Watch out for AMSA advice – you could die!

[Dick Smith]

On the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) website under the heading “Most important things to improve you chance of survival, and to help search and rescuers are……..”
Point 3 states:

“In the event of an emergency, get out a MAYDAY or PAN call. If not operating on an ATS frequency, always have the area or overlying airspace frequency set for immediate use. This is the most responsive method to alert the search and rescue system”.

There is a very serious problem here, as in many cases, by following this instruction no one will hear your Mayday or Pan call.

As I’ve mentioned previously on this site, even calling on the “correct” area frequency of 124.8, 90 miles south east of Charleville at 8500ft, will result in no communication to Brisbane centre – or in many cases to another aircraft. However, by calling on the frequency of the nearest VHF outlet – that is St George on 118.95 - an immediate response will come from the Brisbane centre. If you are flying at a lower level, which is typical for VFR aircraft, the problem is even greater.

At typical helicopter flight levels of 1000ft or 2000ft in remote areas of Australia, I would estimate that over 80% of the time, there is no communication to a ground transmitter on the area frequency. This means you have to rely on another aircraft in the sector monitoring that frequency. In remote areas this is very often unlikely.

Of course, for those who want the maximum chance of getting a mayday call through to the nearest VHF outlet, they can use the “nearest” feature on most GPS units, and they will come up with the location of the closest VHF ground station. This will give the most likely result of getting a line of sight VHF signal. See photo attached.

In the United States the recommended frequency for radio equipped VFR aircraft in E and G airspace is 121.5.

From my experience in Australia, this is also the best frequency for a Pan or Mayday, as in 9 out of 10 occasions you will receive an immediate response from a high flying airline aircraft.

http://i1268.photobucket.com/albums/jj561/meredith34D/IMG_2561_zpszakyez84.jpg (http://s1268.photobucket.com/user/meredith34D/media/IMG_2561_zpszakyez84.jpg.html)

[UnaMas]

I agree. Had to do a Pan call one day, no response on ctr, got a reply and relay right away on 121.5

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Re "In typical helicopter flight levels of 1000ft or 2000ft in remote areas of Australia, I would estimate that over 80% of the time, there is no communication to a ground transmitter on the area frequency. This means you have to rely on another aircraft in the sector monitoring that frequency. In remote areas this is very often unlikely."

It would be a 'poor' - ill prepared - chopper, or any other aircraft for that matter, that went out to these areas without the support of its parent company, or HF radio at least.....

Or maybe a 'Sat Phone' would do the trick. I dunno, I've never used one, but I have used HF a lot....

A VHF 'relay' may not be available 24/7 depending on where you are in relation to other aircraft routes.....would you really want to have to RELY on a relay in an emergency..??

Cheers :eek:

[Dick Smith]

So cruising at 1000' agl I have an engine failure. Do I get out my sat phone and start dialling AMSA?

I have tested 121.5 over the last three decades and even in remote ocean areas you get an immediate answer 9 out of 10 times.

AMSA are clearly taking advice from CASA on this. In this case the advice is wrong and will more likely result in an unheard mayday call

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

If that's ALL you've got, or is your 'last resort'...or after ALL other methods have proved 'unsucessful'...or, IF you think that would be the most efficient...then CERTAINLY mate!

On the other hand, you could employ your EPIRB, but you won't be able to actually talk to anyone on that, but you will get assistance eventually....

This of course is predicated that no-one happens to be in 'your area' at this time...Like I suggested, do you want to have to RELY on this in an emergency?

Can happen quite often, in my experience....just depends on 'where U is' in relation to other aircraft routes / times...

Cheers...

[Jabawocky]

My personal view on yet another one of Dick's threads, about AMSA's guidance is as follows;

If a transmission on 121.5 is going to save me because someone's monitoring that frequency, I'm going to activate my 406MHz ELT or PLB. It will transmit on 121.5.

It just so happens that my 406 beacon will also transmit my GPS position to the satellites and on to all the rescue coordination centres in the world. If high flying RPT hear it, they'll be reporting it to ATC.

Having used the 121.5 frequency to my best advantage, I can also transmit on the Area frequency. It may be that nobody will hear me. But chances are that someone will. In that case I will be utilising three potential channels of Comms (beacon transmission on 121.5 plus beacon transmission on 406 plus voice transmission on Area) rather than just one: voice transmission on 121.5 YMMV ;)

[Dick Smith]

Jaba. So in remote areas what frequency would you leave your second radio on for urgent emergency calls in case of engine failure? What frequency is more likely to be heard?

[TBM-Legend]

121.5 and 243.0 are the international distress frequencies aka Guard and monitored [121.5] by airliners. The military use UHF of course.

[Jabawocky]

Dick,

I'm going to transmit on all three of 121.5, 406 and Area. My ELT or PLB will do the first two jobs, and my VHF will do the third. Meanwhile my transponder is squawking 7700.

You don't seem to be able to understand or acknowledge that if someone out there is going hear me on 121.5, they are going to hear my ELT or PLB. Might as well transmit on Area as well.

Why would I transmit on just 121.5 rather than 121.5 and Area?

Thats the theory, here is the practical, based on a low level flight with no or minimal centre coverage, while my ELT or PLB is chirping away doing its things, I will broadcast on CEN but only as time and mental capacity is spare, I am looking for the best place to put down. PERIOD.

If on the other hand, as I usually do, I am flying at 8000' to 16,000' I will take a bit more time to look into the problem first, maybe I ran a tank dry, and once established that this is not being fixed and setting up for a best glide, I would broadcast on CEN, which I have on COM1 with the next CEN frequency on the stand by. If either of them failed, I would go to COM2 which has 121.5 selected in the cruise and either the CTAF or AWIS at destination awaiting use, and broadcast on 121.5, prior to setting off the ELT/PLB.

The reason is I have plenty of time to have a chat, fault find and then prepare for the worst while turning on the beacon.

At low level, I need all the time I can get, so beacon on, talk on the others. If I find I have enough time to get on 121.5 because area was no good, simply with off the beacon for a few seconds and try that. But before I get into the landing phase that beacon is going back on.

Does that make sense?

[truthinbeer]

For those struggling to locate this subject on the AMSA site;
Home > Search and rescue > Training and education > Aviation search and rescue education

https://www.amsa.gov.au/search-and-rescue/training-and-education/aviation-sar-education/

[Dick Smith]

Jaba. I have spent a lot of time asking advice on this.

Best answer I received was to leave at least one radio on 121.5 and the MIC selector on this radio.

Then give a quick mayday or pan call and then concentrate on flying the aircraft.

Put on the beacon when on the surface.

If wanting to communicate to ATC use the nearest function on the GPS and use that frequency.

