NOAA Satellites Helped Save a Record 421 Lives in 2019
noaa.gov
noaa.gov
That being said, this is an interesting spin on the number. I've been hearing from friends on Search and Rescue crews that an increasing number of people are going out hiking being completely unprepared for any possible emergency, thinking that they'll just use their cell phone if anything goes wrong. I wonder if any of these beacon carriers fall closer into that camp than true serious conditions, though I suspect that simply carrying a beacon puts you in a higher preparedness bracket than the cell-phone only crew.
99.99% of the times I've spend in the forest and desert has been "safe". It is the .01% and .001%s that get you.
https://www.outsideonline.com/1986496/search-and-rescue-publ...
Your mileage may vary, each rescue team has different situations. In some areas they get too many calls (remember a call takes the rescuers away from their family and other thing they would do instead) and should do something about those who didn't make at least some attempt to be prepared.
In most situations, the cost of a rescue is not nearly as significant as media accounts portray. People love to cite the cost of helicopters in USCG rescues. USCG pilots need to fly a certain number of hours; those hours can come from missions or training sessions. When they fly more missions, they reduce their training hours.
Creating a rescue policy for really high-traffic areas like the most popular national parks is a different story. Those are outlier situations, and we shouldn't have the same policy for SAR in average rural areas that we do for popular national parks.
Edit: I meant to add another reason for not charging for rescue. I have been on missions where we reached the missing person, and the person initially refused our help because they thought we were going to charge them. The same conversation played out on the mountain that we're seeing play out in the comments here. In the end, these people are very happy to receive the assistance they needed; they were not going to get out of the mountains on their own.
https://www.colorado.gov/dola/search-and-rescue-fund
The state has set up a voluntary contribution system where hikers and other recreationalists can purchase a search-and-rescue card. Hunting/fishing licenses, off-highway vehicle permits, and other similar permits also contribute to the fund.
These cards are not mandatory for rescue, but rather, if a card/permit-holder is rescued, the localities' rescue costs are defrayed by the state fund.
I'm going to pick something like this up before my next Wyoming adventure.
13 5-star ratings - everyone should have one, I haven't had to use mine but it gives me peace of mind
1 1-star rating - gave it to my son because he jet skis. After a while it was rusted. Gave it a shot, didn't work.
Reminds me of this xkcd https://xkcd.com/937/
I believe COSPAS SARSAT and the relevant US authorities got it together so that it is now possible to arrange a test carve out, agree with everybody when and where the units will be tested and not cause helicopters of annoyed rescuers to arrive so long as you stay in the agreed area and only test in the agreed time frame. But it can't be made trivial, so chances are only really hardcore survivalist outfits will do that work.
I haven't analyzed the data, but these trends have definitely changed our callout pattern. We used to get regular calls for people who were overdue, and the only communication was with the person who reported them overdue. When cell phones first came out, it seemed we got a few more calls from people who had gone less prepared. But we're a coastal community, and handheld VHF radios played the role of a cell phone in our community before cell phones came out, so basic communication didn't change drastically at first.
I think things started to change once everyone had a phone, and there were enough towers to have decent coverage throughout our mountainous area. We get far fewer callouts where there's been no direct communication with the missing person. Now we tend to have direct communication with the person, or we are talking to a reporting party who has had some direct communication with the missing person. We are responding to known locations more often - the person is lost, but we know where they are and our mission is to reach them, and guide them safely out. Or they're injured/ immobile, and we go right to them and evacuate them.
Now we're starting to see people who are following others' routes using apps like Gaia, and getting in over their heads. People see a route on Gaia, and they think it's a trail or a clear route. In our mountains, experienced people are often bushwhacking through steep terrain where there's only one route that works, and if you don't know how to navigate that terrain you can get into dangerous cliffed-out areas quickly. And once you get off route, it can be really hard to get back to a safe place because there's no safe direct route back to the GPS track.
All of this has been exacerbated by the local effects of climate change. We're in a rainforest, and the vast majority of our days used to be overcast with drizzle. A good deal of our callouts were for people who went out in a break of clear weather, then got stuck when the clouds rolled back in and they couldn't see where to go. We get much longer periods of clear weather - weeks and months instead of hours and days - so people are going out in clear weather and coming back in clear weather. We also have ice fields and glaciers that are receding, leaving behind blue ice that's much more difficult to navigate than old snow, and loose silt and rocks that's much easier to slide on than exposed, weathered dirt with vegetation.
