lat-puzz.com

Title relevant, e.g. he didn't quite manage to convey the word 'HELP'? 'HEALTH'?
He = HAM? As a result of them not finding him, was he harmed? Did he die? Did they fail to find him even after he died? Was there some other result besides not being found? Did anyone else find him besides his rescuers? Is this based on a historical event?

Just a thought... if his rescuers never found him, could they be said to be his rescuers? Relevant?

Would they have found him if he hadn't tried helping? Is he lost? WAG: did he join a search party searching for him? Not knowing that people considered him to be lost?

Title relevant, e.g. he didn't quite manage to convey the word 'HELP'? 'HEALTH'? No.
He = HAM? Yes. As a result of them not finding him, was he harmed? Did he die? Assume this. Did they fail to find him even after he died? Assume no. Was there some other result besides not being found? No. Did anyone else find him besides his rescuers? No. Is this based on a historical event? It actually happened, though in the event he was found safe and sound.

Just a thought... if his rescuers never found him, could they be said to be his rescuers? No irony intended. It was their job to find him. Relevant? No.

Would they have found him if he hadn't tried helping? Yes. Is he lost? Not in the sense that he doesn't know his location. WAG: did he join a search party searching for him? Not knowing that people considered him to be lost? No to both.

Is he lost in the sense that others don't know his location? In the sense that he can't leave his location? Or doesn't know how to? Them: HAM? Did he try to signal them? To stay still? Move? Is he outside? In wilderness? Is a natural disaster relevant? A manmade one? Aerial search relevant? Search parties? Electronic devices? Fire? Did he make a mistake?

Is he lost in the sense that others don't know his location? To an extent. In the sense that he can't leave his location? Assume no. Or doesn't know how to? No. Them: HAM? Yes. Did he try to signal them? This. To stay still? Move? Is he outside? In wilderness? For SVV of "wilderness." Is a natural disaster relevant? A manmade one? No to both. Aerial search relevant? This. Search parties? No. Electronic devices? Yes. Fire? No. Did he make a mistake? Yes.

GPs relevant? Cellphones? Radio? WhatThreeWords or other GPS-related location service? Does he try to be seen? Try to communicate electronically? Non-electronically? Does he make a fire? Flash a light? Put up something highly visible? Is he in a forest? Field? Ravine? Mountainous terrain?

Did he actually signal the rescuers? relevant what type of signal?
Did the signal mislead the rescuers? making them think he is in a different place? he is well and does not need help? there is nobody in this place?
Did they search him from a helicopter? Did they scan the area with drones? check satellite pictures?
Infrared scanners relevant? did his signalling block the infrared emissions from his body?
Geographic features of the region relevant? mountains? rocks? ice? desert? forest? sea? lake or river? cave? mine? the jungle of the big city?

HELF = How to effectively locate Fred? Did the rescuers behave in a particularly stupid way not to notice him? Were they actually very close?

GPs relevant? Cellphones? Radio? This. WhatThreeWords or other GPS-related location service? Does he try to be seen? Try to communicate electronically? This. Non-electronically? Does he make a fire? Flash a light? Put up something highly visible? Is he in a forest? Field? Ravine? Mountainous terrain? None of these.

Did he actually signal the rescuers? Yope. Explore. relevant what type of signal? Yes.
Did the signal mislead the rescuers? Yes. making them think he is in a different place? This. he is well and does not need help? there is nobody in this place? At his actual location? correct.
Did they search him from a helicopter? This. Did they scan the area with drones? check satellite pictures?
Infrared scanners relevant? No. did his signalling block the infrared emissions from his body? and no.
Geographic features of the region relevant? Not to the signal. mountains? rocks? ice? desert? forest? sea? This. lake or river? cave? mine? the jungle of the big city?

HELF = How to effectively locate Fred? No. Did the rescuers behave in a particularly stupid way not to notice him? No. Were they actually very close? Yes.

Did he receive a radio signal? Transmit a radio signal? Receive speech? Data? Transmit speech? Data? A homing signal? Frequency relevant? Terrain? Radio infrastructure? Such as broadcast towers? Relays? Did he think he was sending a signal from his location, but in reality it was being sent from somewhere else? Or reflected? Was there a relevant radio in the helicopter? Did he hear a helicopter, and think it was the rescuers, but it was someone else?

