Monitoring 121.5 in Australia
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Established.
Age: 53
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Over 250 posts so far. Perhaps I support Pprune by posting regularly.
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 :|
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 :|
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?
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?
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
V1OOPS
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.[
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.
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.[
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Over 250 posts so far. Perhaps I support Pprune by posting regularly.
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Having seen his probing fail to achieve the hoped-for results, it would seem Boyd's become bored with his expedition into pprune.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: queensland australia
Age: 77
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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.
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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?
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 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?
Props are for boats!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: An Asian Hub
Age: 56
Posts: 994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
A river to my people
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: No fixed abode, No 29a
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Props are for boats!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: An Asian Hub
Age: 56
Posts: 994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now here's a thought
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: bRISBANE
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
.
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
.