Watch out for AMSA advice – you could die!
Band a Lot,
My point was simply that if you perhaps fly a hired aircraft, then you may have no idea of the status or serviceability of the aircraft's ELT. So perhaps it's better to own a 406 MHz PLB registered to you with AMSA?
I've read your reply several times now. But I still have absolutely no idea of what you mean?
My point was simply that if you perhaps fly a hired aircraft, then you may have no idea of the status or serviceability of the aircraft's ELT. So perhaps it's better to own a 406 MHz PLB registered to you with AMSA?
I've read your reply several times now. But I still have absolutely no idea of what you mean?
BaL, Where's your 'base station' located....somewhere on the coast...?
I could tell you about an ELT reported by several aircraft just to the SE of Perth. Nobody could actually locate it.
It turned out to be in a boat being towed on a trailer - when the trailer hit a 'bump' it activated the beacon - apparently.
The vehicle was on a 'country road' on its way to Rockingham, S. of Perth, and moving at around 100km / hr, and over the course of an hour or so, it had moved from where it was first heard.......
A 'Good Result'...eventually....
Cheers
I could tell you about an ELT reported by several aircraft just to the SE of Perth. Nobody could actually locate it.
It turned out to be in a boat being towed on a trailer - when the trailer hit a 'bump' it activated the beacon - apparently.
The vehicle was on a 'country road' on its way to Rockingham, S. of Perth, and moving at around 100km / hr, and over the course of an hour or so, it had moved from where it was first heard.......
A 'Good Result'...eventually....
Cheers
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Base station about 30ish KM from coast. It was registered to a WA minister on holiday in N.T.
It was a GPS 406 PLB, satellite co-ordinates given were another 30ish km away well in the ocean and checked by local fisho's nothing anywhere there, the actual beacon was emitting some place closer to my location than the GPS was reporting (not sure how that was determined).
The police had no idea that the PLB transmitted on 2 frequencies and I am not sure they believed me, but I am sure after a check on my base station on 121.5 it was not very near me.
Now that leaves a very large search area 60ish KM. If I made a emergency call I would love to hear a bit of a reply back. The best way to have a good chance of that is people to monitor 121.5 as many do, and to make a quick call on that frequency - it simply has a greater audience and can give vital hints if your ELT/GPS gives incorrect information, sure try area if you have time.
Australia's primary emergency call service number is Triple Zero (000), or I can call the hospital directly.
What if the emergency is because you are unknowingly horribly lost and in the wrong Area frequency zone? No-one will here your call.
It was a GPS 406 PLB, satellite co-ordinates given were another 30ish km away well in the ocean and checked by local fisho's nothing anywhere there, the actual beacon was emitting some place closer to my location than the GPS was reporting (not sure how that was determined).
The police had no idea that the PLB transmitted on 2 frequencies and I am not sure they believed me, but I am sure after a check on my base station on 121.5 it was not very near me.
Now that leaves a very large search area 60ish KM. If I made a emergency call I would love to hear a bit of a reply back. The best way to have a good chance of that is people to monitor 121.5 as many do, and to make a quick call on that frequency - it simply has a greater audience and can give vital hints if your ELT/GPS gives incorrect information, sure try area if you have time.
Australia's primary emergency call service number is Triple Zero (000), or I can call the hospital directly.
What if the emergency is because you are unknowingly horribly lost and in the wrong Area frequency zone? No-one will here your call.
Thread Starter
Great. I think most informed flyers agree that on balance the best frequency to have preselected for an urgent mayday call is 121.5.
It's also very simple compared to changing frequencies all the time as the flight progresses .
As more aircraft monitor this frequency-even if just on the second or third radio - it will become even more effective. Now we somehow have to get AMSA to expand on their recommendation.
Remember not to use as a chatter frequency. Not needed as you can see its working because airline pilots constantly accidentally call on this frequency when calling centre due to a mic selector error!
No wonder I don't like a CTAF system without a Unicom where "calling in the blind" relies on pilots transmitting on the correct frequency. Even Proffessional Airline pilots constantly make mic selector errors- no doubt us private pilots would make even more.
It's also very simple compared to changing frequencies all the time as the flight progresses .
As more aircraft monitor this frequency-even if just on the second or third radio - it will become even more effective. Now we somehow have to get AMSA to expand on their recommendation.
Remember not to use as a chatter frequency. Not needed as you can see its working because airline pilots constantly accidentally call on this frequency when calling centre due to a mic selector error!