The interaction of people and wilderness is always going to be there, and the tools available are always going to influence how people interact with the wilderness. It's not always getting better or worse. People adapt to the tools available, and sometimes use them to get into more dangerous situations, and sometimes use them to avoid and get out of dangerous situations.
There are some communities where it's competitive to get onto a SAR team. This typically happens in large urban areas right next to popular outdoor locations. If there are 10k rock climbers in an area, there might be so many people interested in climbing SAR that they have limited spots available. That's pretty unusual, though.
SAR is usually administered through the local sheriff's department, although it can differ. Here in Alaska the state troopers are responsible for SAR, but our team is based at our local volunteer fire department. I would encourage you to get in touch with the people responsible for SAR in your area, and ask what it takes to get involved. Often times there are many different ways you can contribute, and it's a tremendously satisfying endeavor. It's also a really nice balance for sitting in front of a screen much of the day!
Yep, I'm in Denver, CO. D:
I suspect that being willing to buy a $200 beacon means you're aware enough of the risks and of what safety gear is out there to seek extra protection when possible.
As far as I know, though, most modern studies show that while there is some amount of risk compensation (people engage in riskier behavior after adopting a safety apparatus), the compensation is less than the benefit of the safety measure.
With beacons in particular, a potential compounding factor is that many people may not have gone out into the wilderness at all before beacons became available. So maybe there is a net increase in beacon usage but it could be because of an even greater increase in outdoor participation.
I think it's a net good for people to spend time in the outdoors, both for them personally and because it encourages society as a whole to prioritize preserving the environment. So if that results in more people needing to be rescued, it may still be worth it.
AEB deliberately is a scary experience to prevent this mistake. If your car's AEB triggers you'll be suddenly and violently brought to a complete halt in order that the feeling is "Oh shit, I fucked up, is everybody OK?" not "Wow I'm a great driver".
With a beacon the experience is likewise not great. It's not "Activate beacon, rescuers magically teleport in and save the day". There's zero real feedback, so most people will be worried that it hasn't been effective, nobody is coming. After an hour, or two, or more, rescuers may show up looking for you. That's a long time to be lost or injured in the middle of nowhere.
That's why Return Link Messages in the Galileo network are so interesting. Basically, there's a super low bandwidth message channel embedded in the GNSS data stream. Its sole purpose is to tell beacons "We saw your beacon and we're responding to it".
This is so true.
I live in the desert, and it's amazing the number of people who simply don't take the natural world seriously.
The dead and rescued are almost always tourists. And for some reason, almost always from Europe (I suspect because my observation has been that Asians tend to travel in large groups on air conditioned buses). They drive rental cars into deep sand and get stuck and die. They run out of gas and get stuck and die. They never bring enough food or water and don't know what to do in an emergency.
I was at a hotel on the Navajo Reservation (Arizona/New Mexico/Utah) about a year ago and there was a British couple arguing with the manager that of course their cell phone should work, they bought it in San Francisco. I tired to explain to them that the whole reason people visit places like this is to get away from technology. Even though I'm sure there are remote places in Europe, they had no concept that there are places in the world where there's no cell service.
A couple of years ago there was an article in the newspaper about a German guy who decided to rent a Harley Davidson and drive through the desert like some kind of David Hasselhof fantasy. It was 115° and he was in full-on black leather gear. They found him dead on the side of the road, still sitting on his motorcycle with his helmet on.
--:--
Editing to add the results from a four-second Google News search:
authorities in California launched a search for Pi-Wei Hung, 40, early Sunday afternoon... the woman’s vehicle was discovered stuck in the sand on the shoulder... and then died in the heat as she tried to walk out of the area. The high temperature that day was 113 degrees.
a 60-year-old tourist from Germany died from heat exposure... not far from his where his motorcycle was parked, upright and in working order, in the 118-degree heat.
...two French tourists got their car stuck in loose sand... no one knew their specific travel route, and they were out of cellphone range in temperatures above 110 degrees.
There are a few, here and there, but it's just completely different. Everywhere in Italy (I lived there a number of years) there are people. It might just be a little mountain hut, or a cabin or something, but there are pretty much always other people around.
Here in Oregon, I can ride my bike to places where I almost won't see other people all day.
1: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/World_po...
As someone from a purple region on that map (having lived near Aachen and Amsterdam), I can't imagine what it's like to be more than a few minutes driving away from the nearest occupied house or named road. The most alone I've ever been was probably in a German forest and that was almost certainly still within hearing distance from other people, if not immediately then almost certainly within 30 minutes of me wanting to reach someone.
