Bushwalk Australia

Posted: **Fri 05 Feb, 2016 12:00 pm**

I read in remote areas if 000 doesn't work, try 112 for emergency, does this work, has anyone used this number?

Posted: **Fri 05 Feb, 2016 12:04 pm**

112 is the default emergency number on all GSM networks. So yes, it'll work as well as 000, no diff. The criteria is that there's signal. So calling 112 will just get channeled to 000 in Aust. In the US, it'll go to 911 etc.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Posted: **Fri 05 Feb, 2016 12:09 pm**

If 000 wont work 112 wont, it's not with satellite carrier or anything, iirc it was set up originally to offer an additional/ wider service than available for 000 on mobile networks but (for some years) not necessary with modern mobiles (low tech understanding but i have reached 000 with no service/SOS only)

Posted: **Fri 05 Feb, 2016 12:29 pm**

I have used 112 to call ambulance. The advantage of using 112 is you will be connected via any mobile network available, even if it is not your carrier.

Posted: **Fri 05 Feb, 2016 12:33 pm**

Lol, I tend to forget there is more than one carrier.. from what iv'e seen, if Telstra isn't up nothing is?

Posted: **Fri 05 Feb, 2016 12:56 pm**

I understand that 000 would also work across carriers. It's all to do with the regulation in place. But yes, on a GSM phone, it's worth setting 112 as the emergency number as it'll stay functional across borders.

Posted: **Fri 05 Feb, 2016 12:59 pm**

All answered here: http://www.triplezero.gov.au/Pages/Usingotheremergencynumbers.aspx

Posted: **Fri 05 Feb, 2016 1:00 pm**

The mobile networks are separate and often have towers in different places, this means your phone may show no signal on your network but there may be signal from another network, dialling 112 will use whatever signal is available. Reading the above it seems I am out of date, 000 does use any network available, sorry.

Posted: **Fri 05 Feb, 2016 1:20 pm**

000 should also work across carriers within Australia, even if your own carrier is not available (unless your phone was manufactured before 2002).

112 should work in other countries where 000 is not a recognised emergency number.

In Australia, 000 is the primary number to use.

References from the horses mouth:
http://www.triplezero.gov.au/Pages/Usin ... mbers.aspx

When calling from a mobile telephone
Triple Zero (000) is Australia's primary telephone number to call for assistance in life threatening or time critical emergency situations.

112 is a secondary emergency number that can be dialled from mobile phones in Australia. Special capabilities, including roaming, once only existed when dialling 112, however mobile phones manufactured since January 2002 also provide these capabilities when dialling Triple Zero (000) to access the Emergency Call Service.

There is a misconception that 112 calls will be carried by satellite if there is no mobile coverage. Satellite phones use a different technology and your mobile phone cannot access a satellite network.

Important – if there is no mobile coverage on any network, you will not be able to reach the Emergency Call Service via a mobile phone, regardless of which number you dialled.

To find out more about calling Triple Zero (000) from a mobile telephone, visit the Australian Communications and Media Authority website.

112—International standard emergency number
Triple Zero (000) is Australia's primary telephone number to call for assistance in life threatening or time critical emergency situations. Dialling 112 directs you to the same Triple Zero (000) call service and does not give your call priority over Triple Zero (000).

112 is an international standard emergency number which can only be dialled on a digital mobile phone. It is accepted as a secondary international emergency number in some parts of the world, including Australia, and can be dialled in areas of GSM network coverage with the call automatically translated to that country’s emergency number. It does not require a simcard or pin number to make the call, however phone coverage must be available (any carrier) for the call to proceed.

There is no advantage to dialling 112 over Triple Zero (000). Calls to 112 do not go to the head of the queue for emergency services, and it is not true that it is the only number that will work on a mobile phone.

Dialling 112 from a fixed line telephone in Australia (including payphones) will not connect you to the emergency call service as it is only available from digital mobile phones.

Posted: **Fri 05 Feb, 2016 4:20 pm**

Nuts wrote:If 000 wont work 112 wont

+1
As mentioned above, you still need mobile coverage of some sort.... which is usually never once we are out....

Posted: **Fri 05 Feb, 2016 5:10 pm**

Hence if one is serious about being able to call assistance, then investing in a PLB is the go.

Posted: **Fri 05 Feb, 2016 6:56 pm**

Don't forget that there are occasions when the signal is not strong enough to make (or maintain) a voice call, but an sms can go through. It is always a good idea to have trusted family or friends with an itinerary and a warning that you may contact them that way.

On a number of occasions I have put to authorities that you should be able to send an sms to 000, but the idea was never well received.

Skiing.

Posted: **Mon 08 Feb, 2016 4:15 pm**

Looks like the UK is one step ahead on this emergency SMS service.

http://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/news/wal ... ce/002852/

Posted: **Mon 08 Feb, 2016 6:18 pm**

There are places moving to an enhanced SMS capable emergency call system, but its an expensive tech to put in place. There is some concern among some that it would lead to more false calls, which I think doesn't stand up to scrutiny. As SMS as a standard fragments, its becoming less effective for this type of system anyway, its no good if it can't also deal with Imessage and other SMS-like systems. Ultimately the carriers would have to do it, and they are only now sort of kind of admitting that SMS is not as expensive as they claimed it was.

Posted: **Mon 08 Feb, 2016 9:19 pm**

False messages may be true and the UK system seems to be able to mitigate that.

Posted: **Tue 09 Feb, 2016 6:43 am**

False SMS can't be any more common than pocket dial calls, I'd think. besides, they know who owns the phone, so that means they can impose a consequence on those who are disruptive.

