Monitoring 121.5 in Australia

[Boyd Munro]

For the most part we Australian pilots are not trained to monitor the International Distress Frequency 121.5 when flying en route, but there are powerful reasons why we should.

1. We are instantly available to another pilot who experiences an emergency in the air, or crashes but still has a working radio and calls on the International Distress Frequency. This is not merely good airmanship, it is responsible citizenship.

2. We can pick up ELT signals, so if another pilot crashes we can bring help to him. ELT signals are also picked up by satellites but hours can elapse before one of those satellites passes over the accident site, and if the ELT’s antenna was damaged in the crash the high-flying satellite may not be able to pick up the signal at all. Airmanship/citizenship again.

3. We can be contacted at any time. For example “Aircraft at position X, you are entering restricted area R123 and will be intercepted unless you make a 180 turn and leave the area forthwith.”

4. All airlines monitor 121.5 en route.

5. ICAO requires that all aircraft monitor 121.5 at all times in areas where ELTs must be carried (which includes the whole of Australia). See Annex 12, Vol 2, para 5.2.2.1.1.1,

6. ICAO recommends that all aircraft monitor 121.5 at all times to the extent possible – see para 5.2.2.1.1.3.

7. If you crash and survive but are injured, 121.5 is, overall, the best frequency to use to summon assistance. A call on 121.5 is almost always answered anywhere in the world except in the polar regions. That’s because of the large number of good airmen and good citizens who monitor 121.5 when flying en route.

8. An intercepting aircraft is required by ICAO Annex 2 to call us on 121.5 before shooting us down.

Until 27th November last year, the Australian recommendation (it was never a requirement) was that we should monitor the “Area Frequency” whilst en route VFR. The Australian recommendation now is that we monitor an appropriate frequency.

What reasons are there why 121.5 should not be considered, along with other frequencies, when making the decision about the appropriate frequency to monitor?

And why doesn't ATC monitor 121.5 in Australia?

I personally monitor 121.5 without thinking why - it's just something I do, like getting dressed before I leave the house in the morning.

[Ralph the Bong]

Boyd, agreed. It was an SOP an Ansett to monitor 121.5 on the VHF2 whilst en-route. I am pretty sure QF and DJ do it too. Certainly all international operaters do. When flying GA PVT in Oz I too always monitor 121.5 if a second com is available. I mean, why have equipment switched off when you can use it for something usfull?

[Dehavillanddriver]

so Boyd, let me get this right - are you advocating that aircraft with a single VHF radio only monitor 121.5?

[Woomera]

“And why doesn't ATC monitor 121.5 in Australia?”

Maybe because the propagation characteristic of VHF RF signals are line of sight, resulting in a very restricted radius of coverage and inaccurate signal bearings from ATC receivers. Conversely, the Australian marine and aviation search and rescue centres obtain excellent, constant coverage of 121.5 MHz signals via satellite and down link to dedicated ground stations around the world, capable of establishing the beacon source, in a very timely and efficient manner, within a few miles?

Why confuse the professional, dedicated rescue service with inaccurate information from a ground based ATC receiver?

Perhaps your question should be: “Why isn’t it a mandatory requirement that all aviation emergency beacons transmit on 121.5 MHz and 243 MHz and be encoded with the aircraft registration and last known coordinates from an on board GPS?”

[tobzalp]

.....and that we install across australia down to the ground vhf coverage for ATC to monitor this?


lmao


damn owned by Woomera. read mine with the post above his.



How about we pay for ADS-B to be fitted to all aircraft while we are at it......

[Boyd Munro]

I asked a question, namely "What reasons are there why 121.5 should not be considered, along with other frequencies, when making the decision about the appropriate frequency to monitor?"

No-one has answered that so far.

Woomera, I did not make myself clear.

Your reply seems to address only ELT transmissions. There are also voice transmissions from aircraft in flight, or on the ground after a crash, which need to be considered.

ATC monitors 121.5 in most developed countries and many undeveloped countries. There is obviously a reason why Australia is different, but I do not know what that reason is.

I do not suggest that we install down-to-the ground coverage, merely that 121.5 be monitored wherever other frequencies are monitored. That's what they do overseas. If you can talk to ATC on a location-specific frequency you can also talk to ATC on 121.5 from the same location at the same altitude.

