[qbasic_forever]

Get a Garmin inReach mini: https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/592606 The key feature of the Garmin is that it has two way communication (on the cheap model you can use a slow character at a time typing, or link to your smartphone with BLE for a proper keyboard).

Two way communication with rescuers is an absolute game-changer in real emergencies. You can tell rescuers exactly what happened and the conditions of people, the environment, etc. to expect. Without two way comms rescuers only see a ping from a beacon and have to first send out a small team to recon the area and find you, then they have to radio back to get a proper rescue going. With two way comms you can short circuit that recon and tell them exactly how many people are injured, if you need a helicopter right now, if you're safe to spend a night, etc. Rescuers can keep you in the loop of progress too like if they're delayed from weather, etc.

I listen to a great podcast about climbing accidents (the sharp end: https://www.thesharpendpodcast.com/2022 ) and every single episode that involves a rescue mentions that having two way communication with the search and rescue team was critical in getting a fast and safe rescue. Don't bother with anything else beside a satellite communication device that can talk both ways IMHO.

[zmj]

Two-way communication is great even outside of emergencies. A couple times, I’ve used it to tell my check-in person that I was going to miss my scheduled return time, but didn’t need help. Another time, I used it when I was at home to text my partner about a flash flood warning in their area (backcountry).

[GekkePrutser]

Another vote for the InReach here.

I'm a ham operator but I don't bring my radio for emergency purposes. In Europe ham usage is so low it's hard to find someone to talk to at the best of times. Not something I'd rely on in an emergency.

Perhaps in the US things are better. But here no. The InReach is a better option and it didn't even require a license (most 400Mhz PLBs do over here!)

[eternityforest]

I'm amazed that people willingly go on multi day hikes or sailing trips, regularly, without satellite communication.

Some of them might be wearing multiple hundred dollar jackets and boots and can probably afford them without even needing to think of the cost.

I can only assume they either don't know they exist or don't particularly want them? Do they enjoy the extra adrenaline of not having one?

[rufus_foreman]

I don't know about the adrenaline, but certainly part of the attraction of hiking in the backcountry was acceptance of that risk. Not much different than skateboarding, if there was a perfectly safe way to do it, I would have done something else.

When I hiked alone, I never told anyone where I was going, and I wasn't going to ask someone to come rescue me in a helicopter from my poorly advised climb or snowshoe hike. If I got hurt, I was in trouble.

You took the gear you thought you needed to make it back alive, meaning backups for most of that gear, and you knew how to use them. A compass and map isn't a drop in replacement for a GPS, if you're going to use a compass you need to know how to use it. And so on.

But yeah, the risk was certainly part of the fun of it.

DNR.

[ethbr0]

Afaik, historically they were prohibitively expensive with service.

Only in the last ~10(?) years have companies cut offerings in a price point catering to the backcountry crowd.

[GekkePrutser]

True but PLBs have always been affordable. Unlike InReach they don't even have a service fee. Though in some countries a local telecom license is needed but I know a lot of folks just ignore that. After all the only time you use it is when you're alone in an emergency and if there's a telecom regulator around you'd be happy to see them :)

I've never used a PLB myself. I have my ham licence and these days I use an InReach because hams are spread too thin these days.