Monitoring 121.5 in Australia
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Strathallan, Relaxed, Scotland
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monitoring 121.5 in Australia
For the most part we Australian pilots are not trained to monitor the International Distress Frequency 121.5 when flying en route, but there are powerful reasons why we should.
1. We are instantly available to another pilot who experiences an emergency in the air, or crashes but still has a working radio and calls on the International Distress Frequency. This is not merely good airmanship, it is responsible citizenship.
2. We can pick up ELT signals, so if another pilot crashes we can bring help to him. ELT signals are also picked up by satellites but hours can elapse before one of those satellites passes over the accident site, and if the ELT’s antenna was damaged in the crash the high-flying satellite may not be able to pick up the signal at all. Airmanship/citizenship again.
3. We can be contacted at any time. For example “Aircraft at position X, you are entering restricted area R123 and will be intercepted unless you make a 180 turn and leave the area forthwith.”
4. All airlines monitor 121.5 en route.
5. ICAO requires that all aircraft monitor 121.5 at all times in areas where ELTs must be carried (which includes the whole of Australia). See Annex 12, Vol 2, para 5.2.2.1.1.1,
6. ICAO recommends that all aircraft monitor 121.5 at all times to the extent possible – see para 5.2.2.1.1.3.
7. If you crash and survive but are injured, 121.5 is, overall, the best frequency to use to summon assistance. A call on 121.5 is almost always answered anywhere in the world except in the polar regions. That’s because of the large number of good airmen and good citizens who monitor 121.5 when flying en route.
8. An intercepting aircraft is required by ICAO Annex 2 to call us on 121.5 before shooting us down.
Until 27th November last year, the Australian recommendation (it was never a requirement) was that we should monitor the “Area Frequency” whilst en route VFR. The Australian recommendation now is that we monitor an appropriate frequency.
What reasons are there why 121.5 should not be considered, along with other frequencies, when making the decision about the appropriate frequency to monitor?
And why doesn't ATC monitor 121.5 in Australia?
I personally monitor 121.5 without thinking why - it's just something I do, like getting dressed before I leave the house in the morning.
1. We are instantly available to another pilot who experiences an emergency in the air, or crashes but still has a working radio and calls on the International Distress Frequency. This is not merely good airmanship, it is responsible citizenship.
2. We can pick up ELT signals, so if another pilot crashes we can bring help to him. ELT signals are also picked up by satellites but hours can elapse before one of those satellites passes over the accident site, and if the ELT’s antenna was damaged in the crash the high-flying satellite may not be able to pick up the signal at all. Airmanship/citizenship again.
3. We can be contacted at any time. For example “Aircraft at position X, you are entering restricted area R123 and will be intercepted unless you make a 180 turn and leave the area forthwith.”
4. All airlines monitor 121.5 en route.
5. ICAO requires that all aircraft monitor 121.5 at all times in areas where ELTs must be carried (which includes the whole of Australia). See Annex 12, Vol 2, para 5.2.2.1.1.1,
6. ICAO recommends that all aircraft monitor 121.5 at all times to the extent possible – see para 5.2.2.1.1.3.
7. If you crash and survive but are injured, 121.5 is, overall, the best frequency to use to summon assistance. A call on 121.5 is almost always answered anywhere in the world except in the polar regions. That’s because of the large number of good airmen and good citizens who monitor 121.5 when flying en route.
8. An intercepting aircraft is required by ICAO Annex 2 to call us on 121.5 before shooting us down.
Until 27th November last year, the Australian recommendation (it was never a requirement) was that we should monitor the “Area Frequency” whilst en route VFR. The Australian recommendation now is that we monitor an appropriate frequency.
What reasons are there why 121.5 should not be considered, along with other frequencies, when making the decision about the appropriate frequency to monitor?
And why doesn't ATC monitor 121.5 in Australia?
I personally monitor 121.5 without thinking why - it's just something I do, like getting dressed before I leave the house in the morning.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Boyd, agreed. It was an SOP an Ansett to monitor 121.5 on the VHF2 whilst en-route. I am pretty sure QF and DJ do it too. Certainly all international operaters do. When flying GA PVT in Oz I too always monitor 121.5 if a second com is available. I mean, why have equipment switched off when you can use it for something usfull?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“And why doesn't ATC monitor 121.5 in Australia?”