Nor do I suggest "confusing" the dedicated professional rescue service, AMSA, in which I have high personal confidence. However AMSA told me very recently that up to 6 hours can elapse from the time an ELT goes off until it is picked up by a satellite. AMSA aims for "world's best practice" and therefore welcomes information about potential emergencies from whatever source.

6 hours is not timely response to a crash. It may at times be the best available with satellite technology, but why restrict ourselves to that?

De Havilland Driver - I am not advocating anything.

[topdrop]

Why not monitor the appropriate ATC freq and use that for any emergency calls. Installing 121.5 in the same location is not going to increase range, only costs.

[Boyd Munro]

Topdrop, there is a good reason why ICAO requires or recommends that aircraft monitor 121.5

It is that overflying aircraft can hear a pilot transmitting on 121.5 even when ATC's ground-based stations cannot, and when aircraft tuned to those ground-based stations cannot. An aircraft at 40,000' can hear a station on the ground at a range of about 250 nautical miles (remember the old rule of d=1.25(root h) d in nm and h in feet?)

There is no "instead" about this. I asked "What reasons are there why 121.5 should not be considered, along with other frequencies, when making the decision about the appropriate frequency to monitor?"

[tobzalp]

Sounds to me Boyd that you are trying to hang on to the no freq boundaries issue with this appropriate frequency nonsense.

[Boyd Munro]

Thanks for your contribution tobzalp but I just asked a question, namely "What reasons are there why 121.5 should not be considered, along with other frequencies, when making the decision about the appropriate frequency to monitor?"

You have not answered that, nor has anyone else.

If you know a reason why 121.5 should not be considered, please share it.

[Skin-Friction]

As an IFR pilot I used always to monitor 121.5 on com 2 (guard, as we call it) and area on com 1, except when entering/leaving CTAFs/MBZs.

Now, however in an effort to keep track of VFR aircraft, 126.7 must be continually monitored OCTA and is becoming guard frequency.

If you pay for my com 3 Boyd, I'll certainly listen out on 121.5 again.

Either that or (much better option hint, hint) support the move to get the frequencies back on the charts so that we can restore the situation back to sensible normalness.

That'd be much nicer. Area on Com 1 and guard (121.5) on com2 Sanity again!!

[Boyd Munro]

Thank you for your contribution, Skin-Friction.

But I did not ask you to listen out on 121.5

What I asked was "What reasons are there why 121.5 should not be considered, along with other frequencies, when making the decision about the appropriate frequency to monitor?"

And you have not answered that.

[Jet_A_Knight]

I could be wrong here, but 121.5 is supposed to be for distress or urgency communications.

Using 121.5 as an 'appropriate' frequency to monitor enroute for the purpose of traffic or position info is not appropriate and may block any of the calls that the frequency is there to carry to, as you mentioned, the traffic overflying or within line of sight range, not to mention any beacons going off.

If you really want to have a common frequency, 123.45 would surely be more appropriate as 'pilot to pilot' frequency.

At the end of the day, why not just have 'appropriate' frequencies back on a map, with the boundaries. It's not that hard, really.

By the way, I fly SP IFR and listen out on 121.5 except as mentioned above, in the vicinity of aerodromes or anything else of 'interest'.

[The Messiah]

Ok Boyd I'll answer that question, "What reasons are there why 121.5 should not be considered, along with other frequencies, when making the decision about the appropriate frequency to monitor?" for you.

There are no reasons why it should not be considered, and after consideration there are varied reasons (see above), why it won't be.

[18-Wheeler]

Agree with Jet_A_Knight ->
121.5 is for emergencies, 123.45 is for chatting.

By all means if you need to talk to someone try 121.5, but then swap over to 123.45.

We monitor both in our operation.