[Band a Lot]

Your ELT is not telling vital information on 121.5 but you as a person can give a location and say in trouble. Your reliance on the ELT on 121.5 and 406 will create a delay in search until confirmed a problem exists (they will call all contact numbers first to confirm a problem may exist if registered)

Most choppers I know belting out remote are R22 no HF, but a sat phone under the seat and not accessible in flight as other stuff on seat.


I would be asking help on 121.5 first even if it only saves 20 mins on a search.

[Fred Gassit]

While a call on guard/area to give a location is better than nothing I wouldn't make it a priority. Only a beacon will get help reliably overhead. We've spent days searching for aircraft that were seen to disappear in the circuit.

[Band a Lot]

"Only a beacon will get help reliably overhead. We've spent days searching for aircraft that were seen to disappear in the circuit."


About a year back the Police turned up to the Flying Club asking if a beacon may have been set off here. We all said no and he said it seems to be from this area but the GPS point was 20+ miles away out in the water in a bay.

I suggested to go to work and put the base station radio on 121.5 (he said it was 406 but that is another story most us know). Anyway they agreed and nothing was picked up, I said I know that on the ground this due to aerial has a x range in these directions.

Basically we only knew all information they had and they showed me 406 map location, was not where the registered owner was (a WA politician in a hire car on holiday).

Forget reliable and no never did find the location of the device.

[Jabawocky]

Put on the beacon when on the surface.


Dick that is what we are taught.

If I am ditching into water or less than golf course conditions I want the beacon on well before I am at the surface. I may get knocked out………..but live if I get rescued.

Just me…. :ok:

[Capn Bloggs]

I don't know a lot about this ELB stuff, so I'll defer to Jaba.
So cruising at 1000' agl I have an engine failure.
You're going to hop onto 121.5 and give your position (assuming your position device is still working) with only a few seconds to impact? Activate your ELB.

BTW, you did you put in a flight plan so that the services would know here to look regardless of what warning you get out, didn't you?

[lilflyboy262...2]

Why not just have 121.5 on standby if you have Garmin equipped radios?

Put out a call on the local and then put out another on 121.5 if no response?

A lot of newer radios have a 121.5 quick select built in in them anyway.

[Nick 123]

If you regularly travel in remote areas get a HF. Personally at 1000 feet I'm not got to stuff about on the radio. Activate ELB and worry about flying the plane. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.

[Band a Lot]

Of the 70+ rego aircraft I have looked after since 406 came mandatory, I think 5-7 have a fixed ELT. That is GA and Charter aircraft, so who at 1,000 ft is finding, opening the protect bag, pulling ariel. setting it off and AVIATING at the same time?

Nick 123 HF has a few issues being size, weight and cost (if USA used them it would be better).

[Dick Smith]

Nick. So you are in your Robbie at 1000' agl about 100 miles south of Charleville .

You hit a bird and a massive vibration follows.

But rather than give a Pan or Mayday call on 121.5 (that you previously had set ) , you are going grab your elt and start putting up the antennae and turning it on !

Wow , with all the experts who I asked for advice not one made this suggestion.

[gerry111]

Perhaps imagine this situation? A mate of mine has flown his GA aircraft towards a popular spot in the Flinders Ranges. Something goes wrong and his engine fails. So he makes the appropriate radio calls but there's no response from anyone. He carries amongst his other survival tools, a modern 406 MHz PLB which is registered with AMSA. So before he carries out an emergency landing, he activates his PLB. What if I was the first person that would be called by AMSA if the device was activated and he couldn't be contacted?


Wouldn't that solve the issue for you, Dick?

[Dick Smith]

Gerry. Yes I agree. If no calls are answered I would have to rely on my ELT. But as I have explained -extensive testing I have done over a number of decades in some very remote places in this world show that 9 out of 10 times a pilot will get an immediate answer by calling on 121.5 .

If more GA aircraft monitor the frequency it will be even more likely to get a reply.

And as mentioned ATC can contact a VFR pilot they may have inadvertently flown into controlled airspace by requesting an IFR aircraft that is already on an ATC frequency to call on the 121.5 guard frequency. That's the reason the FAA has this 121.5 requirement for VFR aircraft.

[wishiwasupthere]

And as mentioned ATC can contact a VFR pilot they may have inadvertently flown into controlled airspace by requesting an IFR aircraft that is already on an ATC frequency to call on the 121.5 guard frequency. That's the reason the FAA has this 121.5 requirement for

So currently if ATC needs to speak to an aircraft they call the aircraft on centre, hopefully said aircraft responds, ATC passes on whatever they need to, and then the aircraft responds and everyone goes on thier way.

But you propose to have ATC calling some passing airliner, the airliner responding, ATC passing the message to them, airliner responding, airliner calling the VFR aircraft on 121.5, VFR aircraft responding, airliner passing on message, VFR aircraft responding, and then the airliner going back to the original frequency and letting ATC know the message has been passed on? Who cares if that's what they do in good ol' USA, that doesn't sound overly efficient. A lot of wasteful radio transmissions there.

[Capn Bloggs]

That's the reason the FAA has this 121.5 requirement for VFR aircraft.
My understanding (and I stand to be corrected) is that US ATC can transmit on 121.5. Australian ATC cannot.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

When I was 'in the business' we did not even monitor 121.5, let alone transmit on it.....

We had no capacity to do so - except on one very rare occasion in Derby during a "Kangaroo '83" military exercise when we were 'loaned' a portable "Bayside" VHF transceiver for the purposes of the exercise.

(And we actually used it to contact an aircraft which had otherwise 'nil contact'.)

I don't think that there has been any 'change' since......

Cheers :}

[Dick Smith]

No Wishi. In the US the airline simply makes an announcement "VFR aircraft overhead yyyyyy at 3500' if copying ,request call LAX Centre on XXX.XX."

Yes. The FAA has ground outlets at some locations on 121.5 but can and does use higher flying aircraft ( or intercept fighter) when an aircraft being called is not within coverage of a ground station. In Australia with our lower traffic densities we can save the cost of 121.5 ground stations by using existing aircraft radios.

In Aus I sometimes hear ATC calling a VFR aircraft on the map marked area frequency for different reasons. Often communication is not established. Probably because the pilot , after making 7 or 8 en route frequency changes, mis dialed the 9 th freq ! In the US just leave the radio on 121.5 if not flying in the approach or departure area of a marked CTAF.


Hope you are not looking for a way of making sure the simple FAA system can't work in Australia.

[Capn Bloggs]

when an aircraft being called is not within coverage of a ground station.

"When"? They wouldn't be on the ATC freq anyway because it's dangerous, isn't it?