No wonder I don't like a CTAF system without a Unicom where "calling in the blind" relies on pilots transmitting on the correct frequency. Even Proffessional Airline pilots constantly make mic selector errors- no doubt us private pilots would make even more.
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
Remember not to use as a chatter frequency. Not needed as you can see its working because airline pilots constantly accidentally call on this frequency when calling centre due to a mic selector error!
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
No wonder I don't like a CTAF system without a Unicom where "calling in the blind" relies on pilots transmitting on the correct frequency. Even Proffessional Airline pilots constantly make mic selector errors- no doubt us private pilots would make even more.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great. I think most informed flyers agree that on balance the best frequency to have preselected for an urgent mayday call is 121.5.
It's also very simple compared to changing frequencies all the time as the flight progresses .
As more aircraft monitor this frequency-even if just on the second or third radio - it will become even more effective. Now we somehow have to get AMSA to expand on their recommendation.
Remember not to use as a chatter frequency. Not needed as you can see its working because airline pilots constantly accidentally call on this frequency when calling centre due to a mic selector error!
Remember not to use as a chatter frequency. Not needed as you can see its working because airline pilots constantly accidentally call on this frequency when calling centre due to a mic selector error!
No wonder I don't like a CTAF system without a Unicom where "calling in the blind" relies on pilots transmitting on the correct frequency. Even Proffessional Airline pilots constantly make mic selector errors- no doubt us private pilots would make even more.
Are you really making the the ludicrous assertion that no-one should make calls to announce their presence, because they might get the frequency wrong? Better not even to try, then, you believe?
I wasn't going to rise to the bait again, but I cannot let this nonsense go unchallenged.
I understand that you have a firm view on how all this radio malarkey should work, and you are certainly entitled to an opinion. But your reasons for your position have been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked. Similarly, your claims of "most pilots believe" and "everyone I talk to" have been shown to be fabrications, because I don't see too many people here supporting your stance.
Despite all of the contributors here (many professionals, some not) who've pointed out the gaping holes in your arguments, you just keep plugging on. Has it occurred to you, in the face of all this opposition, that you might be in the minority? And that maybe you therefore don't know better than everyone else?
Thread Starter
Wish. Constantly in this case is about once an hour as per Bloggs post.
Agra. I can see why you are so agro. Never said not to call ATC. Just the opposite. Just don't make self announcements on ATC frequencies
Agra. I can see why you are so agro. Never said not to call ATC. Just the opposite. Just don't make self announcements on ATC frequencies
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agra. I can see why you are so agro. Never said not to call ATC. Just the opposite.
But then I sought a quiet read of the day's musings from fellow aviation tragics, and was instead assailed by yet more unsubstantiated drivel.
Just don't make self announcements on ATC frequencies
Thread Starter
Are you really suggesting that pilots making announcements and then using radio arranged separation on a frequency also used by ATC for separation purposes is not a safety problem? Surely you are not?
No other country I know of allows this. It only happens in Aus because the changes I introduced have been half wound back
Many ATCs have told me they don't like the present half wound back system but state it was forced on them and they can't do anything about it. Do you work for the CASA office of Airspace under Mr Cromarty ?
No other country I know of allows this. It only happens in Aus because the changes I introduced have been half wound back
Many ATCs have told me they don't like the present half wound back system but state it was forced on them and they can't do anything about it. Do you work for the CASA office of Airspace under Mr Cromarty ?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you really suggesting that pilots making announcements and then using radio arranged separation on a frequency also used by ATC for separation purposes is not a safety problem? Surely you are not?
If radio is being used for separation, it doesn't all have to go via the ATC. Most of us are smart enough to perceive that another conversation is in progress, and wait till it's over before talking.
No other country I know of allows this. It only happens in Aus because the changes I introduced have been half wound back
Yes, I'm well aware of that. You have pointed it out ad nauseum, yet still presented no evidence that it's actually a bad thing in our environment.
Many ATCs have told me they don't like the present half wound back system but state it was forced on them and they can't do anything about it. Do you work for the CASA office of Airspace under Mr Cromarty ?
Rest assured, I've never heard of Mr Cromarty. I'm just a guy who flies regularly in airspace both high and low, and isn't taken in by hysterical fiction.
I might start monitoring 121.5 after reading this thread though, makes a lot of sense.