[swh]

This NOTAM has been arund for a while

C532/04 REVIEW C420/04
ACFT OPERATING IN THE AUSTRALIAN FIR
ARE REQ TO MNT 121.5 MHZ DISTRESS FREQ WHENEVER POSSIBLE.
THE SATELLITE DETECTION OF 121.5AND 243.0 MHZ DISTRESS BEACONS HAS
BEEN IMPAIRED PARTICULARLY THE FLW AREAS:
THE TORRES STRAIT, NORTH QUEENSLAND AND THE NORTHERN AREAS OF THE
NORTHERN TERRITORY.
DUE LIGHTNING DAMAGE TO THE COSPAS-SARSAT TERMINAL AT BUNDABERG
QUEENSLAND.
AS A RESULT THERE WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY LONGER WAIT TIMES BTN
SATELLITE PASSES.
THERE IS NO REDUCTION IN THE SYSTEMS ABILITY TO DETECT 406MHZ
DISTRESS BEACONS.
FROM 03 050345 TO 04 050300 EST

[itchybum]

As an IFR pilot I used always to monitor 121.5 on com 2 (guard, as we call it) As you can see, some people still think 121.5 is called "guard". There's a good explanation here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=108541&perpage=15&highlight=guard%20121.5&pagenumber=2) by Pullock on what exactly "guard" is. Or was, before the name was taken by all and sundry to mean the emergency VHF freq.

Back to the original topic, What Boyd asked was "What reasons are there why 121.5 should not be considered, along with other frequencies, when making the decision about the appropriate frequency to monitor?"

And I have not answered that.

I think monitoring 121.5 in a single VHF radio-equipped aircraft is not a good idea.

Boyd asks about monitoring. Is the idea, Boyd, to merely monitor? What would be the point of that except for safety reasons?

Or is the idea to use it as the "area freq"? Is this what you mean? Transmitting position and other information on it?

Amongst other reasons, EVERY 121.5 monitoring airliner for a 300nm radius is going to have the joy of listening to Joe Lightie's taxi, departure, position, inbound, etc reports, despite being 25000ft or more above the traffic. I know this happens already (thanks to Dick and his brilliant ideas of how things should work in Aus because he flies a private Citation and obviously knows best)

I dunno, I guess you were serious about this but geez, it seems like a ridiculous suggestion to me. Between the satellites and airliner traffic, I'd be surprised if practically the whole continent isn't covered already????

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Also if an aircraft transmits on 121.5 and the sattelite picks that up, then the SAR process starts, and we have to ask aircraft to monitor 121.5 and advise if a beacon is heard. So if not an emergency, but aircraft are using 121.5 as the appropriate frequency it could cause big problems.

As was previously stated, the appropriate frequency should always be the ATC frequency in that area, as even if too low to be picked up by ATC, any aircraft in the area will pick up the call, as they may if monitoring 121.5.

In response to the guy who said QFA 5 picked up his call on 121.5, if you made the call on the appropriate ATC frequency then surely the QFA 5 aircraft would have also got the call as he would certainly be on the apporpriate ATC frequency.

In the UAE we do monitor 121.5 because the airspace is only a couple of hundred miles in size but as mentioned, not a realistic propostion in Australia, unless you put in hundreds of recievers all over the country to pick up calls on that frequency. That is why the freqs. and boundarys should be on the charts, so the aircraft can make the call on the appropriate frequency, and then be recieved by ATC or any other aircraft in the area also on the appropriate ATC frequency. Seems simple to me, but hey prepared to be shot down.

[Boyd Munro]

Thanks, Jet_A_Knight. "Monitor" in this context usually means the same thing as "listen out" or "guard" (the word used in ICAO annex 12 vol II).

I am pleased to learn that you monitor 121.5 and I agree that it is most inappropriate to chat on 121.5

I also happen to think it inappropriate to chat on any aeronautical radio frequency.

And thanks for your answer, The_Messiah. I am very glad that ICAO, the RAAF, and the airlines do not share your view. Personally I am most reassured to know that if something goes wrong almost anywhere there will be a good citizen monitoring 121.5

[Jet_A_Knight]

Boyd, just re-read your post, and got the gist of what you meant (I hope!).

I suppose I was, like most others, approaching the question wrt to the NAS, and our encumbant misgivings about that catchprhrase 'appropriate frequency'.

In light of the above.......

Most high altitude airliners and transport category aircraft operators monitor 121.5 enroute.

Yes, it would be a good thing for GA and all aircrcaft to monitor 121.5 on the spare comm, when not needed for other tasks. This would improve the coverage and ensure that there is a better chance for distress/urgency calls to be heard.

But then again, the way I was taught, this is just part of basic airmanship.

Maybe it needs to be solidified into an operational requirement, where possible, if it does not affect normal operational requirements or neccesities, monitor 121.5.