Did he receive a radio signal? Transmit a radio signal? Yes, but... Receive speech? Data? Transmit speech? Data? A homing signal? This. Frequency relevant? Terrain? Radio infrastructure? Such as broadcast towers? Relays? None of the others. Did he think he was sending a signal from his location, Yes. but in reality it was being sent from somewhere else? No. Or reflected? No. Was there a relevant radio in the helicopter? Yes. Did he hear a helicopter, and think it was the rescuers, but it was someone else? No.

Did he transmit the wrong signal? A signal at the same frequency as another signal? Relevant what kind of device he used to transmit the signal? Are the contents of the signal relevant? Was the signal directional? Omnidirectional? Relevant? Did the radio in the helicopter receive: his signal? Another signal? No signal? Was his signal weaker than he thought? Stronger?

Did he fall into the water? from a ship? Did his ship sink? Did he jump into the water? Was he swimming/diving/surfing and got into trouble? Was he skydiving and ended up in the water? was he on a boat/raft/rescue buoy?
Did he send a radio signal? was the signal triggered automatically? was the signal sent from a device near to him? did he hold the device in his hand? was it attached to his outfit? was the radio device on the ship? did he lose it? drift away from it?
Did the radio signal transmit coordinates? wrong coordinates?
Did the rescuers understand the content of the signal? did they understand that someone was in distress? did they try to locate the signal? did they eventually find the source of the signal? did they think it's false alarm?

It is difficult to answer questions pertaining to the signal without misleading, hence the yopes and buts.

Did he transmit the wrong signal? No. A signal at the same frequency as another signal? No. Relevant what kind of device he used to transmit the signal? Yes - I don't know its name, but its characteristics are relevant. Are the contents of the signal relevant? Yope. Was the signal directional? Yope. Omnidirectional? Yes. Relevant? Yes. Did the radio in the helicopter receive: his signal? Yes, but.... Another signal? No signal? This, but... Was his signal weaker than he thought? Stronger? Neither.

Did he fall into the water? from a ship? Did his ship sink? His plane crashed. Did he jump into the water? Was he swimming/diving/surfing and got into trouble? Was he skydiving and ended up in the water? was he on a boat/raft/rescue buoy? This.
Did he send a radio signal? was the signal triggered automatically? Assume this. was the signal sent from a device near to him? Yes. did he hold the device in his hand? Yes. was it attached to his outfit? was the radio device on the ship? On his liferaft. did he lose it? drift away from it? Neither.
Did the radio signal transmit coordinates? No. wrong coordinates?
Did the rescuers understand the content of the signal? Yes. did they understand that someone was in distress? Yes. did they try to locate the signal? Yope. did they eventually find the source of the signal? Assume no. did they think it's false alarm? No, but...

Were the rescuers not surprised by receiving such a signal? because some other device, unrelated to him (the man needing rescuing) produces a similar signal, and would not be out of place in this location? so while the rescuers received the signal, they dismissed it and didn't bother to look for him?

Were the rescuers not surprised by receiving such a signal? Correct. because some other device, unrelated to him (the man needing rescuing) produces a similar signal, and would not be out of place in this location? so while the rescuers received the signal, they dismissed it and didn't bother to look for him? But both incorrect. They knew it was him they were looking for.

Did he ever relevantly: turn on the transmitter? Turn off the transmitter? Change some setting on it? Was there one helicopter searching for him? More than one?

Did the man and the rescuers talk to each other over radio? or was it just a static one-directional mayday signal? (so no bidirectional communication)
Did the rescuers got the information where to go from the content of the signal? did the signal have any relevant content besides a mayday alert?
Did the rescuers locate the coordinates where the signal is coming from?
Did the rescuers see the raft? did they see remainings of the plane? if so: were they close to the raft?
If they saw the raft: did they think there is nobody on the raft? there is someone on the raft but everything is fine? that the raft is not connected to the plane crash?

Did he ever relevantly: turn on the transmitter? Turn off the transmitter? No to both. Change some setting on it? No. Was there one helicopter searching for him? This. More than one?

