/land for some reason isn't. So it makes more sense to have them together on your gear and in your liveaboard go bag when they aren't on your gear. I don't care what tech is used to come get me, just that it happens as quickly and effectively as possible.

If the boats nearby have AIS, great! If they have marine radio and are listening, great! If a satellite is required, great! 1 button to rule them all with a response mechanism so you can limit your freak out. The minimum form factor total and cost total for the three technologies wins fittest for purpose.

To quote Warren Buffett, "Put all your eggs in one basket, and watch the basket." My corollary, of course, is "do not skip step 2."

 

[lairdb]

Not really. The technologies all have the exact same use case - you're fine (mostly) and the boat/land for some reason isn't.

Mmmm… “my boat is okay but can’t find me?”

 

[-JD-]

Not really. The technologies all have the exact same use case - you're fine (mostly) and the boat/land for some reason isn't. So it makes more sense to have them together on your gear and in your liveaboard go bag when they aren't on your gear. I don't care what tech is used to come get me, just that it happens as quickly and effectively as possible.

If the boats nearby have AIS, great! If they have marine radio and are listening, great! If a satellite is required, great! 1 button to rule them all with a response mechanism so you can limit your freak out. The minimum form factor total and cost total for the three technologies wins fittest for purpose.

To quote Warren Buffett, "Put all your eggs in one basket, and watch the basket." My corollary, of course, is "do not skip step 2."

Flip side is partial redundancy across 2 diferent technologies vs. a single combined device - a single failure could leave you with nothing in the latter case.

 

[tursiops]

Also something to be said for two separate units should you want to carry both technologies ….

Not really. The technologies all have the exact same use case - you're fine (mostly) and the boat/land for some reason isn't. So it makes more sense to have them together on your gear and in your liveaboard go bag when they aren't on your gear. I don't care what tech is used to come get me, just that it happens as quickly and effectively as possible.

One BIG point in favor of two separate units is that if one if them fails (flooding, battery, whatever) you still have the other. In a perfect world, of course, that is not relevant. In a perfect world, you would not get lost, either. A good dive plan and equipment choice does not depend upon a perfect world.

 

[Racer_X]

One BIG point in favor of two separate units is that if one if them fails (flooding, battery, whatever) you still have the other. In a perfect world, of course, that is not relevant. In a perfect world, you would not get lost, either. A good dive plan and equipment choice does not depend upon a perfect world.

Flip side is partial redundancy across 2 diferent technologies vs. a single combined device - a single failure could leave you with nothing in the latter case.

If your design criteria is to be fault tolerant for a unit failure, then it makes sense to carry 2 of the combined units with all the technologies rather than 1 with less capability than the other, no? Still carrying 2 units with about the same form factor as 2 less capable units. Not to mention that currently, no matter what, you're carrying 2 units ANYWAY - Resqlink with AIS+GPS+RLS and a marine radio.

Don't forget your spare first+second stage, spare tank, spare fins, spare bc, and spare dry suit on all your dives. At a certain point, you look like the base of a swiss army knife while diving.

Having the rescue gear in the first place, by definition, means you are planning for a non-perfect world as stated. Risk tolerance has an infinite amount of equally valid points along its continuum. At which point it simply becomes an equally valid set of rationalizations.

However, carrying 2 separate units with 1 technology each is silly compared to 2 units with all the tech in them in the first place if redundancy is your goal. I just wish a single unit was an option versus 2 units across the combined tech of AIS, GPS, and marine radio. In THAT scenario, it'd be a garmin inreach and a marine radio and a resqlink....

 

[tursiops]

If your design criteria is to be fault tolerant for a unit failure, then it makes sense to carry 2 of the combined units with all the technologies rather than 1 with less capability than the other, no?

No. As you state. The current combined technology for PLB plus AIS is stupid-sized; I don't want one, much less two. If my goal is AIS/DSC, then the NLL does the job. If my goal is PLB, the small ResQLink does the job. If my goal is MarineVHF, the OLD NLL does the job, plus DSC, although i could just carry a small Marine VHF. If my goal is land and sea, the Garmin InReach Mini does the job, but I have to pay a subscription fee to use it. All this "use case" stuff ignores the realities and tradeoffs of the units, and the fact that NONE of them are 100% reliable. Your "all the technolgies" misses the Marine VHF and the InReach network and the fact that many small boats in foreign waters use only VHF radio, none of that special stuff. In fact, my last trip to the Philippines if I wanted to talk to my boat my only viable choice would have been a cell phone.