[TheNightOwl]

Boyd - just to confirm that DJ does, in fact, monitor 121.5/Guard while at altitude in transit, as per AIP.

Kind regards,

TheNightOwl.:ok:

[The Messiah]

Boyd,

I didn't put my view anywhere, I merely stated that based on the previous posts those people won't be monitoring it.

Nothing about me. I only said it should be considered, as an answer to your question.

Now go take a prozac and a Chivas and go lie down.

[Boyd Munro]

The_Messiah, I apologise.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Hey Boyd, I think I am getting the gist of where you want this to go, and that is you believe the "appropriate frequency" is 121.5, so there is no need to have ATC frequencies or boundaries on the charts. And although you ignored my post, I will say again, in case of an emergency, a call on the appropriate ATC frequency is always the best first action, as ATC is trained in responding to emergency situations and can get the SAR ball rollingstraight away.

If as was mentioned the aircraft is low and out of range with ATC, any other aircraft in the area also monitoring the appropriate ATC frequency will hear it and relay to ATC, who can again give their expert assistance.

If neither of these work flick over to 121.5 and make the call then, but that should be the order of attack.

So due to this all aircraft need to know what the appropriate ATC frequency is for the area in which they're flying and as such, these should be clearly marked on the charts.

[itchybum]

I think Boyd's ignoring you ANSA. Either that or he's gone away to stew over it!!

I can't believe this half-baked thread with a half-baked idea has gone as far as it has. Private pilots with too much spare time and money on their hands.... reminds me of Dick. And look what he's managed to cause over the years. The fact he cooks his own meat sauce and makes radios doesn't necessarily qualify him in the aviation field despite the media flocking to him for comment on any and every crisis in the industry.

Since I'm bored Boyd, I'll put this to you: Perhaps, in view of the number of posts which have not answered that, you should re-phrase your question or define your meaning of the word "appropriate". Appropriate for what???

Or you could simply stop attempting to meddle with the system.

[V1OOPS]

Isn't this all a slight waste of available radios in many aircraft ... assuming we're looking for (elderly?) emergency beacons and not chit chat?

I thought 121.5 as an ELT frequency had been superceded years ago in favour of 243MHz which is now being superceded by 486(?)MHz since UHF has better ionispheric penetration for automatic satellite reception.

Also the European authorities monitoring these satellite relays get a bit narked with the current score of 999 / 1 in favour of false alarms ... ie: someone asking for the footie score or mistakenly calling base on the 121.5 box.

Come to think of it, maybe that's why they want a new UHF number :|

[topdrop]

Boyd,
We're in a low flying aircraft and outside range of ATC and have an emergency of some sort. As pilot I will do my broadcast on the appropriate ATC freq and which all the other aircraft in that area are listening to. Whereas you will do your broadcast on 121.5 which some aircraft may or may not be monitoring.
Pray tell, who do you think has got the better chance of being heard - you or me?
I've got nothing against monitoring 121.5, what have you got against ATC frequencies being shown on charts?

[karrank]

To be fair Boyd is talking about monitoring, not "All stations (sh1thole-nobodys-ever-heard-of), Jabberer 123456 is two, um, 12 miles, um, east, of (sh1thole-nobodys-ever-heard-of), um..."

NAS sabotage of the radio separation culture has been particularly effective and the above is much reduced, but IFR still report and broadcast their location, and they do that on what they think is the area frequency, so you won't hear it on 121.5.

Parachuting aircraft religiously broadcast their meat-bombs location on what they know is the area frequency even if passing aircraft are tuned to something else, and they won't do that on 121.5.

There may be some benefit if you could be contacted by ATC on such a common freq, but you can't be, and NAS was supposed to save money not cost heaps so its not going to happen. If they were going to duplicate the radio network to catch this percentage on guard this wouldn't catch those who cottoned on to "everybody monitor 126.7" as proposed on the roadshow, erm, by those not saying 121.5 anyhow... Triplicate the network maybe???

If it will be of comfort to you to harp on your cloud in the afterlife that it was the guy in the jet that hit you's fault coz he should have seen you and you couldn't be ******ed listening to nasty ATC chatter on the area frequency, then there is nothing, repeat nothing wrong with clinging to the crazy notion that "an appropriate frequency" would include anything other than the CTAF you are in (or near) or the area frequency.