Last edited by Jabberwocky82; 24th Apr 2016 at 10:43. Reason: Spelling
Thread Starter
Ok. Let's see if we can get an ATC who operates a Sydney departures frequency to comment on whether he or she has any problem with VFR aircraft communicating aircraft to aircraft and being re transmitted on the departure frequency.
Can only work when traffic loading is extremely low. And there have been serious breakdown of separation incidents blamed by ATCs on VFR communications on ATC frequencies.
Can only work when traffic loading is extremely low. And there have been serious breakdown of separation incidents blamed by ATCs on VFR communications on ATC frequencies.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An old Pprune post from.
forget
21st Aug 2010, 12:12
Which reminds me, in the '70s a transatlantic flight picked up a 121.5 ELT signal, mid ocean. Either Shannon or Gander asked all flights to monitor 121.5 and to report their INS positions when the signal was first heard and when it was lost. After a couple of hours they had several dozen plots and were able to divert a Shell tanker to a spot in the Atlantic. The tanker found a lone yachtsman with a broken mast. If I remember rightly a Concorde was even more involved in the airborne plot production - anyone
forget
21st Aug 2010, 12:12
Which reminds me, in the '70s a transatlantic flight picked up a 121.5 ELT signal, mid ocean. Either Shannon or Gander asked all flights to monitor 121.5 and to report their INS positions when the signal was first heard and when it was lost. After a couple of hours they had several dozen plots and were able to divert a Shell tanker to a spot in the Atlantic. The tanker found a lone yachtsman with a broken mast. If I remember rightly a Concorde was even more involved in the airborne plot production - anyone
Join Date: May 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And there have been serious breakdown of separation incidents blamed by ATCs on VFR communications on ATC frequencies.
Specific details of the incidents?
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What the ATSB found,Data from the ATSB database show that ELTs function as intended in about 40 to 60 per cent of
accidents in which their activation was expected.
ELT activation accounted for the first notification in only about 15 per cent of
incidents. However, these ELT activations have been directly responsible for saving an average of
four lives per year.
Safety message
Pilots and operators of general aviation and low capacity aircraft need to be aware that a fixed
fuselage mounted ELT cannot be relied upon to function in the types of accidents in which they
were intended to be useful. The effectiveness of ELTs in increasing occupant safety and assisting
SAR efforts may be enhanced by using a GPS-enabled ELT, using an ELT with a newer 3-axis gswitch, ensuring it is installed correctly, ensuring your beacon is registered with AMSA and preemptively activating the beacon if a forced landing or ditching is imminent. Additionally, carrying a
personal locator beacon (PLB) in place of or as well as a fixed ELT will most likely only be
beneficial to safety if it is carried on the person, rather than being fixed or stowed elsewhere in the
aircraft.
These data show that ELT activation is only one of many ways in which AusSAR are informed of
an aviation emergency. The most common method is by a third party (24%) contacting AMSA’s
Rescue Coordination Centre to report seeing or hearing an aircraft possibly in trouble or crashed.
This is followed by VHF radio calls from pilots (21.5%). Other agencies, for example Airservices
Australia, account for 16.7 per cent of notifications followed by phone calls (14.5%).
Of particular interest here are the incidents in which an ELT (or PLB) has assisted a search and
rescue effort and benefitted occupant safety. ELT/PLB activation, which can be detected either by
satellite (Cospas-Sarsat) or by another aircraft, represented a total of 68 or 15.3 per cent
(combined) of the incidents. The AMSA data reveals that 52 lives were saved in these 68
incidents. In other words, an ELT/PLB has directly contributed to saving the lives of 52 aircraft
occupants since June 1999, equating to four lives saved per year on average.
accidents in which their activation was expected.
ELT activation accounted for the first notification in only about 15 per cent of
incidents. However, these ELT activations have been directly responsible for saving an average of
four lives per year.
Safety message
Pilots and operators of general aviation and low capacity aircraft need to be aware that a fixed
fuselage mounted ELT cannot be relied upon to function in the types of accidents in which they
were intended to be useful. The effectiveness of ELTs in increasing occupant safety and assisting
SAR efforts may be enhanced by using a GPS-enabled ELT, using an ELT with a newer 3-axis gswitch, ensuring it is installed correctly, ensuring your beacon is registered with AMSA and preemptively activating the beacon if a forced landing or ditching is imminent. Additionally, carrying a
personal locator beacon (PLB) in place of or as well as a fixed ELT will most likely only be
beneficial to safety if it is carried on the person, rather than being fixed or stowed elsewhere in the
aircraft.