Maybe because the propagation characteristic of VHF RF signals are line of sight, resulting in a very restricted radius of coverage and inaccurate signal bearings from ATC receivers. Conversely, the Australian marine and aviation search and rescue centres obtain excellent, constant coverage of 121.5 MHz signals via satellite and down link to dedicated ground stations around the world, capable of establishing the beacon source, in a very timely and efficient manner, within a few miles?
Why confuse the professional, dedicated rescue service with inaccurate information from a ground based ATC receiver?
Perhaps your question should be: “Why isn’t it a mandatory requirement that all aviation emergency beacons transmit on 121.5 MHz and 243 MHz and be encoded with the aircraft registration and last known coordinates from an on board GPS?”
Maybe because the propagation characteristic of VHF RF signals are line of sight, resulting in a very restricted radius of coverage and inaccurate signal bearings from ATC receivers. Conversely, the Australian marine and aviation search and rescue centres obtain excellent, constant coverage of 121.5 MHz signals via satellite and down link to dedicated ground stations around the world, capable of establishing the beacon source, in a very timely and efficient manner, within a few miles?
Why confuse the professional, dedicated rescue service with inaccurate information from a ground based ATC receiver?
Perhaps your question should be: “Why isn’t it a mandatory requirement that all aviation emergency beacons transmit on 121.5 MHz and 243 MHz and be encoded with the aircraft registration and last known coordinates from an on board GPS?”
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.....and that we install across australia down to the ground vhf coverage for ATC to monitor this?
lmao
damn owned by Woomera. read mine with the post above his.
How about we pay for ADS-B to be fitted to all aircraft while we are at it......
lmao
damn owned by Woomera. read mine with the post above his.
How about we pay for ADS-B to be fitted to all aircraft while we are at it......
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Strathallan, Relaxed, Scotland
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I asked a question, namely "What reasons are there why 121.5 should not be considered, along with other frequencies, when making the decision about the appropriate frequency to monitor?"
No-one has answered that so far.
Woomera, I did not make myself clear.
Your reply seems to address only ELT transmissions. There are also voice transmissions from aircraft in flight, or on the ground after a crash, which need to be considered.
ATC monitors 121.5 in most developed countries and many undeveloped countries. There is obviously a reason why Australia is different, but I do not know what that reason is.
I do not suggest that we install down-to-the ground coverage, merely that 121.5 be monitored wherever other frequencies are monitored. That's what they do overseas. If you can talk to ATC on a location-specific frequency you can also talk to ATC on 121.5 from the same location at the same altitude.
Nor do I suggest "confusing" the dedicated professional rescue service, AMSA, in which I have high personal confidence. However AMSA told me very recently that up to 6 hours can elapse from the time an ELT goes off until it is picked up by a satellite. AMSA aims for "world's best practice" and therefore welcomes information about potential emergencies from whatever source.
6 hours is not timely response to a crash. It may at times be the best available with satellite technology, but why restrict ourselves to that?
De Havilland Driver - I am not advocating anything.
No-one has answered that so far.
Woomera, I did not make myself clear.
Your reply seems to address only ELT transmissions. There are also voice transmissions from aircraft in flight, or on the ground after a crash, which need to be considered.
ATC monitors 121.5 in most developed countries and many undeveloped countries. There is obviously a reason why Australia is different, but I do not know what that reason is.
I do not suggest that we install down-to-the ground coverage, merely that 121.5 be monitored wherever other frequencies are monitored. That's what they do overseas. If you can talk to ATC on a location-specific frequency you can also talk to ATC on 121.5 from the same location at the same altitude.
Nor do I suggest "confusing" the dedicated professional rescue service, AMSA, in which I have high personal confidence. However AMSA told me very recently that up to 6 hours can elapse from the time an ELT goes off until it is picked up by a satellite. AMSA aims for "world's best practice" and therefore welcomes information about potential emergencies from whatever source.
6 hours is not timely response to a crash. It may at times be the best available with satellite technology, but why restrict ourselves to that?