Did the man and the rescuers talk to each other over radio? No. or was it just a static one-directional mayday signal? This, but... (so no bidirectional communication) No.
Did the rescuers got the information where to go from the content of the signal? Yes. did the signal have any relevant content besides a mayday alert? No, but explore.
Did the rescuers locate the coordinates where the signal is coming from? No.
Did the rescuers see the raft? No. did they see remainings of the plane? Irr. if so: were they close to the raft? Yes.
If they saw the raft: did they think there is nobody on the raft? there is someone on the raft but everything is fine? that the raft is not connected to the plane crash?

Did the fundamental difficulty relate to: the radio beacon (or whatever it was emitting the signal) not being able to determine its location? to the content of the signal getting corrupted on the way from the transmitter to the receiver? to technical (or human!) error at the receiving end in being able to USE the signal to navigate to the correct location, even though the information in the signal received was fine? to visual difficulty in spotting the raft, once the signal led the rescuers as precisely as it could to the right location?

Did the signal send correct information as to where to go? as it was not coordinates, then maybe: direction? distance? grid square? name of the sea area?
Was the information correct but misleading? too vague? simply wrong? declination/compass error relevant?
Was the place the rescuers were heading to actually close to the raft? or did they just pass by the raft in small distance but where heading to somewhere else?
Did the radio signal interfere with the helicopter's own navigation/positioning system? did the rescuers at some point not know any more where they are? did think they were in a different place?
Relevant why the rescuers did not circle out when they found there is nothing in this place? were they not able to? did they run out of fuel? did they think it's more likely that someone just threw a radio beacon into the water for fun?

Did the fundamental difficulty relate to: the radio beacon (or whatever it was emitting the signal) not being able to determine its location? No. to the content of the signal getting corrupted on the way from the transmitter to the receiver? No. to technical (or human!) error at the receiving end in being able to USE the signal to navigate to the correct location, even though the information in the signal received was fine? No. to visual difficulty in spotting the raft, once the signal led the rescuers as precisely as it could to the right location? No. Possible FA.

Did the signal send correct information as to where to go? No. as it was not coordinates, then maybe: direction? distance? This. grid square? name of the sea area?
Was the information correct but misleading? Correct, no. Misleading, VERY. too vague? No. simply wrong? Yes. declination/compass error relevant? No.
Was the place the rescuers were heading to actually close to the raft? Yes. or did they just pass by the raft in small distance but where heading to somewhere else? No.
Did the radio signal interfere with the helicopter's own navigation/positioning system? No, but... did the rescuers at some point not know any more where they are? No. did think they were in a different place? No.
Relevant why the rescuers did not circle out when they found there is nothing in this place? Assume they did. Possible FA. were they not able to? No. did they run out of fuel? No. did they think it's more likely that someone just threw a radio beacon into the water for fun? No.

So the signal provided distance information, but not direction information? If so, distance from the rescuers? or from some other point?

Was the distance information correct, but the rescuers mistaken as to the direction? or was even the distance very wrong?

Was there a single signal? More than one signal? Interference relevant? Did they search for him in the water? Somewhere else? Did the transmitter send a signal directly to the helicopter? To some backend system? Which the helicopter crew accessed? Could the crew scertain the distance to, but not the direction of, the transmitter? Was the transmitter relevantly moving? Wind relevant? Water currents?

So the signal provided distance information, but not direction information? Ah, BLOOPER ALERT. It does provide directional information, but not in a conventional way. The nature of the signal hasn't been determined yet and is quite important. If so, distance from the rescuers? This. or from some other point? And, unfortunately, this.

Was the distance information correct, but the rescuers mistaken as to the direction? or was even the distance very wrong? I don't think I can answer this without a hint: The rescuee was trying to help.

He had been warned not to.

Was there a single signal? Yes. More than one signal? Interference relevant? Possibly, but if so, then by design. Did they search for him in the water? No, but... Somewhere else? No. Did the transmitter send a signal directly to the helicopter? This. To some backend system? Which the helicopter crew accessed? Could the crew ascertain the distance to, but not the direction of, the transmitter? Neither. Was the transmitter relevantly moving? No. Wind relevant? No. Water currents? No.