[AbsoluteFokker]

With ADSB-OUT, if you squawked 7700 outside of the range of an ADSB ground station, does anything higher with ADSB-IN relay that? Does a advanced ADSB-IN installation display anything? If not, why not?

[Jabawocky]

Gerry………….I assume he made it. I spoke with him prior to departure. Made sure he knew what to do should AMSA need to find him :-)

[Aerodynamisist]

Slightly off topic, but some information worth sharing in this context.

On the g430/530 If you hold down the frequency flip button for a few seconds it will dial up 121.5

On the g650/750 (like the flash one in the picture) you can either push the volume knob in and hold it in for a few seconds, or if you have the remote flip button fitted, you can hold that down for a few seconds to dial up 121.5 .

[gerry111]

Jaba, PM sent!

[Dick Smith]

Nibbles I would only use 121.5 for an emergency purposes. It's a great one to monitor to assist others especially if an ELT is activated.

As I am old school I monitor Sydney Radar when in the lane with my number one radio but I don't make announcements on this frequency when it is ganged with Sydney departures. Don't want to be partially responsible for a serious airline incident or accident.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Re "In Australia with our lower traffic densities we can save the cost of 121.5 ground stations by using existing aircraft radios."

Agreed - it has always been this way and reasonably effective...

Cheers

[Old Akro]

I can't believe this debate is still going.

Years ago, Boyd Munro did an excellent job of raising this issue. He then published a paper on monitoring 121.5. It was on the remnants of the air safety foundation for a long time, but the thread he started on pprune is still here:

http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/123038-monitoring-121-5-australia.html

As for the guys that think ATC will hear you on area frequency or that ADS-B will have your position, all I can say is I want some of whatever you are on.

When you've declared an emergency on area frequency in the circuit at Bourke you can come back and talk to me.

Anytime you have a second radio doing nothing, it should be on 121.5. What earthly reason other than laziness would you have for not doing this?

[Lead Balloon]

When you've declared an emergency on area frequency in the circuit at Bourke you can come back and talk to me. The traffic that is within range to hear you on 121.5 will be in range to hear you on Area. Anytime you have a second radio doing nothing, it should be on 121.5.You don't even need to have a second radio. Some modern VHFs let you TX and RX on one frequency while monitoring another. A push of a button and it's active.

Walk me through the disadvantages of activating an ELT or PLB and transmitting a MAYDAY on Area.

What earthly reason other than laziness would you have for not being competent to activate an ELT or PLB in the air?

I think lots of people do not understand that an activated 406 ELT or PLB transmits on 121.5, and an activated 406 ELT or PLB with an inbuilt GPS will transmit accurate position information directly to people whose job it is to arrange help.

[Dick Smith]

But the ELT doesn't say what's wrong. A quick call on 121.5 is very likely to get an instant response almost everywhere.

" Kilo Tango Kilo ,engine failure- heading for the northern end of Lake Torrens, two on board "

[Fred Gassit]

Yep, that's fine but as stated before, it could take a week to search the northern end of a salt lake or "10 miles south of Upper Buckner West" the beacon, when activated, WILL get help overhead.

[Lead Balloon]

If you're transmitting a MAYDAY, Dick, it doesn't matter what's wrong. By definition, you consider the circumstances to be an emergency.

If you are in circumstances in which you consider a MAYDAY broadcast is justified, you are in circumstances in which activation of your ELT or PLB is justified.

I say again: Everyone who's in range to receive a MAYDAY on 121.5 is in range to receive a MAYDAY on Area.

I ask again: Walk me through the disadvantages of activating an ELT or PLB and transmitting a MAYDAY on Area.

[Old Akro]

Yep, that's fine but as stated before, it could take a week to search the northern end of a salt lake

I used to fly over Lake Torrens monthly, but frankly its not as remote as you imagine. Someone from Andamooka or Leigh Creek or one of the adjoining stations or mines won't take long. And you might be surprised at the number of vehicles that drive the perimeter. There are many other places that bother me more and some are a lot closer to home.

But, the point is that if something goes wrong you want everything going for you. We just installed a 406 MHz ELT despite it no longer being required. Plus I carry a PLB plus I would transmit on Area & 121.5 and these days the humble mobile phone might be best.

The point of this and the previous Boyd Munro thread is to highlight the sense of LISTENING (not talking) on 121.5. Over the years I've responded to a couple of requests on 121.5. Usually ATC looking for someone (an airline on at least one occasion) who is in one of our many VHF blackspots.

Australia is not very good at encouraging listening watch on 121.5 and we are one of the few countries where it is not monitored by ATC. But, somewhere remote, being picked up by an overhead airline might be more reliable than ATC.

This thread was initiated by Dick Smith highlighting the craziness of AMSA focusing on the area frequency for emergency response.

[gerry111]

"I ask again: Walk me through the disadvantages of activating an ELT or PLB and transmitting a MAYDAY on Area."


Goodness, Lead Balloon.. Please consider the RPT aluminium confetti that may result from such an irresponsible action!


My thought for those hiring GA aircraft and going on remote trips is simply this: Don't trust that the aircraft ELT actually works. So perhaps carry your own 406 MHz PLB(s) registered to AMSA? They are very cheap, these days.

[Plazbot]

Out of interest DICK, how did you test 121.5 as per your post above?

[Lead Balloon]

But, somewhere remote, being picked up by an overhead airline might be more reliable than ATC.I'd suggest that being picked up by an overhead airline will almost certainly be more reliable than contact with Centre if I'm low level and remote.

And the overhead airline aircraft will be monitoring .... Area and 121.5.

And an aircraft that is in range to hear a transmission on 121.5 is in range to hear a transmission on Area.

I ask again: Walk me through the disadvantages of activating my ELT or PLB as well as transmitting a MAYDAY on Area. It seems to me that I'm calling for help on 3 frequencies (121.5, 406 and Area), rather than just 1 frequency (121.5).

BTW: I don't particularly care what others choose to do to maximise their chances of getting assistance quickly in an emergency. I'm interested in my own backside and those of my passengers. I'm therefore keen to understand the disadvantages of having activation of my ELT (a half second action) and broadcast of MAYDAY on Area as SOP initial actions in an emergency.

Also BTW: I monitor 121.5 on all cross country flights.

[Dick Smith]

You are not well informed. In many areas in Australia the high level airlines are on an " area " frequency that is not marked on charts. The system is a complete stuff up.

[BuzzBox]

In many areas in Australia the high level airlines are on an " area " frequency that is not marked on charts.

If that's the case then why all the angst about aircraft broadcasting on area frequencies at unmarked airfields? If most of the airliners are on separate frequencies then surely the alleged perils are minimal. Blows your safety argument out of the water does it not?