De Havilland Driver - I am not advocating anything.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Strathallan, Relaxed, Scotland
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Topdrop, there is a good reason why ICAO requires or recommends that aircraft monitor 121.5
It is that overflying aircraft can hear a pilot transmitting on 121.5 even when ATC's ground-based stations cannot, and when aircraft tuned to those ground-based stations cannot. An aircraft at 40,000' can hear a station on the ground at a range of about 250 nautical miles (remember the old rule of d=1.25(root h) d in nm and h in feet?)
There is no "instead" about this. I asked "What reasons are there why 121.5 should not be considered, along with other frequencies, when making the decision about the appropriate frequency to monitor?"
It is that overflying aircraft can hear a pilot transmitting on 121.5 even when ATC's ground-based stations cannot, and when aircraft tuned to those ground-based stations cannot. An aircraft at 40,000' can hear a station on the ground at a range of about 250 nautical miles (remember the old rule of d=1.25(root h) d in nm and h in feet?)
There is no "instead" about this. I asked "What reasons are there why 121.5 should not be considered, along with other frequencies, when making the decision about the appropriate frequency to monitor?"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Strathallan, Relaxed, Scotland
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your contribution tobzalp but I just asked a question, namely "What reasons are there why 121.5 should not be considered, along with other frequencies, when making the decision about the appropriate frequency to monitor?"
You have not answered that, nor has anyone else.
If you know a reason why 121.5 should not be considered, please share it.
You have not answered that, nor has anyone else.
If you know a reason why 121.5 should not be considered, please share it.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: On Top
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
121.5
As an IFR pilot I used always to monitor 121.5 on com 2 (guard, as we call it) and area on com 1, except when entering/leaving CTAFs/MBZs.
Now, however in an effort to keep track of VFR aircraft, 126.7 must be continually monitored OCTA and is becoming guard frequency.
If you pay for my com 3 Boyd, I'll certainly listen out on 121.5 again.
Either that or (much better option hint, hint) support the move to get the frequencies back on the charts so that we can restore the situation back to sensible normalness.
That'd be much nicer. Area on Com 1 and guard (121.5) on com2 Sanity again!!
Now, however in an effort to keep track of VFR aircraft, 126.7 must be continually monitored OCTA and is becoming guard frequency.
If you pay for my com 3 Boyd, I'll certainly listen out on 121.5 again.
Either that or (much better option hint, hint) support the move to get the frequencies back on the charts so that we can restore the situation back to sensible normalness.
That'd be much nicer. Area on Com 1 and guard (121.5) on com2 Sanity again!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Strathallan, Relaxed, Scotland
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for your contribution, Skin-Friction.
But I did not ask you to listen out on 121.5
What I asked was "What reasons are there why 121.5 should not be considered, along with other frequencies, when making the decision about the appropriate frequency to monitor?"
And you have not answered that.
But I did not ask you to listen out on 121.5
What I asked was "What reasons are there why 121.5 should not be considered, along with other frequencies, when making the decision about the appropriate frequency to monitor?"
And you have not answered that.
Metrosexual
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I could be wrong here, but 121.5 is supposed to be for distress or urgency communications.
Using 121.5 as an 'appropriate' frequency to monitor enroute for the purpose of traffic or position info is not appropriate and may block any of the calls that the frequency is there to carry to, as you mentioned, the traffic overflying or within line of sight range, not to mention any beacons going off.
If you really want to have a common frequency, 123.45 would surely be more appropriate as 'pilot to pilot' frequency.
At the end of the day, why not just have 'appropriate' frequencies back on a map, with the boundaries. It's not that hard, really.
By the way, I fly SP IFR and listen out on 121.5 except as mentioned above, in the vicinity of aerodromes or anything else of 'interest'.
Using 121.5 as an 'appropriate' frequency to monitor enroute for the purpose of traffic or position info is not appropriate and may block any of the calls that the frequency is there to carry to, as you mentioned, the traffic overflying or within line of sight range, not to mention any beacons going off.
If you really want to have a common frequency, 123.45 would surely be more appropriate as 'pilot to pilot' frequency.