Not sure if it would frighten me or if I'd be fine to be actually unreachable for a few hours.
More like days or more in vast areas of the US. Mind you, most people don't go to those places. But, even within popular national parks, you can go to places--albeit probably not without high-clearance 4WD and ability to use it or on foot--where you probably won't happen to run into anyone for a long time.
Unreachable for a few hours+ is absolutely the norm in many many places in the western US and even in some other areas like Maine.
If you live in an area of high density, people are your problems and it probably makes sense to you to generally limit their freedoms in favor of government control and general law and order.
If you live in an area of low density, you're immediate problems are generally not people, may be more survival related, and you are used to operating with MUCH greater independence, freedom, and self-reliance.
Applied to issues like gun control, government assistance programs, and taxation, it aligns pretty well.
Personally, I'm from an area where I routinely work in areas that are hours from cell reception or any form of help. I drive a big 4wd truck and a dirty 2-stroke chainsaw out of necessity. And, I carry a concealed pistol with me in the field.
This is often unfathomable to people that live in the bay area or Europe and I face criticism for my truck, for embracing individual rights to firearms, and I'm constantly faced with disdain from urban folks who like to insinuate that rural people are just stupid and ignorant. These people have never stared down a mountain lion 20 feet away, crouched and ready to pounce, lived without power or running water, nor faced a road wash-out that cut them off from civilization for weeks, or faced dozens of other situations I can recount where things like having the right to carry a loaded rifle in their truck might make a lot of sense. Nor can they understand the thin margins and lack of cash-flow people have to survive on in these places.
Very different worlds, and unfortunately it seems tough for people in different areas to acknowledge that they each have different needs.
Interesting thought, I had not considered the more vs less regulating thing in this way before.
Specifically about gun ownership, perhaps rather than a general allowance or prohibition on gun ownership, maybe it makes sense to allow those that work in rural areas to carry? Or just that you need some sort of license? It's not as if there exist no guns in Europe: there are gun clubs where people go to, uh, shoot I guess? Not even sure. They have a license and can keep all sorts of guns at the club, at home, and (locked away) on the direct way from and to there. Hunters carry hunting guns into the forest. And of course police that brings guns where ever. Edit: Oh, and look at Norwegian gun ownership. While that's hunting guns that are somehow different, they don't seem to have the issues that the USA has with guns there. /edit. So we also just adapt the rules to whatever is practical, it's not an outright ban on anything with gunpowder.
From what I read about research/statistics on general population gun ownership, generally it's better not to allow it, but that does not mean I can't understand that you carry one in your situation or that I think there shouldn't be an exception for that.
> I'm constantly faced with disdain from urban folks who like to insinuate that rural people are just stupid and ignorant.
I was thinking about this a bit, trying to figure out if I may have that bias as well. Sure, those who work with their hands are typically less educated, but generally working in a rural area (without saying whether you work some physical labor job)... for all I know it's a high tech job building wind turbines or whatever. But then, I guess we don't have so many "rural people" so I wouldn't know it from real life. I do know of the stereotype from books that have "backwards villages".
Some interesting thoughts, thanks for sharing!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steens_Mountain
The "town" at the base of it is called Frenchglen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenchglen,_Oregon - it has a little store and hotel.
From there it's about an hour to the nearest town with any kind of services like a hospital https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burns,_Oregon - there are about 5000 people in the area.
From there it's another 2.5 hours, roughly (in good weather) to where I live which is a town of nearly 100K.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9351809,-119.0716963,10.06z/...
One should keep in mind that the map is 25 years old, meaning it doesn't really show the post-soviet development of Eastern Europe or the population growth of Asia and Africa. But I don't think that the distribution of "empty" (less than 10 people per square km) has changed much, so for this purpose the map is perfectly adequate.
There are areas of grey (less than 2 people/sqkm) around the coasts everywhere. A processing artifact, or some indication of low water marks? I don't think the tidal area can ever be 20 km wide, but it's very sloppy if it's just bad drawing. (There's already a cyan outline for the coast! Why add grey areas too?)
Then I'm certain there are areas in Wicklow, Ireland with less than 2 residents/sqkm [0]. But the whole area is shown not one but 4 levels more populated, at 100+ residents/sqkm, comparable to Las Vegas and ahead of Buenos Aires which is shown at 41-100 residents/sqkm.
The resolution of the map appears to be at the 10km level, but I think this is misleading and in most of the world it's actually based on data at the country level or one level below.