[Lead Balloon]

You are not well informed. In many areas in Australia the high level airlines are on an " area " frequency that is not marked on charts. The system is a complete stuff up.Even if that is true, Dick, when I am in a place where it is true:

- the 'high level airlines' will hear my beacon on 121.5
- anyone else within range at lower levels will hear my MAYDAY on Area, and
- those MEOSAR satellites will hear my beacon on 406 and relay the GPS position info.

You seem to be advocating putting all your emergency eggs in one basket: MAYDAY on 121.5. I prefer to use every available tool (and still have the option to broadcast a MAYDAY on 121.5).

Charles Darwin will sort out who's right and who's wrong.

(Don't try to bring logic into this, Buzz. :=)

[Dick Smith]

In busy areas under the J curve I understand that many airlines are on the frequencies marked on charts. And only one call is necessary at the wrong time to block an important ATC instruction. That's why in other countries VFR are prohibited from making announcements and having discussions on control frequencies. Derr- commonsense.

[Dick Smith]

Pazbot. Really simple. " radio check on 121.5. - anyone copy?"

You will get an immediate answer nearly every time.

Yes. Of course I would turn on my beacon when practical to do so. This thread is looking at the AMSA statement on the best frequency to have preselected.

[Old Akro]

Even if that is true, Dick, when I am in a place where it is true:

- the 'high level airlines' will hear my beacon on 121.5
- anyone else within range at lower levels will hear my MAYDAY on Area, and
- those MEOSAR satellites will hear my beacon on 406 and relay the GPS position info.

We are really into risk mitigation / planning here rather than following some blind CASA mnemonic.

With the low GA traffic density that we have - the chances that someone GA will hear you on area frequency anywhere that you won't force land near a house is tattslotto territory.

With the poor coverage our ATC VHF system has at low levels (below 10,000ft), frankly I don't want to bet my life on a call on area frequency being heard.

If you go down in the metropolitan or farming areas of Australia, frankly this is all redundant because someone will see you.

The objective is not to declare an emergency or tell someone what happened. The objective is solely to have someone come to your aid on the ground. A farmer seeing you and calling 000 will do it.

In terms of a radio call, the highest probability that someone will hear you is an airline on 121.5.

ELT's are fine in theory, and psychologically comforting, but frankly the evidence overwhelming that they don't go off reliably in a crash. I might add that despite knowing this, we installed a 406 MHz ELT as part of our ADS-B upgrade.

If your aircraft still has an old 121.5 ELT, its batteries by now are very suspect. And beacon broadcasts on 121.5 are very difficult to locate. 121.5 has very marginal benefit for beacon transmission. If you don't have a 406 MHz ELT with GPS interlink, you're better off with an EPIRB.

Which brings us to a PLB or EPIRB. Where is yours? In the bottom of a flight bag? When will you trigger it? In flight, will you have time or be busy flying the aircraft and dealing with the emergency? On the ground, will you be conscious? Do your passengers know how to set it off? Have you briefed them? Do they know where to find it?

Frankly, I think the logic is inescapable that you should be monitoring 121.5 and that using it for an emergency call should be part of your emergency protocol

[Lead Balloon]

ELT's are fine in theory, and psychologically comforting, but frankly the evidence overwhelming that they don't go off reliably in a crash.That's why my practised SOP is to turn it on before the crash. Even a few seconds of transmission on 121.5 and 406 before the damage in the crash may be enough alert rescue authorities and provide location information.I might add that despite knowing this, we installed a 406 MHz ELT as part of our ADS-B upgrade.A very good idea, in my opinion.If your aircraft still has an old 121.5 ELT, its batteries by now are very suspect.And you are, in my opinion, stupid and Charles Darwin will have you in his sights, if you think an old 121.5 ELT with timex batteries is an effective risk mitigation strategy. And beacon broadcasts on 121.5 are very difficult to locate. 121.5 has very marginal benefit for beacon transmission. If you don't have a 406 MHz ELT with GPS interlink, you're better off with an EPIRB.If you don't have a 406 MHZ ELT or PLB or EPIRB with GPS 'interlink' you are, in my opinion, stupid and Charles Darwin will have you in his sights.

Which brings us to a PLB or EPIRB. Where is yours? In the bottom of a flight bag?If it's in the bottom of your flight bag, you are, in my opinion, stupid and Charles Darwin will have you in his sights.When will you trigger it? In flight, will you have time or be busy flying the aircraft and dealing with the emergency?Mine's on my hip and I practice activating it in the air. Less than 3 seconds. On the ground, will you be conscious? Do your passengers know how to set it off? Have you briefed them? Do they know where to find it?All of which points up the prudence, in my opinion, of activating all ELTs, PLBs and EPIRBs in the air, having practised doing it.Frankly, I think the logic is inescapable that you should be monitoring 121.5 and that using it for an emergency call should be part of your emergency protocolAnd frankly, so far as I can tell, you've not explained the disadvantages of broadcasting a MAYDAY on Area.

If the assumption is that people are flying around with old 121.5 ELTs with time expired batteries, and a PLB in the bottom of a flight bag that's inaccessible and impractical to activate because no one has practised or been briefed on the process, I agree absolutely: Those people should cry for help long and hard on 121.5.

But please don't assume everyone's that stupid.

[Band a Lot]

Quote - "And frankly, so far as I can tell, you've not explained the disadvantages of broadcasting a MAYDAY on Area."


I have not read on here that anyone does not monitor 121.5 (particularly remote x country) and that the airlines all monitor 121.5 and not all airlines will be on "your Area" frequency.


So the disadvantage of a Mayday call on Area is a lower target audience number.


If a cockpit fire and only 1 short call before comms lost, would you rather a small/none audience listening or all available listening?

P.S. always set off beacon before impact and check the old batteries in the old fixed 121.5 ELT units many were just D cells and at least they have a G switch.

[Car RAMROD]

Quick survey, how many times have each of you heard a mayday call whilst in Australian airspace on area and on 121.5?

For me:
Area maydays - 1
121.5 maydays - 0

[Lead Balloon]

But Band, you keep overlooking or avoiding the fact that I already have a plan to transmit on 121.5 (and 406): with (1) the ELT fitted to the aircraft (1 second to switch on) (2) the PLB on my hip (3 seconds to extend the antenna and push the activate button) in accordance with practised procedure and (3), if I have pax, by them activating the spare PLB in the pocket behind my seat in accordance with the pre-briefed procedure.

If there is anyone in range to hear the beacon/s transmitting on 121.5, there's a fair chance they'll be in range to hear a MAYDAY on Area.

Then there's my HF that's already tuned to the Flightwatch frequency...