At the end of the day, why not just have 'appropriate' frequencies back on a map, with the boundaries. It's not that hard, really.
By the way, I fly SP IFR and listen out on 121.5 except as mentioned above, in the vicinity of aerodromes or anything else of 'interest'.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Established.
Age: 53
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok Boyd I'll answer that question, "What reasons are there why 121.5 should not be considered, along with other frequencies, when making the decision about the appropriate frequency to monitor?" for you.
There are no reasons why it should not be considered, and after consideration there are varied reasons (see above), why it won't be.
There are no reasons why it should not be considered, and after consideration there are varied reasons (see above), why it won't be.
Agree with Jet_A_Knight ->
121.5 is for emergencies, 123.45 is for chatting.
By all means if you need to talk to someone try 121.5, but then swap over to 123.45.
We monitor both in our operation.
121.5 is for emergencies, 123.45 is for chatting.
By all means if you need to talk to someone try 121.5, but then swap over to 123.45.
We monitor both in our operation.
This NOTAM has been arund for a while
C532/04 REVIEW C420/04
ACFT OPERATING IN THE AUSTRALIAN FIR
ARE REQ TO MNT 121.5 MHZ DISTRESS FREQ WHENEVER POSSIBLE.
THE SATELLITE DETECTION OF 121.5AND 243.0 MHZ DISTRESS BEACONS HAS
BEEN IMPAIRED PARTICULARLY THE FLW AREAS:
THE TORRES STRAIT, NORTH QUEENSLAND AND THE NORTHERN AREAS OF THE
NORTHERN TERRITORY.
DUE LIGHTNING DAMAGE TO THE COSPAS-SARSAT TERMINAL AT BUNDABERG
QUEENSLAND.
AS A RESULT THERE WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY LONGER WAIT TIMES BTN
SATELLITE PASSES.
THERE IS NO REDUCTION IN THE SYSTEMS ABILITY TO DETECT 406MHZ
DISTRESS BEACONS.
FROM 03 050345 TO 04 050300 EST
ACFT OPERATING IN THE AUSTRALIAN FIR
ARE REQ TO MNT 121.5 MHZ DISTRESS FREQ WHENEVER POSSIBLE.
THE SATELLITE DETECTION OF 121.5AND 243.0 MHZ DISTRESS BEACONS HAS
BEEN IMPAIRED PARTICULARLY THE FLW AREAS:
THE TORRES STRAIT, NORTH QUEENSLAND AND THE NORTHERN AREAS OF THE
NORTHERN TERRITORY.
DUE LIGHTNING DAMAGE TO THE COSPAS-SARSAT TERMINAL AT BUNDABERG
QUEENSLAND.
AS A RESULT THERE WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY LONGER WAIT TIMES BTN
SATELLITE PASSES.
THERE IS NO REDUCTION IN THE SYSTEMS ABILITY TO DETECT 406MHZ
DISTRESS BEACONS.
FROM 03 050345 TO 04 050300 EST
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
As an IFR pilot I used always to monitor 121.5 on com 2 (guard, as we call it)
Back to the original topic, What Boyd asked was "What reasons are there why 121.5 should not be considered, along with other frequencies, when making the decision about the appropriate frequency to monitor?"
And I have not answered that.
I think monitoring 121.5 in a single VHF radio-equipped aircraft is not a good idea.
Boyd asks about monitoring. Is the idea, Boyd, to merely monitor? What would be the point of that except for safety reasons?
Or is the idea to use it as the "area freq"? Is this what you mean? Transmitting position and other information on it?
Amongst other reasons, EVERY 121.5 monitoring airliner for a 300nm radius is going to have the joy of listening to Joe Lightie's taxi, departure, position, inbound, etc reports, despite being 25000ft or more above the traffic. I know this happens already (thanks to Dick and his brilliant ideas of how things should work in Aus because he flies a private Citation and obviously knows best)
I dunno, I guess you were serious about this but geez, it seems like a ridiculous suggestion to me. Between the satellites and airliner traffic, I'd be surprised if practically the whole continent isn't covered already????
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also if an aircraft transmits on 121.5 and the sattelite picks that up, then the SAR process starts, and we have to ask aircraft to monitor 121.5 and advise if a beacon is heard. So if not an emergency, but aircraft are using 121.5 as the appropriate frequency it could cause big problems.