Just given the level of deception that is used by the carriers in regards to system capabilities, and requirements, its really no wonder to me why they have not brought it out. They don't want to be responsible when it fails, and right now they can drop it into the "too hard" basket. When it becomes an advantage to them to bring it online, it will get done, expense or not. But in the mean time we have to rely on outdated tech since emergency services don't generally get overwhelmed with funding.

Posted: **Tue 09 Feb, 2016 10:54 am**

Gadgetgeek wrote:There are places moving to an enhanced SMS capable emergency call system, but its an expensive tech to put in place. There is some concern among some that it would lead to more false calls, which I think doesn't stand up to scrutiny. As SMS as a standard fragments, its becoming less effective for this type of system anyway, its no good if it can't also deal with Imessage and other SMS-like systems. Ultimately the carriers would have to do it, and they are only now sort of kind of admitting that SMS is not as expensive as they claimed it was.

Bugger the expense. For someone like me it's the only practical way to contact emergency services, short of the PLB.

Posted: **Tue 09 Feb, 2016 12:27 pm**

But sensible govts and enterprises are expected to be financially responsible.

Posted: **Tue 09 Feb, 2016 1:40 pm**

...until someone dies because they couldn't get a message through.

Been a long time since we've seen that much in the way of consistent financial responsibility from a government in this country.

Posted: **Tue 09 Feb, 2016 7:35 pm**

I understand you fully. My grandfather was fully deaf from birth, and couldn't access a TTY so he was cut off from all help if no one was around. Its frustrating that we still have to have this conversation in 2016.

Posted: **Tue 09 Feb, 2016 8:04 pm**

Yep.
The technology exists and it shouldn't be that hard to implement. All they need is a way of routing text messages to a 24 hour switchboard via a single nationwide emergency number. The RACV had an SMS alert service for their members (admittedly, you had to register your mobile in order to use it), so why can't something similar be done nationally for emergency services?

Posted: **Tue 09 Feb, 2016 9:41 pm**

north-north-west wrote:... so why can't something similar be done nationally for emergency services?

It certainly can. Just have to make the commercial and public organization feel there's a need for it. The pain of not having it is greater than the cost of implementing the service.

Posted: **Mon 15 Feb, 2016 4:46 pm**

Further on the SMS emergency issue:

The snake bite thread got me thinking about this. Standard protocol is immobilisation, compression bandage, dial 000 . . .
House fire: standard protocol is evacuation, dial 000 . . .
Assault, serious medical issue, serious vehicle accident: dial 000 . . .

It quite genuinely is a matter of a official discrimination against a portion of the population. And with hearing problems being on the rise, it's a growing portion of the population.
Might be time for me to start getting stuck into some politicians to have something done about this.

Posted: **Mon 15 Feb, 2016 6:23 pm**

You are quite correct there, and probably in a better position than many to explain why.

Posted: **Thu 18 Feb, 2016 5:29 am**

north-north-west wrote:Further on the SMS emergency issue:

The snake bite thread got me thinking about this. Standard protocol is immobilisation, compression bandage, dial 000 . . .
House fire: standard protocol is evacuation, dial 000 . . .
Assault, serious medical issue, serious vehicle accident: dial 000 . . .

It quite genuinely is a matter of a official discrimination against a portion of the population. And with hearing problems being on the rise, it's a growing portion of the population.
Might be time for me to start getting stuck into some politicians to have something done about this.

I'm glad I threw this ? out there NNW, maybe starting a petition might help?

Posted: **Thu 18 Feb, 2016 1:00 pm**

roopass wrote:
north-north-west wrote:Further on the SMS emergency issue:

The snake bite thread got me thinking about this. Standard protocol is immobilisation, compression bandage, dial 000 . . .
House fire: standard protocol is evacuation, dial 000 . . .
Assault, serious medical issue, serious vehicle accident: dial 000 . . .

It quite genuinely is a matter of a official discrimination against a portion of the population. And with hearing problems being on the rise, it's a growing portion of the population.
Might be time for me to start getting stuck into some politicians to have something done about this.

I'm glad I threw this ? out there NNW, maybe starting a petition might help?

Yeah, but first I have to do some digging. It's difficult just trying to find out which specific Federal minister has responsibility for emergency services. And all the State ministers as well. And see whether the Deaf Society or anything like that has ever tried to do something about it . . . the more I think the more avenues for research open up. :roll:

Posted: **Thu 18 Feb, 2016 1:13 pm**

NNW, let me know if you need some help. I suffer from quite severe hearing loss (industrial) but I have deep reach into Canberra if needed.

Bushwalk Australia

Ring 112 in remote areas?

Ring 112 in remote areas?

Ring 112 in remote areas?

Re: Ring 112 in remote areas?

Re: Ring 112 in remote areas?

Re: Ring 112 in remote areas?

Re: Ring 112 in remote areas?

Re: Ring 112 in remote areas?

Re: Ring 112 in remote areas?

Re: Ring 112 in remote areas?

Re: Ring 112 in remote areas?

Re: Ring 112 in remote areas?

Re: Ring 112 in remote areas?

Re: Ring 112 in remote areas?

Re: Ring 112 in remote areas?

Re: Ring 112 in remote areas?

Re: Ring 112 in remote areas?

Re: Ring 112 in remote areas?

Re: Ring 112 in remote areas?

Re: Ring 112 in remote areas?

Re: Ring 112 in remote areas?

Re: Ring 112 in remote areas?

Re: Ring 112 in remote areas?

Re: Ring 112 in remote areas?

Re: Ring 112 in remote areas?

Re: Ring 112 in remote areas?

Re: Ring 112 in remote areas?

Re: Ring 112 in remote areas?