If people are flying around in remote areas with old ELTs and PLBs with time expired batteries, that's relevant to their procedures in an emergency, not mine. Charles Darwin will deal with them.

[Band a Lot]

At 8 am 40 miles from a city on landing a bunch of roos jumped out, I ended up in the trees my legs pinned. My flight bag with 406 GPS ELT was thrown 6 inches from my reach and I was bleeding badly.

The airfield has low traffic use daily normally but has its own area frequency.

My radios work fine but no-one will can hear my calls for help. I see several jets flying over head, but they do not respond (I hear then talk to the city on the city area frequency). The airliners have now passed and my bleeding is worse so I call the city area frequency but as I am low they not hear my calls.

AS I start to fade I select 12


But time is gone just as I am - I lost my chance on my 1 call for help, and I could see the help pass overhead the contra trail were so clear and they will see me at 4.30pm when a chopper lands for the night stay.

[Band a Lot]

Lead first hand I have seen the errors with the GPS location & secondly there is a 30 minute + delay in deployment unless confirmed ELT not set off by mistake (a Mayday call confirms emergency).

[Lead Balloon]

I am genuinely sad to note that as a consequence of your terrible accident, Band, you've been rendered as mad a box of illiterate frogs. Hopefully medical science will achieve a breakthrough cure before it's too late.

The next time I do a forced landing in the middle of the Simpson or Strzlecki Desert and I'm not rescued within 30 minutes, I'll undoubtedly learn my lesson. :ok:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

In the 'ole days' LB, s t r a n g e r t h I n g s have happened.

And in the 'strangest places'....pure co-incidence mind you, like a Beaver Float plane 'putting down' just after t/o up in the Kimberley near Kuri Bay....couldn't be any more 'remote'...would you believe 'we' had a boat to him inside 20mins....even the pilot was surprised....pleasantly this time.....

So much for 'local knowledge'.....

Cheers :D

[Band a Lot]

Actually its Cane Toads crossing the Little Sandy Desert @ Cotton Creek and a 441 that was bogged while turning so the Doctor told me.

Tallawana track and Canning Stock route was a bonus + knowing where masses of ULP/Distillates / Jet 1 and Avgas are gives me comfort to this day.

[gerry111]

OK. So it is now firmly established that responsible GA pilots monitor 121.5 if they have a VHF radio to do so. And Area Frequency if they have a radio to do so. And CTAF if they have a.....


Forget about ELTs, 'Band a Lot'. A modern, inexpensive 406 MHz PLB clipped to your belt would have been what you really needed that day. And you'd have had the absolute joy of knowing that you controlled your own destiny.


(That's assuming that you had it registered with AMSA.)

[sru]

After 10 years or so responding / operating in the SAR environment, our SOP's, if we are in the poo, are to communicate on all appropriate VHF frequency's (the first being Area if we have established coms then 121.5) and whatever other means we have available at the time and THEN turn on the ELT / PLB .... the rational being when the ELT / PLB is activated communications on 121.5 (and frequencies close to this) may not be possible due to the homing signal.

[Band a Lot]

Forget about ELTs, 'Band a Lot'. A modern, inexpensive 406 MHz PLB clipped to your belt

Like the one out in the water from a driving MP from W.A 20 miles offshore (GPS 406 unit) cops did not know it did 121. 5 too , so said was not near hear on my base station.

[gerry111]

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?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

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 :eek:

[Band a Lot]

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.

[Dick Smith]

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.

[wishiwasupthere]

You must have an interesting interpretation of the word 'constantly'.

[Capn Bloggs]

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!

Garbage! There are thousands of calls made by hundreds of pilots an hour and you might hear one Guard call an hour if you're lucky. If you're relying on accidental calls on 121.5 to confirm your set is working you really do have no idea of the real world, Dick.

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.
YOU closed down the AFIS. It's your fault pilots don't have a third party. In any case, ever heard of a beep-back??

[Agrajag]

Great. I think most informed flyers agree that on balance the best frequency to have preselected for an urgent mayday call is 121.5.No, they don't agree at all. The informed flyers use the frequency most relevant to the circumstances they're currently in, which for 99.99% of the time is not an emergency.

It's also very simple compared to changing frequencies all the time as the flight progresses .True enough. I cannot fathom how we manage the strain of changing knobs on a radio once in a while. Similarly, retracting the gear after takeoff is becoming a bit too complex for me in my declining years, especially as I'm only going to have to lower it again when I arrive. Might just start leaving it down for the duration....

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!That's right. Whatever you do, don't use that radio as a means of talking to anyone, especially Big Bad ATC, to tell them what you're doing.

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. Dick, I thought I'd already seen the depths to which you'd plumb in order to twist every topic around to your favourite. But here we go again. It's like playing online whack-a-mole.

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?

[Dick Smith]

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

[Agrajag]

Agra. I can see why you are so agro. Never said not to call ATC. Just the opposite. I wasn't aggro when the day started!

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 Says bloody who? Not ATC, that's for sure. There's only one voice pushing that line, and it's becoming increasingly lonely. The rest of us are doing our best to work within the existing system so that everyone is on the same page, instead of applying our own arbitrary policies. If you'd ever spent time doing this for a job, you'd have some idea of how important that is.

[Dick Smith]

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 ?

[Agrajag]

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?Indeed I am. There has been no recorded case of such a transmission being responsible for an incident. And please don't pretend that's because everyone has heeded your advice and kept quiet. That's megalomania on an epic scale.

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:yuk:

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 ? Again, not any of the ATCs I've talked to in the real world. Nor any of the jet transport pilots, or any of the GA guys.

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.

[Jabberwocky82]

...As I am old school I monitor Sydney Radar when in the lane with my number one radio but I don't make announcements on this frequency when it is ganged with Sydney departures. Don't want to be partially responsible for a serious airline incident or accident.
This made me chuckle a little, I remember during my training having a black 109 go past me quietly on the right hand side as I was cruising up the lane making all of my calls. At least you gave your reasons. The lack of professionalism (unrelated to above)in that Bankstown lane area is disturbing, I hate working in there, surely it could be paired with victor one, northern beaches etc and taken away from the Sydney departures frequencies.
I might start monitoring 121.5 after reading this thread though, makes a lot of sense.

[Dick Smith]

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.

[Band a Lot]

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

[buckshot1777]

And there have been serious breakdown of separation incidents blamed by ATCs on VFR communications on ATC frequencies. This claim is news.

Specific details of the incidents?

[Band a Lot]

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.

[Band a Lot]

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,

[AbsoluteFokker]

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?

[Dick Smith]

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.