[Islander Jock]

V1OOPS

I thought 121.5 as an ELT frequency had been superceded years ago in favour of 243MHz which is now being superceded by 486(?)MHz since UHF has better ionispheric penetration for automatic satellite reception.

In fact a signal on 121.5 will also transmit on 243 MHz as the first harmonic. Not sure if it works the other way around though. (the techno buffs out there can expand if they like) 243MHz is generally termed as the military distress frequency.

Both these frequencies are interrogated by the COSPAS SARSAT system but with a reduced degree of accuracy over 406MHz. Usually about 20 KM from satellite fixing as opposed to about 3Km on 406. No identifying data is transmitted in the signal of 121.5 / 243 however the 406 MHz ELTs and EPIRBs transmit an identifying code which is registered with the SAR authority of the vessel or aircrafts home port. They also have the capability of being coupled to onboard GPS units for precise position notification.

The satellite system will cease interrogation of the 121.5 / 243 MHz signals from 2009 however for SAR homing, these frequencies will probably remain in use. Consequently the 406 MHz EPIRBS have the ability to simultaneously transmit on these frequencies also.

Taken from "Guidelines for participating in the COSPAS - SARSAT system"
Interference in the 406 MHz and 121.5 MHz bands limits the performance of the Cospas- Sarsat System by preventing receipt of distress beacon transmissions in regions where interfering transmitters are operating. Participants should endeavour to detect, locate and turn off these interfering signals in their national areas of responsibility, as described in ITU
Recommendation ITU-R SM.1051.

As AirNoServicesAustralia said earlier, if people start transmitting on 121.5 it could cause problems. The satellites only interrogate ELTs / EPIRBs but a stong voice modulated signal might block out a weaker signal from a beacon.[

[itchybum]

All good points but who cares now, anyway?

Having seen his probing fail to achieve the hoped-for results, it would seem Boyd's become bored with his expedition into pprune.

[tobzalp]

Nah dude it only works in 121.5 - 243 not the other way around.

[imabell]

thanks messiah,

boyd was getting boring.

how many a/c or crew have been lost, (haven't been found),
because no-one was listening on 121.5??.

none that i remember.

[karrank]

Bit hard to prove that though IMABELL...

ISLANDER JOCK: I reckon that document is referring to broadcast services. In the NW we used to regularly hear Asian broadcasts, for hour after hour, on AGA frequencies. A sattelite trying to resolve a position between two radio stations banging saucepans and strangling cats (that's what it sounded like) has to be stopped. An occaisonal mayday or safety alert is not going to cause deaths.

Reading my previous post (without rum in my system) makes me think I could have been more succint. If Boyd thinks there is no increase in situational awareness by having as much of the traffic in a particular area on the same frequency on which they can be alerted to pertinent information, then feel free to monitor 121.5 only.

If you have two radios, having one monitoring 121.5 may provide a safety benefit for yourself, and save somebody else.

Driving people off the area frequency by being mysterious about what it is and how important it is is a nonsensical rear-guard action by Dick (IMHO) coz some committee wouldn't remove "monitor appropriate frequency" from what VFR are supposed to do.

THIS THREAD (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1234514#post1234514) indicates at least some ATC (or other agencies) can or do monitor (or can transmit) on 121.5. Has anybody even proposed it here before?

[Sheep Guts]

Boyd,
you ask" why does ATC not monitor 121.5".

As far as I know they do. I used to be a Tower Tech in the RAAF in the past and I belive all ATC Towers in Australia have 121.5 or 243 emergency recievers which are connected to an Audible and visaul alarm if a recieving signal is detected. I should know this, as about 12 years ago, we had an alarm at Richmond in Sydney. I tried to DF (direction find) the signal but nothing on the tarmac ( c130s, 707, caribous) was coming in strong, it seemd to be coming from the Kurrajong area in the mountains. So we went up there in a truck and searched the suburbs, with a bloke from DOC, and eventually found a beacon going off in someones boat in their garage , even with the garage door closed. So that gives you an idea how strong or sensitive the 121.5 or 243 rxers are.

I assume that all area frequencies TX rX Stations for ASA around oz, also have these recievers for 121.5 and 243. Please correct me if Im am wrong someone.