Is he trying to help by doing something to the transmitter? WAG: is he lifting a water-activated transmitter above his head, but taking it out of the water turns it off? Is the signal constant? Intermittent? Is it a digital signal? Analog? Is the transmitter directional? Is the receiver directional? Does the transmitter receive anything? Only transmit? Is he trying to boost the signal? By making it directional? If so, does the boosted signal falsely indicate that he's closer to the helicopter than he is?

Is he trying to help by doing something to the transmitter? Yes. WAG: is he lifting a water-activated transmitter above his head, but taking it out of the water turns it off? No, but you have the right idea - his attempt to help is UNhelpful. Is the signal constant? Yope. Intermittent? No, but... Is it a digital signal? This. Analog? Is the transmitter directional? This. Is the receiver directional? No. Does the transmitter receive anything? No. Only transmit? This. Is he trying to boost the signal? No. By making it directional? But yes. If so, does the boosted signal falsely indicate that he's closer to the helicopter than he is? Yes.

Did he make the signal directional using: a piece of metal? A parabolic antenna? A can ("cantenna" is a thing)? A radar reflector? A longer antenna? A different antenna? Does he direct the signal towards the helicopter? Is his modification to the signal: steady? Fluctuating? Intermittent?

Did the signal convey location by its content (for instance, if GPS coordinates were actually transmitted as part of the signal)? or by allowing the rescuers to triangulate the position of the transmitter using distances from multiple receivers?

Did he make the signal directional using: a piece of metal? A parabolic antenna? From what little I know of how the device works, I believe this. A can ("cantenna" is a thing I never knew that. Cool.)? A radar reflector? Also possible. A longer antenna? A different antenna? No. Does he direct the signal towards the helicopter? No. Is his modification to the signal: steady? Fluctuating? Intermittent? The latter two. He doesn't modify the signal itself, but he causes it to act this way.

Did the signal convey location by its content Yes. (for instance, if GPS coordinates were actually transmitted as part of the signal But not this way.)? or by allowing the rescuers to triangulate the position of the transmitter using distances from multiple receivers? This might have helped had they had more than one helicopter. In the actual incident, this is how they found him.

Did the signal contain a standardized timestamp? so that the distance could be calculated from the time the signal travelled?
Did the signal go to the helicopter on direct way? or via satellite?

Did the signal contain a standardized timestamp? No. so that the distance could be calculated from the time the signal travelled? No calculation required.
Did the signal go to the helicopter on direct way? This. or via satellite?

Did the helicopter receive such a strong signal that they thought they had arrived in the area to be searched? When the transmitter was still a long way off? And so they started searching, instead of following the signal?

Did the helicopter receive such a strong signal that they thought they had arrived in the area to be searched? Technically no, but effectively yes. When the transmitter was still a long way off? Yes. And so they started searching, instead of following the signal? Yes.

Near solution - or would be if I hadn't left this more complex than it needs to be.

Did he amplify the signal? Did the people in the helicopter think he must be in the immediate vicinity because the signal was really strong?
Were they usually good at making a guess for the distance based on the signal strength?
Did the man use his body as antenna? by holding the transmitter at the antenna end?

Were the rescuers too late? Did the victim drown? Did the victim get impatient? Did he go somewhere else? Was it caused by human error on the side of the rescuers? Was it caused by human error on both sides?

Did he amplify the signal? No. Did the people in the helicopter think he must be in the immediate vicinity Yes. because the signal was really strong? No.
Were they usually good at making a guess for the distance based on the signal strength? No need for guessing on their part - well, until he tried to help.
Did the man use his body as antenna? by holding the transmitter at the antenna end? No to both.

Were the rescuers too late? Did the victim drown? Did the victim get impatient? Yes. Did he go somewhere else? Was it caused by human error on the side of the rescuers? Was it caused by human error on both sides? No, just the victim's. No to the rest.

Did the victim commit suicide? Did he commit suicide by drowning?

Was he already on the rope by that stage? Did he try to clamber up the rope? Was he a bit of a know-it-all?

Did the victim commit suicide? No. Did he commit suicide by drowning?

Was he already on the rope by that stage? No. Did he try to clamber up the rope? No. Was he a bit of a know-it-all? Yes.

Was his death inevitable? Are whirlpools involved? Did his raft submerge underwater? Did the raft flip?