[Lead Balloon]

Band and Dick: Would you really like us to take anything published by the ATSB as gospel? Really? Just say the word. :ok:

BTW: It's 2016. There have been some technological advances in the last 20 years. Inside toilets and reliable PLBs. :ok:

[Dick Smith]

ATSB were simply quoting the claim of the ATC in relation to a VFR pilot constantly announcing on an ATC frequency.

Surely the same excuse will be offered if a similar problem exists in the future. It sounds a reasonable explanation to me . It's why other regulators do not allow VFR to make announcements on ATC separation control frequencies.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hey Mr Fokker,

You must have a BIG Fokker and a BIG wallet to put all of that into your Fokker.....

I've only got a 'little fokker' and a little fokking wallet to finance my little fokker....

No Cheers....cain't afford it.....:eek:

[Band a Lot]

Is Australia a ICAO member?

http://www.icao.int/APAC/Meetings/2015%20SRWG2/SP03_ICAO%20Emergency%20frequency%20-%20rev.pdf




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).

6. ICAO recommends that all aircraft monitor 121.5 at all times to the extent possible.


CASA is responsible for implementing Australia's obligations under Annexes 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14 and 18 of the Chicago Convention

[buckshot1777]

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.OK, so it was only one incident, 20 years ago, not many more as you inferred :rolleyes: and there were other more serious causal factors than communicating with a VFR aircraft who was being provided with a RAS.

Given the ATC vertical resectorisation since then, the likelihood has been reduced.

[Dick Smith]

I know if I was a professional ATC doing Sydney departures I wouldn't want aircraft in the light aircraft lane yakking on my frequency.

There are plenty of frequencies available for VFR to do that !

But you have a different view.

[F.Nose]

Getting back to the original post.

So you are Autorotating from 1000agl in your R22 after the engine/drive belts/clutch shaft fails. Which hand do you use to activate the ELT/PLB? The one that is preserving your life by holding the collective lever down? or The one that is preserving your life by guiding you to a place of landing and ensuring you have adequate airspeed to pull off the landing? Which hand do you use to change radio frequencies for that matter?

The truth is, if you are concentrating on anything other than landing the machine at the best available or only spot....you aren't going to make it!

So the answer is, you put out your Mayday call on which ever frequency you have selected at the time. Once safely on the ground....worry about the rest.

If in a fixed wing and you have a little more time it makes sense to use 121.5. You may not be in radio range of anyone on local LOW area frequency and any jet traffic will be on a HIGH area frequency.

Forget about groping around trying to find/turn on your ELT/PLB... what bloody nonsense! From 1000' you should be concentrating only on flying the aircraft.

Furthermore... It is almost a guarantee that jet traffic somewhere will hear you on 121.5, unless of course there is a bloody ELT squawking its head off.

[Band a Lot]

In a chopper you still need to aviate, navigate communicate and if you were just in communication with someone you could make a call possibly or you could have 121.5 selected for transmitting and switch to Area when a call is required.


switching on your PLB prior to impact is great if possible but it has a 60 second delay before transmitting so must survive the impact to help at low levels.


It is up to the pilot to determine the best frequency to make a emergency call on based on best chance of being heard.


If as is required all aircraft monitor 121.5, then unless you are currently chatting with someone on a frequency obviously the best emergency frequency based on chance of being heard would be 121.5. Simply I think, many have found that boring and prefer some other channel that is not in the interest of safety.

[Old Akro]

If as is required all aircraft monitor 121.5, then unless you are currently chatting with someone on a frequency obviously the best emergency frequency based on chance of being heard would be 121.5. Simply I think, many have found that boring and prefer some other channel that is not in the interest of safety.

What other channel? You get the ABC on the ADF, not a comms radio. You can listen to the ABC on ADF or you iPhone via Bluetooth and still have a listening watch on 121.5. Anyone cruising above 3,000 ft AGL who doesn't have the second radio tuned to 121.5 is guilty of poor airmanship.

Anyone cruising below 3,000ft is in a J3 cub and having a blast with the radio turned off.

[Dick Smith]

Re ICAO - we are a sovereign country and only have to notify a difference. So I am not so sure about "requires"

However as I and others have said in most cases 121,5 is the best frequency to have pre selected for a mayday call.

AMSA should correct their information.

[Lead Balloon]

Band a Lot and yr right seem to share a common characteristic of selective stupidity. Must be very debilitating to be unable to post anything but incoherent drivel one day, yet be able to structure coherent sentences and arguments the next. It must be fantastic to be able occasionally to cite ICAO recommendations with crystal clarity despite the disability. Whatever the medicine is, keep it up!

Don't conflate the 'obligation' (or ICAO recommendation) to monitor 121.5 with the frequency on which a voice communication is most likely to result in timely assistance.

Who said this: It is up to the pilot to determine the best frequency to make a emergency call on based on best chance of being heard.

As I've said before, if you want to put all your MAYDAY eggs in the 121.5 basket, go for it. Broadcast long and loud on 121.5. There are lots of people monitoring 121.5.

Others can choose to activate their ELT or PLB (or in my case, both) to take advantage of all those people monitoring 121.5, and the satellites listening to 406, as well as broadcast a MAYDAY on Area.

But I'm stupid. :ok:

[Band a Lot]

"Re ICAO - we are a sovereign country and only have to notify a difference."


That after much searching I can not find. But as above it is CASA to implement Annex 6. That includes this "ICAO requires that all aircraft monitor 121.5 at all times in areas where ELTs must be carried (which includes the whole of Australia)."


"CASA is responsible for implementing Australia's obligations under Annexes 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14 and 18 of the Chicago Convention"


source -https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/safety/ssp/chapter_1.2.aspx

[Band a Lot]

Lead as you are making your call on Area and the other good folk are all monitoring 121.5 as well as maybe Area.


Your call will be very much interrupted with a dam awful repeating serein like noise that will grab all others attention, but not your actual call.

[AbsoluteFokker]

PLBs/ETLs should have pre-recorded message in mp3 format on a SD stick.

I have dodgy football team theme song cards that can do better.

[BuzzBox]

Band a Lot:

https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/international/icao/

Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs)

The Chicago Convention provides (Article 37) for the Council of ICAO to make standards and recommended practices dealing with a wide range of matters concerned with the safety, regularity and efficiency of air navigation. The current standards and recommended practices are published by ICAO as Annexes to the Chicago Convention. This list also shows the agency responsible for each Annex.

More information about Annexes is available from the ICAO website. Copies of the annexes are available from ICAO or they may be accessed at major libraries. Annexes may also be inspected at the Library of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, Canberra telephone (02) 6274 7641 (business hours).


Notification of Differences to Standards and Recommended Practices

Article 38 of the Convention requires, where a State finds it impracticable to comply in all respects with a standard, or to bring its own regulations or practices into full accord with a standard, that notification be given to ICAO.