One of the most surprising things to me about the map before I looked closely was the lack of wilderness in Turkey. If it's that dense all the way through, it should be a massive power. But aren't there mountains and deserts? Probably just the map being lazy again.
[0] https://maps.app.goo.gl/cktt79N4FDLegF7a6 - not the most egregiously incorrect measurement on the map, but one I know personally
I assume that the 'regions' that were painted in the map are oblasts (Russian equivalents to counties) - so if there's a giant oblast, with a medium-sized town at its center, but few people living in the outskirts, the entire region gets painted orange.
This can be deceptive and sometimes add new dangers also. there are areas in Europe close to towns but with thousands of illegal waterholes hidden under grasses or a shrub. You just step over a grass and fall before seeing it.
https://www.otherhand.org/home-page/search-and-rescue/the-hu...
(I would check, but I've stuff to do and I've already been down that rabbit hole once.)
Iceland had stunningly good coverage; no matter how remote you were, it seemed like full service everywhere. (granted, I did't cross the center of the island).
Had no cell coverage on the Rallarvegen in Norway, which surprised me.
But yeah, it's all nothing like the US.
Okay yeah but that's very anecdotal. Just because there is a lot of people getting stuck that assume technology would just work, does not mean there weren't a lot of people getting stuck with no backup plan whatsoever. And I wouldn't trust memory either, besides that it is very fallible people also see the past as better than today (from various studies).
I would be interested if you have news (Google-branded or otherwise) that reports it has gone up since cell phone coverage became ubiquitous in many countries, corrected for things like plane ticket prices and car rental availability near a desert (i.e. more people trying it rather than actually a higher percentage of unprepared people).
Perhaps the issue is that tourists in general are very unprepared for other countries wilderness?
Last year about a few hours drive south of Sydney I found a very young German couple who were on a otherwise completely deserted and unpatrolled beach. They walked down from the parking spot to the beach and spent a few minutes wading around in the water.
After speaking to them, I found that they'd flown into the country the previous day, rented the van that morning and this was the first beach they had found. They said the only thing that kept them from swimming out was a worry of sharks. I had to spend a few minutes educating them about rip currents, and pointed out that they'd just been wading in what looked like the biggest one on the beach.
So far we've had good luck with beacon call-outs. The cases we've responded to have almost entirely been folks that were legitimately stuck or lost, and yes, they were somewhat under-prepared for the situation they were in, but that's just the modern reality of outdoor play and it makes no more sense to expect all recreationists to be perfectly prepared than it makes to expect all software developers to build some idealized unit-tested software.
I have heard from other SAR groups that the beacons have been a mixed bag, and they're getting too many call-outs from people who just got tired and want a ride home. Those people deserve a verbal chewing-out from the local coordinator, but on balance I'd still rather everyone go out with beacons and have a good time and hit that button if they need to.
It seems like charging people for the cost of the rescue would solve that problem.
It's not just a theoretical possibility that people will hesitate to call for rescue if they think they'll be charged for it, it's something that has already happened in a lot of cases. When people delay a call for rescue, it complicates search and rescue efforts and may even further endanger rescuers.
A great example of this is injuries that worsen to the point that they require evac by helicopter. Helicopters are an over-used tool in SAR and they are extremely dangerous. It's much safer for us if we can just hike out to you, triage a minor injury, and escort you out on foot or by litter if necessary. If we arrive and you're delirious with pain, exhaustion, or dehydration, those options have just gone off the table.
Another really unfortunate related issue is the number of people that think they have to wait a certain period of time before reporting someone overdue or missing. That's not at all the case, especially where children are involved. We would much rather get out while the potential search area is only a few square miles than get called when it's gone up to 30 or more square miles, even if it means we more frequently get woken up in the middle of the night only to get a "disregard, subject located" notification 20 minutes later.
I have a number of statements available from various SAR groups and other articles on this subject if anyone's interested.
I bought rescue insurance the next day.
However, people that spend much time away from civilization ought to have Global Rescue or something similar. I support government and non profit rescue efforts and funding, but ultimately people participating in relatively risky adventures should bear some responsibility for having rescue insurance — and such insurance is pretty cheap. I’ve seen hikers with $300 hiking poles, $300 hiking boots, expensive GoreTex and yet they scoff at paying for insurance to cover the very expensive costs for rescue. A helicopter can cost $1000+ per hour to operate and people going into the backcountry are assuming a level of risk that they ought to be responsible for insuring.