Was his death inevitable? If he wasn't rescued. Are whirlpools involved? Did his raft submerge underwater? Did the raft flip? None of these; exposure, thirst and drowning are most likely.

Did spontaneous combustion happen? Did this person fall into the water? Did this person fall into the water by some sickness? Did this person fall into the water by too much heat from the sun?

Did spontaneous combustion happen? No. Did this person fall into the water? Did this person fall into the water by some sickness? Did this person fall into the water by too much heat from the sun? Assume he was never found and nature took its course. At the time we're discussing, he was safely in his raft. The only (and accepted) way to rescue him was by means of the antenna and signal, which he botched.

Did he do something stupid which led to his death? Did he eat something? Did he drink something? Did he commit suicide?

Did he try and communicate something by turning the signal on or off? like try to send a message in Morse code? Did he try to direct the signal at the helicopter by placing something on the opposite side of the transmitter to reflect the radio waves?

Did he do something stupid which led to his death? Indirectly. Did he eat something? Did he drink something? Did he commit suicide? Method of death irrelevant - assume exposure.

Did he try and communicate something by turning the signal on or off? This is effectively what happened, but... like try to send a message in Morse code? No. Did he try to direct the signal at the helicopter Yes. by placing something on the opposite side of the transmitter to reflect the radio waves? No.

Did he stop breathing?

Did he stop breathing? When he died, yes. I think you have a false assumption. How he died is irrelevant - you want to find what he did to prevent his own rescue.

Did he try to go to another safe place? Were there islands nearby? Did he die of overexposure to the sun? Did the rescuee's mistake involve waiting? Was there a boat nearby?

Did he move the transmitter? point the antenna at a specific angle? hold the transmitter higher off the ground (or even throw it up in the air!)? Were any objects relevant besides the transmitter, his body, the raft, and the water (I know the last of these only loosely qualifies as "an object")?

Did he try to go to another safe place? Were there islands nearby? Did he die of overexposure to the sun? Did the rescuee's mistake involve waiting? Was there a boat nearby? He was in the middle of the ocean, there was no place to go and no other way to be rescued. His mistake was in attempting to help the rescue helicopter locate him.

Did he move the transmitter? point the antenna at a specific angle? This, with an ish. hold the transmitter higher off the ground (or even throw it up in the air!)? Were any objects relevant besides the transmitter, his body, the raft, and the water (I know the last of these only loosely qualifies as "an object")? No. The water is in fact relevant.

Did he make an SOS signal? Did he make something similar to an SOS signal? Does the rescuee's mistake involve the distance to him? Does the rescuee's mistake involve the direction to him?

Did he do something with water? Put some in a container? Moved the transmitter in relation to the water? Water waves relevant? Water temperature?

Did he dip the transmitter into the water?

Did he make an SOS signal? No. Did he make something similar to an SOS signal? No. Does the rescuee's mistake involve the distance to him? Does the rescuee's mistake involve the direction to him? Yes to both.

Did he do something with water? No. Put some in a container? Moved the transmitter in relation to the water? Water waves relevant? Only insofar as they made it hard for the rescuers to see him. Water temperature? No to the rest.

Did he dip the transmitter into the water? No.

Did he miss the signal (not hit)?

Did he miss the signal (not hit)? No.

Did he destroy his transmitter?

Did he destroy his transmitter? No.

Did he swing the transmitter around on the end of a piece of rope thinking that it would produce a bigger signal, the better to locate him? did he end up losing the transmitter, which would then float away on the waves to who knows what location?

Did he swing the transmitter around on the end of a piece of rope thinking that it would produce a bigger signal, the better to locate him? No. did he end up losing the transmitter, which would then float away on the waves to who knows what location? No.

Did he change the antenna? Connect anything to it? Size of the antenna relevant? Type?

Did he change the antenna? No. Connect anything to it? No. Size of the antenna relevant? No. Type? Only insofar as it had something to do with the unique nature of the signal.

Was he using something else as the antenna, as opposed to an actual antenna? Using something to boost the antenna's signal, thinking that they would get a stronger signal and find him easier? but they thought then that he was nearer than he actually was? Did he cause the antenna to behave like something else, or as if it was in a different location? Was the compass involved, such that they believed he had gone in a different direction?