Such notification is referred to as a “difference” and is published by ICAO in Supplements to each Annex.

Contracting States are also required by Annex 15 to publish their differences in their Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP). The Australian AIP is published by Airservices Australia.

[Band a Lot]

OK Buzzbox the same department says this.

https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/safety/ssp/chapter_1.2.aspx


"CASA is responsible for implementing Australia's obligations under Annexes 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14 and 18 of the Chicago Convention"


Annex 6 being the key.




As a side note - a call on 121.5 is not only more likely to be heard, but also by aircraft that will record any important information said on a CVR. It alone may be a thing to save a few lives.

[BuzzBox]

Band a Lot:

Yes, CASA is responsible for implementing Australia's obligations under the various Annexes of the Chicago Convention. Nevertheless, if a State finds it "impracticable" to comply with ICAO SARPS, it only has to notify a "difference" to ICAO. Without getting into the 121.5 argument, Australia has filed 100s of differences with ICAO - they are published as a supplement to the AIP. The current supplement is available on the Airservices website:

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/s15-h104.pdf

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

In 10 years on the console, I heard 4 Mayday calls, one on area, the other three on HF (it was a Designated Remote Area). All were answered either by me or another ground station. One of the HF ones was a relay (maybe), and was from another pilot who witnessed the crash, (the victim had no time to transmit, we had VHF in the CCT there and he said nothing on VHF while airborne). It would be interesting to know how many are actually relayed in by other aircraft, be they high flyers hearing something on 121.5, or otherwise. This whole argument may in fact be pointless.

[Old Akro]

Traffic etc...

Thanks for a post with something objective.

A year or so, I had a gear issue in the circuit in Bourke and had trouble on Area.

I've also had to relay calls to airlines that were not reachable on area (Merimbula)

And I regularly fly through the blackspot near Nhill.

My memory is hazy, but I reckon once I had a call relayed to me from an airline on 121.5 - or vice versa. But I can't recall the circumstance. A faulty Comm1 may have been involved.

So, while I hear your comments, I still mistrust Australia's VHF network and I think its getting worse, not better with technology. So, I'd rather have comm2 on 121.5 rather than sitting fat dumb & happy with it on some irrelevant CTAF frequency from miles behind.

[Lead Balloon]

**sigh**

Who said don't monitor 121.5?

Who said leave your spare VHF on an operationally irrelevant frequency?

:ugh:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

From CASA today.....

"Radio frequency discussion paper
A discussion paper is to be released to canvass issues relating to radio frequency use by pilots operating by the visual flight rules in uncontrolled airspace. This follows a teleconference between CASA and Regional Airspace and Procedures Advisory Committee conveners in April 2016. The meeting was called by CASA’s Director of Aviation Safety Mark Skidmore after continued debate in the aviation community about the most appropriate frequency to choose when operating outside controlled airspace at or near aerodromes not marked on aeronautical charts. CASA has previously advised that the most appropriate frequency to use in class G airspace at or near unmarked aerodromes is the VHF area frequency. However, some pilots are still using the multicom frequency 126.7 which may be causing some confusion. The discussion paper will be released during 2016 and CASA will be looking for everyone from sports pilots to regular public transport operators to comment on the issues. CASA will carefully consider all viewpoints before reaching a final position on the most appropriate frequency use in class G airspace. Until the consultation process is finalised CASA urges all pilots to follow the current advice on frequency choice in class G airspace which is to use the VHF area frequency.

Find the advisory information on operations at non-controlled aerodromes."

So there......

Cheers:D

[Chronic Snoozer]

I don't think it can be fairer than that.

[Sunfish]

Bravo!!!!!

[Band a Lot]

CASA are meant to implement Annex 6,


Industry is on 123.45


CASA advises use Area.


Yep ops normal.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

IN the 'industry', when 'committing aviation' and you heard a colleague 'on air', the usual inviting transmission was - 'See U on the Numbers' - and the response was simply a 'click click' on the button.....

The 'numbers' being 123.4....And one went there to exchange the 'local goss'.... UNTIL they became a 'frequency' somewhere....

In WA, the Newman Area Freq became 123.4, so that stopped that, unless the guys and gals (In WA) KNEW that, and they were far enuf away so as not to....interfere?

119.1 was an 'Aero Club' freq. in the 'ole days' and used similarly....

Don't know about ICAO being consulted though....

Cheers:ok:

[Lead Balloon]

The 'numbers' are now 123.45.

Eavesdropped on a group of aircraft doing an Anzac Day fly-over at Condobolin on Monday morning coordinating their activities on it. :ok:

I still don't get people like Band a Lot who seem not to be able to comprehend that it's possible to monitor more than one frequency.

[On eyre]

Maybe some common sense will come out of this at last.
Multi com 126.7 for all ops B050 for all landing places OCTA except where a specific CTAF frequency is allocated. IFR aircraft usually with two Comms would then have to listen out/broadcast on the multicom passing 5000' on descent as appropriate. Problem solved and no unnecessary transmissions on area ATS frequencies.

[Old Akro]

The 'numbers' are now 123.45.

123.45 has been the unofficial "gossip" frequency for 30 years or more. We had another unofficial frequency for aerobatic training as well.

119.1 used to be the accepted default airport frequency until CASA needed to re-organise to give the appearance of progress, so it became 126.7

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

And by the way, frequency congestion never seemed to be a problem in the 70's & 80's when there was a) more GA traffic and b) we were all on full reporting with calls at every waypoint and c) we got full flight service on area frequency, with weather, etc on request.

[Capn Bloggs]

119.1 used to be the accepted default airport frequency until CASA needed to re-organise to give the appearance of progress, so it became 126.7

CASA?? You mean Dick Smith...

[Band a Lot]

Quote-
" I still don't get people like Band a Lot who seem not to be able to comprehend that it's possible to monitor more than one frequency."


Most craft I know have 2 VHF and maybe a HF. 1 VHF com is needed for general communication in Area/s so I think the other should monitor 121.5 as a HF can not.

If you have 3 VHF that is great, but to monitor Area and gossip channel I personally think is not the safest way to get vital info out in a emergency.

123.45 is not monitored for a emergency use but uses more transmitting time than most Area frequencies.

[Lead Balloon]

Most craft I know have 2 VHF and maybe a HF. 1 VHF com is needed for general communication in Area/s so I think the other should monitor 121.5 as a HF can not.

If you have 3 VHF that is great...You don't need 3 VHFs to monitor 3 VHF frequencies.