Regards
Sheep

[tobzalp]

TRhe RAAF stil have them (well willy town anyway). If the AsA receivers exist they certainly are not fed into the sectors because there is zero (0) 121.5 monitoring going on by at the console sector ATC.

[separator]

The only 121.5 facility in ASA towers in usually a handheld VHF transceiver which is programmable. It is not there for 121.5 monitoring, it is there if everything else falls over and the tower burns down.

The centres, and remote TCUs have nothing, zilch, nada, zip in the way of any 121.5/243 Tx/Rx capability.

Whilst a programmable VHF/UHF facility at each console could be handy on the odd occasion, ASA and their predecessors, in their inestimable wisdom, have not seen the need to provide them.

sep

[Duck N Weave]

Boyd, I would suggest you contact AUSSAR and have a chat to them about their systems and procedures, and the difference between AUSSAR and AMSA. You will discover that when a beacon goes off various satellites (some geostationary) detect the signal and triangulate the position.
If spurious transmissions are being made that are not for an emergency (say to QANTAS 5 by someone wanting a message passed), then these signals distort the positioning calculations and delays may occurr in the SAR effort in an attempt to sort out the emergency wheat from the spurious chat.
So by all means monitor 121.5 to assist the range of our national SAR system but please don't transmit unless you are in an emergency and all other communication options have been exhausted.

That way nobody has to die while someone has a chat!

[Sheep Guts]

Sperator,
If thats true this seem like a short fall in the ASA network. Unless satelite reception is the only means these days. I read a story many moons ago in an AOPA Mag around 1997 that a guy ferrying a C177 from Normanton or Burketown to Gove had an engine failure and ditched in the Gulf of Carpentariar near a place called " Masacre Inlet". The pilot had a Portable ELB with him which was recieved either by other flying aircraft or satelite. He was picked up by SAR S76 Choppers based at RAAF Tindal near Katherine in the N.T. must be over 800nm away, they must have refuelled at Borraloola, or something. Hey my memeory may be failing but anyone read that one. In your own Mag too Boyd or ex.

Sheep

P.S. So boyd if they picked up this joker with PELB in the middle of nowwhere. This must indicate something about how good the system is.


Duck and Weave,
Heres an idea instead of trying to get positioning information for RF energy why dont they put a GPS in the ELB or ELT or CPI and it transmits the acutal position lat long. Maybe the next generation of ELTs will have this?

[Blue Sky Baron]

As I see it Boyds use of the word "Monitor" is the crux of the question.

As it seems he and Electronic Dick are hell bent on removing area frequencies from charts, (for whatever reason totally escapes me!), which now has caused total confusion as to what frequency we should have dialled up on our radios these days why don't they provide us all with a VHF RECEIVER that we can all fit to our aircraft which we can all monitor all the time and respond to any emergency heard by using our VHF TRANSCIEVERS! That way we can select our own appropriate frequency, hopefully area, and/or CTAF, MBZ etc depending whether we have two radios or one.

Now there is a positive way in which Elec.Dick can help GA in Australia, he can supply them and Boyd can install them.

I look forward to receiving my radio in the post, and a cheque for installation following.

Thanks for your assistance guys!

BSB :ok:

[10%boredom]

Boyd asked:

What reasons are there why 121.5 should not be considered,
along with other frequencies, when making the decision about
the appropriate frequency to monitor?

I suspect that the question is more related to your pending litigation; Have your lawyers asked for some opinion? Otherwise the question only reflects an ignorance of our ATM system.

and posted;

And thanks for your answer, The_Messiah. I am very glad that
ICAO, the RAAF, and the airlines do not share your view.
Personally I am most reassured to know that if something goes
wrong almost anywhere there will be a good citizen monitoring
121.5

Now I suspect you're taking both ICAO and the RAAF out of context here Boyd so can you expand a little? Do you really want lighties monitoring 121.5 B050 or even B030? Think it through
.:p

[Duck N Weave]

Sheep Guts

"Maybe the next generation of ELTs will have this?"

I sure do hope so but in the mean time we have to rely on the current system and the cleaner the signal the more chance of an accurate position. I just freak out when I read posts suggesting you can have a chat or check the position of jet traffic on 121.5, although these suggestions did come from NAS supporters on another thread.

Makes you wonder don't it!!!

[On eyre]

I don't get it.