As was previously stated, the appropriate frequency should always be the ATC frequency in that area, as even if too low to be picked up by ATC, any aircraft in the area will pick up the call, as they may if monitoring 121.5.
In response to the guy who said QFA 5 picked up his call on 121.5, if you made the call on the appropriate ATC frequency then surely the QFA 5 aircraft would have also got the call as he would certainly be on the apporpriate ATC frequency.
In the UAE we do monitor 121.5 because the airspace is only a couple of hundred miles in size but as mentioned, not a realistic propostion in Australia, unless you put in hundreds of recievers all over the country to pick up calls on that frequency. That is why the freqs. and boundarys should be on the charts, so the aircraft can make the call on the appropriate frequency, and then be recieved by ATC or any other aircraft in the area also on the appropriate ATC frequency. Seems simple to me, but hey prepared to be shot down.
As was previously stated, the appropriate frequency should always be the ATC frequency in that area, as even if too low to be picked up by ATC, any aircraft in the area will pick up the call, as they may if monitoring 121.5.
In response to the guy who said QFA 5 picked up his call on 121.5, if you made the call on the appropriate ATC frequency then surely the QFA 5 aircraft would have also got the call as he would certainly be on the apporpriate ATC frequency.
In the UAE we do monitor 121.5 because the airspace is only a couple of hundred miles in size but as mentioned, not a realistic propostion in Australia, unless you put in hundreds of recievers all over the country to pick up calls on that frequency. That is why the freqs. and boundarys should be on the charts, so the aircraft can make the call on the appropriate frequency, and then be recieved by ATC or any other aircraft in the area also on the appropriate ATC frequency. Seems simple to me, but hey prepared to be shot down.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Strathallan, Relaxed, Scotland
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, Jet_A_Knight. "Monitor" in this context usually means the same thing as "listen out" or "guard" (the word used in ICAO annex 12 vol II).
I am pleased to learn that you monitor 121.5 and I agree that it is most inappropriate to chat on 121.5
I also happen to think it inappropriate to chat on any aeronautical radio frequency.
And thanks for your answer, The_Messiah. I am very glad that ICAO, the RAAF, and the airlines do not share your view. Personally I am most reassured to know that if something goes wrong almost anywhere there will be a good citizen monitoring 121.5
I am pleased to learn that you monitor 121.5 and I agree that it is most inappropriate to chat on 121.5
I also happen to think it inappropriate to chat on any aeronautical radio frequency.
And thanks for your answer, The_Messiah. I am very glad that ICAO, the RAAF, and the airlines do not share your view. Personally I am most reassured to know that if something goes wrong almost anywhere there will be a good citizen monitoring 121.5
Metrosexual
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boyd, just re-read your post, and got the gist of what you meant (I hope!).
I suppose I was, like most others, approaching the question wrt to the NAS, and our encumbant misgivings about that catchprhrase 'appropriate frequency'.
In light of the above.......
Most high altitude airliners and transport category aircraft operators monitor 121.5 enroute.
Yes, it would be a good thing for GA and all aircrcaft to monitor 121.5 on the spare comm, when not needed for other tasks. This would improve the coverage and ensure that there is a better chance for distress/urgency calls to be heard.
But then again, the way I was taught, this is just part of basic airmanship.
Maybe it needs to be solidified into an operational requirement, where possible, if it does not affect normal operational requirements or neccesities, monitor 121.5.
I suppose I was, like most others, approaching the question wrt to the NAS, and our encumbant misgivings about that catchprhrase 'appropriate frequency'.
In light of the above.......
Most high altitude airliners and transport category aircraft operators monitor 121.5 enroute.
Yes, it would be a good thing for GA and all aircrcaft to monitor 121.5 on the spare comm, when not needed for other tasks. This would improve the coverage and ensure that there is a better chance for distress/urgency calls to be heard.
But then again, the way I was taught, this is just part of basic airmanship.
Maybe it needs to be solidified into an operational requirement, where possible, if it does not affect normal operational requirements or neccesities, monitor 121.5.