There have been VHF RX/TX products available for quite some time that have the function of monitoring a different frequency to the active frequency. E.g.: https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/in-the-air/discontinued/sl40/prod6440.html. I note this from the link:The [product's] frequency-monitoring function gives you the ability to monitor ATIS or the 121.5 emergency frequency without leaving your assigned ATC channel. This allows you to listen to standby frequencies while giving priority to the active channel, meaning you'll never miss a transmission.

2 of those products on board and you can listen to 4 VHF frequencies!

[Band a Lot]

Depends the type of radio Lead,


2 of those products on board and you can listen to 4 VHF frequencies!

[Lead Balloon]

A deeply insightful statement of the bleeding obvious. :ok:

[CaptainMidnight]

1 VHF com is needed for general communication in Area/s so I think the other should monitor 121.5

My 2 cents FWIW:


Com 1: FIA, Class E or whatever frequency communicating with/listening to ATC on;
Com 2: switched between CTAFs approaching or in the vicinity thereof, other times sits on 126.7

Thus theoretically the "whole" traffic picture is obtained.

[Dick Smith]

Yair Bandalot . Definitely VFR should be monitoring and answering four frequencies in our Australian system. Only way to achieve a successful safety outcome .

Those stupid Americans with 30 times the amount of traffic are ICAO compliant and don't even have a radio requirement for VFR in E and G.

Four frequencies against none. No wonder we are a leader in the world in red tape , complexity and bureaucracy.

And it's generally those in the industry who want and support this additional complexity . No understanding of copying the most proven system in the world.

I note that most of the members of RAPAC who want the simple US type CTAF system for the frequency of non mapped airports still want the 1950s ATC frequency boundaries on the charts here in an attempt to keep the extra complexity and resist any change to the system they were taught on.

[Vref+5]

What is the point of broadcasting your location on area, when it's more than likely no-one knows where the location of your position actually is? "All stations,,, all stations, can you hear me?? ABC is, arghh, 7 miles west of Fred's house, 1000 feet , tracking to join the circuit on a left crosswind, runway, arghh, 24" It's absolutely pointless doing that. You're better getting off the primary frequency and onto a specific one ie 126.7. When the traffic levels are sufficiently high, the aerodrome gets a dedicated frequency.

Shouldn't the discussion paper actually be HAZID workshops? Attended by a cross section of the aviation industry? Where hazards are identified etc etc???

[Lead Balloon]

It would be "absolutely pointless" to make that broadcast on any frequency. If the standards of training and airmanship deteriorate to the point at which a pilot would consider otherwise, the industry will have far bigger problems to deal with.

And Dick: I was only making the point that you don't need 2 VHFs to be able to monitor 2 VHF frequencies. Even if you are successful in getting VHF removed as a requirement for VFR aircraft in ForG and E in Australia, people can still choose to have VHF. And I thought it was you advocating the benefits of monitoring and broadcasting MAYDAY on 121.5 in an emergency. Bit difficult to broadcast a MAYDAY on 121.5 if you don't have a VHF. (Of course, an ELT and PLB that comply with the required standards will transmit on 121.5 as well as 406 ..:ok:..)

[Old Akro]

I note that most of the members of RAPAC who want the simple US type CTAF

Dick, I caught out AsA blatantly lying to RAPAC on Navaids in the Melbourne basin. I think CASA / AsA treats RAPAC with disdain and uses them just when they need to say they have had industry consultation.

One of the great unanswered questions is what provision AsA is making for navaid training / currency in the major training hubs around Australia.

Periodically, I go through the RAPAC minutes. I'd encourage everyone to do that and see how much their scope is limited. Try reading the November 2015 Victorian minutes regarding CTAF frequencies.

The guys on RAPAC I know are smart guys with good intent. But the information flow to RAPAC and the agenda is controlled by CASA / AsA.

I think one of the problems with our system is that we essentially have 5 levels of users, each with their own rules / protocols and each of these groups have very little understanding of how the others operate.

My 5 levels / groups are:
1. Airline / upper FL traffic
2. IFR / higher level / long distance VFR
3. VFR VH
4. RA Aus
5. Gliders

Some of this has been evident in this tread. Clearly the guys advocating jumping from one CTAF frequency to another don't cruise at my levels - let alone jet / pressurised levels. Its not often that a LSALT will allow me to cruise at a level that would have conflicting traffic - even if I wanted to. At my normal 8,000ft - 10,000ft cruise I have no benefit from monitoring CTAF frequencies with traffic that is below 3,000ft.

The much, much, much higher rates of pilots who are IFR rated in the US (aside from enhancing safety) mean that more people understand the broader system. CASA's discouraging of people gaining IFR ratings (via overly complex training, ADS-B, aircraft inspection regimes) is scandalous.

I don't know how the US deals with LSA. But my observation is that few RA Aus pilots have any idea of the normal VFR protocols and treat the radio like a car CB.

Recently, I was at a regional Victorian airfield listening to 2 aircraft from a prominent Moorabbin school on the CTAF frequency. They were over 20nm apart, but had long detailed discussions about what levels they should be flying to be clear of each other.

Something is very wrong with our system and / or discipline. But read the Nov Victorian RAPAC minutes, the the NSW ones and you'd despair that CASA will ever get their hands dirty and engage with the real issues of pilots.

[Sunfish]

Old Akro, yes, something is very wrong with our system. From my experience, there is no specific training provided in the PPL, let alone RAA, regarding avoiding air to air incidents. We are taught "the rules of the road" and circuit joining and departure procedures, standard radio calls, etc,but not how to put all that together into a coherent set of behaviors consistent with good airmanship - that is not part of the syllabus! So much for competence based training!

My experiences therefore include: trying to land in the wrong direction at Maree because the Lake Eyre NOTAM confused me about appropriate broadcast frequencies in the vicinity of the circuit; learning that "oblique downwind" really means edging into downwind with your eyes over your left shoulder (sorry to the Twin driver), getting forcibly reminded that the join is at 1500 ft for good reason and numerous attempts to communicate with students of a Melbourne flying school West of that city who are too scared to say anything at all, even when it looks like they are heading for the same waypoint and will pass within 100 meters.

My "airmanship" now equates to something like orbiting immediately I get a garbled transmission that indicates another aircraft may be nearby unless I can establish Two way comms with the other pilot. If I hear an RPT aircraft heading for the circuit my initial reaction is to run and hide until it's clear. Frankly, I have no faith in anyone's ability these days and my airmanship "training" has been from scaring myself or being growled at by other pilots.

And a pet peeve of mine: experienced pilots who seem to follow the old (Military - artillery) habit of confusing professionalism with speaking as fast as they can as one word: "traffiswunhillcesntwoohsixtenmilsouondescentforwunsevtraffis wunhi" and expect that the rest of us to understand and comprehend.