To state the bleeding obvious and as all professional pilots know and it applies to all private pilots as well, if you have one VHF com only then the appropriate frequency to monitor and use is the area ATS (as shown on the map with boundaries or not - may they return soon) or the MBZ/CTAF frequency as required. If you have two VHF coms then area frequency plus MBZ/CTAF if approaching an MBZ/CTAF OR area plus 121.5. 121.5 should be monitored only and only used if you are in trouble or responding to someone else in trouble if a verbal transmission is received. Receipt of ELT/EPIRB signals which may be from one of many sources (air,ground,marine) should be advised to ATS through the appropriate area frequency or relay through another aircraft if out of range of an ATS ground station. If you have the luxury of three coms then as for two above plus whatever - company, chat, etc
Am I wrong?

Cheers

[dirtylittlefokker]

From my point of view, what is chilling, from an Jet- RPT cum Charter Captains point of view, and there are not many jet jocks who operate from Sydney, Norfolk, Cairns, Townsville, Hamilton Island and then to Century, Phosphate, Cloncurry etc. Is that:

Dick Smith advocates that he and his happy band of ******s should be allowed to operate anywhere OCTA and monitor ONLY 121.5!!!!

I asked him, and others on this forum, to consider the implications of this. if flying from Winton to anywhere in the NT using these procedures a few months ago. Response? Zip!!

This happy band of genltemen would be flying through one of the busiest areas in Australia and according to Dick Smith, to paraphrase, " be free to listen to the radio and enjoy the view."

Dick I have honestly tried to see your point of view, but Sir, you have got it wrong.

Have the balls to admit it!:suspect:

[DirtyPierre]

A little off the point, but to be accurate.

****su was correct about AsA monitoring of 121.5.

243.0 is monitored in Brisbane (not sure about Melbourne) Centre on the "old" military sector position now part of the Fraser Group (Downs Sector). It's a hangover from the days when we had a military presence in the AACC, before RAAF manpower problems were solved by handing over the military sectors to AsA fulltime.

It picks up all transmissions on 243.0 and emits an aural and visual alarm. 121.5 harmonics are not picked up, though I think it's due to the filtering of the frequency.

As for monitoring 121.5 elsewhere in the world, if you look at the thread under ATC issues in pprune forums, everyone does it differently. Probably due to necessity, economics, and local aviation culture and requirements.

So lets do whats right for Oz, not some half baked o/s system some well meaning amateurs are trying to force on the rest of the avaition community.

[TopperHarley]

I thought the only thing you heard on 121.5 was over paid QF second officers making PA's !


Seriously though - Does a quick cvoice call on 121.5 initiate a 'reaction' from the COSPAS system ?? Or can it differentiate between vox and the siren signal ??

[Zarg]

Topper, a voice transmission on 121.5/243MHz will not trigger an alert on the Cospas/Sarsat satellite system, certainly not on the Aus/NZ Local User Terminals (LUTs). However, electrical interferer(s) sometimes do trigger an alert. One malfunctioning VCR in Victoria did just that in 1995, and yes ACA and AsA did find the culprit!

99% of all alerts are false alarms but AusSAR still has to treat each alert as a Distress situation and will move heaven and earth to find the source. In some cases the Australian Communications Authority (ACA) plays a significant part in tracking down inadvertent and malicious activations which occur all too frequently. Particularly in school holidays! Incidentaly, Perth WA has the worst record in Australia for malicious activations! :} :uhoh: :{

[Kaptin M]

"malicious activations" meaning (by definition) what, Z?

[Zarg]

KM, as in someone stealing and ELT or EPIRB and activating it awaiting a result. One example was an EPIRB stolen in Victoria and placed under powerlines awaiting the searching helicopter to strike powerlines and crash! :confused:

Malicious: As in deliberately activated to cause alarm and confusion! :( Can interfere with genuine activation and provide spurious Satellite readouts.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

AirNoServicesAustralia:

Also if an aircraft transmits on 121.5 and the sattelite picks that up, then the SAR process starts, and we have to ask aircraft to monitor 121.5 and advise if a beacon is heard.

My understanding is that short transmissions will not be picked up as an ELT. The Satellite requires a constant transmission so that it can use the doppler effect to work out when it has pass overhead / abeam the beacon.

Transmissions from memory simply come up as very short "noise" type bursts.