Agreed. Recognizing that you're in over your head and calling for help before a life-threatening situation is an incredibly difficult call to make. A story I've heard is of someone struggling on a trip with friends deciding not to make the call for rescue, and then falling to their deaths from an exposed part of the trail.
The other argument for calling for help when you're in over your head in a non-critical situation (e.g dehydrated and exhausted and a ways out) is that it's hopefully lower risk for the rescuers than other SAR situations.
Eg; if I need an air evac vs. I broke my leg and can't walk out. Or if I can get medical advice from a rescuer. Similarly I can communicate dangers the rescuers may face.
The InReach also has tracking, so if you go missing and don't activate the beacon, they'll have a very good idea of where to look for you. I've also found it very useful for arranging pickups/meetings if I'm behind schedule or plans change.
The device itself is about the same price as a PLB, but there is a service charge. The basic plan is $15/mo, but you can turn it on and off at any time, so if you only go on a couple of trips per year, the price isn't overwhelmingly more than a PLB.
It is the best/cheapest insurance one can buy.
Since then I got a sailboat and it's pretty standard in that field to have EPIRB, PLBs and the likes. There's life-vests that come with mini-PLBs in them. It's a bit pricey but it's essential in my opinion. I was lucky to be with friends and within reasonable distance of help when I got my accident. If something happens at sea, you need these NOAA satellites.
From the article... >By law, beacon owners are required to register their devices online with NOAA. The registration information helps provide better and faster assistance to people in distress, and can guard against false alarms.
What does that registration process look like exactly?
They cost a few hundred dollars.
Which is well worth it if you've broken your ankle at the bottom of a canyon imho.
- Name & Address
- Phone
- Beacon info (ID, manufacturer, model)
- General use (commercial/private/govt/military)
- Usage type (hiking, hunting, other...)
- Vehicle type (land vehicle, boat, aircraft, none, other)
- Additional data (include home port for your boat or aircraft and areas you frequent for recreational use.)
- Emergency contact
I think the cost was ~300$ for the PLB.
Should be more than just common. My understanding is that US maritime mandates that you must have a functioning EPIRB if you are on open waters.
A more nuanced question is on what to have on one's life jacket: an AIS-based system allows for the boat you just fell off of to know that (a) you're gone, and (b) where you're bobbing around at.
If you end up being blown away, or are doing a solo crossing, then a PLB may be better.
"Uninspected passenger vessels less than 100 gross tons are not required to carry an EPIRB." https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2018-title46-vol1/xm...
Depending on where and with whom you sail, getting a DSC/AIS-based beacon may make sense:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIS-SART
If you're mostly in coastal waters, and not short-handed, then help is probably not far away, and being able to see where a person is floating on a chart plotter display makes for easier retrieval.
* http://oceansignal.com/products/mob1/
Of course if you're doing oceanic stuff, and/or short-handed with overnight watches, then an EPIRB/PLB may make more sense.
The EU Galileo system includes an enhanced SAR capability which will be integrated with the COSPAS-SARSAT system. In the future, properly equipped transponders will be able to receive a confirmation message transmitted from Galileo satellites to provide the user reassurance that their call was received.
There are also subscription services available, such as Spot and Garmin InReach which rely on commercial satellite networks. They're not really that expensive (Spot as low as $18/mo) and depending on the provider include position tracking and two-way text-messaging. These extra features can be very useful, but coverage of these commercial providers is not necessarily as good as COSPAS-SARSAT, especially near the poles. This is particularly true since COSPAS-SARSAT is augmented by a small set of geostationary satellites (NOAA's GOES) which provide "worst-case" coverage, while the commercial networks are LEO.
https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=mtEpirb
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_position-indicatin...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIS-SART
Useful in coastal waters where rescue may not be fair away.
- ELT = Fixed unit, installed on an airplane. G-force activated.
- PLB = Handheld unit for individuals. Manually activated only.
They're all the same technology, but the form factor differs depending on which term you refer to them by.
There are commercial receivers/decoders[1] but you can also do it fairly easily with an appropriate antenna and SDR[2].
The alternatives have more features, like sending messages or two way messaging, and incoming messages, but also tend to require monthly subscription fees. Some of them now have subscriptions that you can "pause" when you aren't using it.