Was he using something else as the antenna, as opposed to an actual antenna? No. Using something to boost the antenna's signal, thinking that they would get a stronger signal and find him easier? No. but they thought then that he was nearer than he actually was? Yes. Did he cause the antenna to behave like something else, No. or as if it was in a different location? Yes. Was the compass involved, such that they believed he had gone in a different direction? No.

Do we need to figure out the unique nature of the signal? Is it unique due to the antenna? The transmitter? The way he's trying to help? The receiver? Do we need to find out what data is transmitted? Do his actions make the signal intermittent?

Do we need to figure out the unique nature of the signal? Yes. Is it unique due to the antenna? The transmitter? Both, but the antenna's more important. The way he's trying to help? Relevant. The receiver? Do we need to find out what data is transmitted? Yes. Do his actions make the signal intermittent? Yes, but...

Did he send a different type of signal?

Did he send a different type of signal? No. The rescuers received exactly what they expected.

Do we need to know about the type of antenna? If so: whip? Dipole? Yagi? Parabolic? Longer than him? Bigger than a breadbox? Extendable? Does the signal transmit: telemetry? A serial number? Aircraft identification?

Do we need to know about the type of antenna? No, just that it's directional. If so: whip? Dipole? Yagi? Parabolic? Longer than him? Bigger than a breadbox? Extendable? Irr, but large enough to be held and adjusted. Does the signal transmit: telemetry? A serial number? Aircraft identification? None of these. It provides direction and distance, but in a specific manner that has not been determined.

Did he change the direction of the antenna? was it supposed to point in a specific direction? such as up? Or north? Was it supposed to be orinented in a specific way by the rescuee? But he oriented it in a different way? Or was is supposed to orient itself automatically? But he interfered with this orientation? Did he hear the helicopter? See the helicopter? Point it at the helicopter? Does the transmitter send different signals in different directions?

Did he switch on and off the transmitter repeatedly? Did he move the antenna around? turn it around?

Did he change the direction of the antenna? Yes. was it supposed to point in a specific direction? Yes. such as up? This. Or north? Was it supposed to be oriented in a specific way by the rescuee? No. But he oriented it in a different way? Yes. Or was is supposed to orient itself automatically? No. But he interfered with this orientation? Yes. Did he hear the helicopter? See the helicopter? Both. Point it at the helicopter? Yes. Does the transmitter send different signals in different directions? Yes.

Did he switch on and off the transmitter repeatedly? No, but... Did he move the antenna around? Yes. turn it around? No.

Was the moving the antenna around the thing that caused the problem? Should he have held it still? Not held it at all? Not pointed it at all? Did he try to align it with something?

Was the moving the antenna around the thing that caused the problem? Yes. Should he have held it still? Not held it at all? This. Not pointed it at all? And this. Did he try to align it with something? In a sense.

Was the antenna sending a signal meaning "you're here" straight up, "you're a bit away" at an angle, and "you're far away" at the horizon? Or something similar? So when he pointed the antenna at the helicopter, it received the "you're here" signal?

Was the antenna sending a signal meaning "you're here" straight up, "you're a bit away" at an angle, and "you're far away" at the horizon? Or something similar? Yes. So when he pointed the antenna at the helicopter, it received the "you're here" signal? Yes.




SPOILER




The liferaft contains an antenna which transmits an audible signal in a cone shape to the rescue helicopter. When at the center of the cone, the sound cannot be heard. This signal gets louder and louder as it gets closer, providing directional info, but it cuts off entirely when directly overhead. This enables the crew to rescue victims that they cannot see, which is typical even in good weather against a grey sea. When the signal stops, the helicopter hovers and lowers a winch.

The lost pilot, contrary to instructions, repeatedly pointed the antenna at the rescue helicopter, thus putting it in the center of the signal cone and silencing the signal. This caused the crew to believe they were over their target, hover, and lower the winch to a rescuee who was nowhere nearby. In the real incident, they figured out what was going on, and "worked their way" over the raft by waiting until the rescuee let go of the antenna so that it could operate correctly. The winch operator was extremely angry.

That's very interesting. Where can I hear or read more about the real incident?

I found it on Not Always Right: https://notalwaysright.com/its-like-he- ... ed/268691/

Thanks!