These data show that ELT activation is only one of many ways in which AusSAR are informed of
an aviation emergency. The most common method is by a third party (24%) contacting AMSA’s
Rescue Coordination Centre to report seeing or hearing an aircraft possibly in trouble or crashed.
This is followed by VHF radio calls from pilots (21.5%). Other agencies, for example Airservices
Australia, account for 16.7 per cent of notifications followed by phone calls (14.5%).
Of particular interest here are the incidents in which an ELT (or PLB) has assisted a search and
rescue effort and benefitted occupant safety. ELT/PLB activation, which can be detected either by
satellite (Cospas-Sarsat) or by another aircraft, represented a total of 68 or 15.3 per cent
(combined) of the incidents. The AMSA data reveals that 52 lives were saved in these 68
incidents. In other words, an ELT/PLB has directly contributed to saving the lives of 52 aircraft
occupants since June 1999, equating to four lives saved per year on average.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another reason a good idea to give a call on 121.5.
Had the ELT been GPS-enabled, it is possible that further information regarding its
location could have been transmitted in the first signal; however, this is still not guaranteed as the
GPS chip requires some time to acquire its location once activated. Although the aircraft
registration can be a good starting point for a SAR investigation,
Had the ELT been GPS-enabled, it is possible that further information regarding its
location could have been transmitted in the first signal; however, this is still not guaranteed as the
GPS chip requires some time to acquire its location once activated. Although the aircraft
registration can be a good starting point for a SAR investigation,
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Perth
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We need better technology than transmission overlaps.
Store-and-forward combined with transmission urgency (1. Mayday 2. Pan 3. Regular reporting. 4. Requests)
Why the hell do we use 1930s radio transmission technology when we have far better available right now.
MIMO directional antennae, transmission packet based, ability to use overflying aircraft as repeaters, full fidelity rather than scratchy crap.
Couple that with always-on-GPS-IN positioning (so you don't hear stuff that's 40NM from you) and have an efficient radio system.
Less operators required, no transmission overlaps, priority messages are sent through-relayed (with position data). Heck you could even have an "I'm completely rooted - more details to come" button on your dash.
Why do we continue with this outdated technology when we could develop far better for so little cost?
Down low at < 180 knots: don't care about overflying airlines at all.
Down low at < 2500 AGL on descent. No interest in anything > 40NM away.
Couple that with full ADSB reporting also on a store-and-forward basis (higher aircraft broadcast info about everything they "see")
Really, why can't we do this?
Store-and-forward combined with transmission urgency (1. Mayday 2. Pan 3. Regular reporting. 4. Requests)
Why the hell do we use 1930s radio transmission technology when we have far better available right now.
MIMO directional antennae, transmission packet based, ability to use overflying aircraft as repeaters, full fidelity rather than scratchy crap.
Couple that with always-on-GPS-IN positioning (so you don't hear stuff that's 40NM from you) and have an efficient radio system.
Less operators required, no transmission overlaps, priority messages are sent through-relayed (with position data). Heck you could even have an "I'm completely rooted - more details to come" button on your dash.
Why do we continue with this outdated technology when we could develop far better for so little cost?
Down low at < 180 knots: don't care about overflying airlines at all.
Down low at < 2500 AGL on descent. No interest in anything > 40NM away.
Couple that with full ADSB reporting also on a store-and-forward basis (higher aircraft broadcast info about everything they "see")
Really, why can't we do this?
Thread Starter
Buckshot. No not news. It's well known. Look up atsb report 199601917 re a serious breakdown of separation between a 747 and a BA146 On 21 June 1996.
One of the reasons given by the ATC of the error was calls from a VFR aircraft. Such announcements on ATC frequencies are not allowed in other aviation countries.
Next time could be a mid air. Not fair to put ATCs in this position just to maximise Airservices profits.
Stop the wind back. Follow a proven safe system.
One of the reasons given by the ATC of the error was calls from a VFR aircraft. Such announcements on ATC frequencies are not allowed in other aviation countries.
Next time could be a mid air. Not fair to put ATCs in this position just to maximise Airservices profits.
Stop the wind back. Follow a proven safe system.
Band and Dick: Would you really like us to take anything published by the ATSB as gospel? Really? Just say the word. 
BTW: It's 2016. There have been some technological advances in the last 20 years. Inside toilets and reliable PLBs.
BTW: It's 2016. There have been some technological advances in the last 20 years. Inside toilets and reliable PLBs.