I bought the beacon for offroading, after one trip where my son was screwing around and fell and hit his head pretty hard on a rock. He was ok, but it made the ability to reach out much more real. Sometimes I can get cell phone signal on the trail, but usually not. The medical kit I carry and my medical abilities were not up to serious injury. My trauma kit stayed at home: my wife is a nurse. :-)
I like it, but in retrospect I wish I'd gotten a 2 way Iridium one, because my wife really worries when she can't get status updates. "Not getting a call from emergency services means we're ok" is not good enough. <shrug> :-)
COSPAS SARSAT does have two way link in its roadmap, but again only for emergencies. The concept is, you activate the beacon and then maybe rescuers can send "Storm too bad for helicopter. We come at first light" rather than you either worrying they came and didn't see you or that they aren't coming at all. And that's at least several years out and a new beacon.
When I was leading sea kayaking trips, there was effectively a similar conundrum. The standard practice was that you were supposed to leave a float plan with someone you trusted. (Planned route, planned time of return, etc.)
But what did that mean really, especially if no one on the trip had a partner expected to move heaven and earth if something might seem wrong. You're an hour past your expected arrival and no call. Do they drive an hour or two to the expected takeout because something might be wrong? Or... wait for how long? (Especially pre-cell phone.)
In my experience float plans were something you tended to do as something of a formality and never really expected to use and sort of ignored the practicalities if things had really gone sideways.
Is there a payment required for rescue services? For instance, does the Coast Guard charge the six people rescued when the boat sank?
In Colorado there are rescue activities covered by having hunting licenses, Off Highway Vehicle permits, and a "Search and Rescue" card, which create a fund that covers costs of some types of search and rescue activities. https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/dola/node/98966
> any motorist who becomes stranded after driving around barricades to enter a flooded stretch of roadway may be charged for the cost of their rescue
And that's fair - my point is only that it may be free, but they're not just handing it out either.
They may chose to charge for false alarms, or if you did something that was completely and unambiguously boneheaded (e.g. the person who called for help three different times on the same trip for trivial comfort issues). But they usually prefer not to charge, since it would deter people from calling from help in a real emergency.
Rules very from state to state though. And outside the US, having to pay for rescue is more common.
I wonder how that kind of event is detected by the beacon, and if I could buy one for a person I know flies with visual flight rules (this means no recurrent fee, at least for 10 years).
Almost all aircraft in the US are required to have an ELT beacon installed on-board, though many are still equipped with the old analog (121.5 MHz) technology which isn't monitored by satellite anymore.
If you want to carry a backup or want to have a modern digital beacon (406 MHz), you can certainly carry a PLB. Many pilots do, myself included. Note that these are manually activated only, no g-force sensor.
For a PLB, I recommend picking up an ACR ResQLink. They retail for about $300.
PLBs tend to have pretty easy to follow instructions written right on them, but again people who'll be with you when it's needed should be told about it during safety briefing. Kids too young to learn the radio or other potentially life-saving apparatus can be shown how to use the beacon because of how simple it is.
So I would agree that the headline could use some work. It's also not as if NOAA is the only provider of this service (see Galileo), but I'm not sure if there are stats published for other systems.
The system doesn't present users with "This beacon was detected by this NOAA satellite". You could trace it back, but it's generally not relevant and people are focused on stuff like Do we have a good fix? / Does the registration tell us anything useful? / Who is available that can be tasked to go look? Also do you then count scenarios where five satellites were involved and one was NOAA? A lot of alerts will be "seen" by more than one satellite.
NOAA has some geostationary birds, which can be enough for sole alert if the beacon has GPS, because GPS tells the beacon where it is (if it can see the sky well enough) and then the beacon tells the geostationary satellite its location as part of the distress beacon message. For those obviously they're "parked" over America so maybe some central American or even Canadian incidents but mostly US stuff. For a beacon without GPS the geostationary alert is not much help. "Joe needs rescuing from somewhere in your hemisphere". With 406MHz digital beacons you might perhaps try calling Joe's wife "Oh! Joe is out on the lake, actually he's a bit late for dinner" and that might be useful but mostly alerts with no location are not actioned.
But lower orbits mean a non-geostationary NOAA bird could be over anywhere in the world, and those low orbit satellites can measure doppler shift (ie determine location without GPS), it's just that the rescuers wouldn't necessarily be American and in most cases neither would the victims. Australia has lots of wilderness and so lots of alerts for example.
On my PLB, the batteries are rated to expire after 10 years, after which you buy a new one. Making batteries replaceable carries either a weight or a durability penalty, and I'd rather have a small and light and durable thing that I replace every 10 years. It seems like a good tradeoff.