[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.