ELT distress signal on 121.5 how long till it requires to be reported?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: NZ
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ELT distress signal on 121.5 how long till it requires to be reported?
Every now and then I'll hear an ELT signal going off only for a few seconds. Apparently there is a given amount of time for when this requires attention. Anyone know what that is and where it's referenced?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From that page above:
If you're not hearing it during this time then someone is not following procedure, being dodgey in general or some child is playing with an old model that's on 121.5.
In order to comply with these ELT maintenance requirements, operational testing of a 406 MHz ELT from the cockpit of an aircraft may be undertaken by maintenance facilities, provided the test duration is no longer than 5 seconds and is undertaken within the first 5 minutes of the hour.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're not hearing it during this time then someone is not following procedure, being dodgey in general or some child is playing with an old model that's on 121.5.
I always monitor 121.5 (the QF/VA company frequency
), if I hear one outside the test period while I'm flying somewhere I'll report it on the area freq.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most, if not all 406MHz ELTs still also transmit on 121.5.
When I say "old" model, I mean one like that I have sitting in my loungeroom that I need to have destroyed as my current one goes in the aircraft. I'm sure there are plenty of other people in the same situation. Many a sailor has had an old one floating around in the bottom of their sailing bag that has gone off.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, I misread your post.
ACMA have tracked down more than the occasional pile of old EPIRBs sitting in a rubbish bin, in which one or two have been inadverently activated as they were thrown in the bin.
If you search t.w.i.t.t.er for "Dispose of your EPIRB correctly" there's a picture of one lot they found.
ACMA have tracked down more than the occasional pile of old EPIRBs sitting in a rubbish bin, in which one or two have been inadverently activated as they were thrown in the bin.
If you search t.w.i.t.t.er for "Dispose of your EPIRB correctly" there's a picture of one lot they found.
Some old sailors never throw anything out. Certainly not something that just might help save them one day. We will have timexed ELTs that transmit on 121.5 in circulation until that frequency ceases to be valid for distress signals. Sometimes they will go off, though that is usually some half-cut bogan fisherman in his tinny accidentally kicking it or dropping it in his haste to get to the esky. Real yachts have them on a bulkhead bracket (or, once they become illegal, hidden inside a locker and properly secured).
Some of us will keep our old safety gear to supplement the new until the authorities establish a special branch to hunt us down and shoot us on sight for such blatant civil disobedience. Maybe that's a job for a revitalised CASA.......
The authorities also tell us we must dispose of old flares. The reason given is that they become unstable, or unreliable. Which may be true after a very long time. Flares don't suddenly burst into flames a week or even a year after their expiry date, and every old one I ever banged off in training worked just fine. A totally law-abiding mariner may hand them in at each flare replacement date, but a mariner with a less anal outlook would probably keep them as back-up and only chuck them after about three years. Similarly with the old 121.5 beacons - for as long as they test OK they will remain aboard most boats, and I dare say a few aircraft.
New 406 beacons are supposed to be registered. When one goes off, I believe that the usual practice before mounting SAR is to start with the contact number(s) provided on the registration to try and determine whether it is likely to be the real deal or not. Because of that excellent idea, it is quite probable that the authorities don't take 121.5-only signals from unidentified sources as seriously as they once did.
But you can never have too many signalling devices on a boat. Or in an aircraft that has just force-landed in the desert or the jungle.
Some of us will keep our old safety gear to supplement the new until the authorities establish a special branch to hunt us down and shoot us on sight for such blatant civil disobedience. Maybe that's a job for a revitalised CASA.......
The authorities also tell us we must dispose of old flares. The reason given is that they become unstable, or unreliable. Which may be true after a very long time. Flares don't suddenly burst into flames a week or even a year after their expiry date, and every old one I ever banged off in training worked just fine. A totally law-abiding mariner may hand them in at each flare replacement date, but a mariner with a less anal outlook would probably keep them as back-up and only chuck them after about three years. Similarly with the old 121.5 beacons - for as long as they test OK they will remain aboard most boats, and I dare say a few aircraft.
New 406 beacons are supposed to be registered. When one goes off, I believe that the usual practice before mounting SAR is to start with the contact number(s) provided on the registration to try and determine whether it is likely to be the real deal or not. Because of that excellent idea, it is quite probable that the authorities don't take 121.5-only signals from unidentified sources as seriously as they once did.
But you can never have too many signalling devices on a boat. Or in an aircraft that has just force-landed in the desert or the jungle.
From an ATC perspective there's been no change in how seriously it's treated - we still swear and curse. And there doesn't seem to have been any change from the guys at the other end of the phone at AMSA when we report it up the line.
That's comforting for those of us who sail alone. How many signals turn out to be genuine versus spurious - anyone know?
Had about a dozen reported when at Perth FSC, over the years.
One was 'very loud' reported by a PN-68 en route from KU to ARG.
30 or so minutes later it was STILL very loud.
Guess who...??
He managed to shut it off after landing at ARG.
But, in the meantime, just to resolve any 'doubt'....the appropriate 'phase' went 'on', and the SAR centre at the time advised.
Another was 'mobile' some 50nm in from the coast...
Turned out to be in a boat being towed down the Brookton H'way from the wheatbelt to Freo. It had broken loose, fallen on the floor and activated.
Another in a '210' at KG. Corrosion in the switching set that one off.
Lots and lots of others, and then the 4 or 5 or so which turned out to be genuine, mostly small boats. In my limited experience.
There were a couple of tragic ones as well.
One was 'very loud' reported by a PN-68 en route from KU to ARG.
30 or so minutes later it was STILL very loud.
Guess who...??
He managed to shut it off after landing at ARG.
But, in the meantime, just to resolve any 'doubt'....the appropriate 'phase' went 'on', and the SAR centre at the time advised.
Another was 'mobile' some 50nm in from the coast...
Turned out to be in a boat being towed down the Brookton H'way from the wheatbelt to Freo. It had broken loose, fallen on the floor and activated.
Another in a '210' at KG. Corrosion in the switching set that one off.
Lots and lots of others, and then the 4 or 5 or so which turned out to be genuine, mostly small boats. In my limited experience.
There were a couple of tragic ones as well.
And then there's the cases mentioned of pilots activating their ELTs near reasonably busy aerodromes and watching quite a few aircraft arriving and departing with no-one reporting an activation.
Used to be that people would check 121.5 occasionally, if not at startup or shutdown. 'Spose it's one of those airmanship (huh? Wassat?) things that just ain't taught anymore.
Used to be that people would check 121.5 occasionally, if not at startup or shutdown. 'Spose it's one of those airmanship (huh? Wassat?) things that just ain't taught anymore.
Were I a SAR controller I think I'd treat a certain number of these false activations as useful exercises - honing the search skills 'n all that. I'd like to believe that's what actually happens (ie. something is learnt from each event and they're not a complete waste of time).
FP.
FP.
Used to be that people would check 121.5 occasionally, if not at startup or shutdown.
Monitoring 121.5MHZ. Pilots should monitor 121.5MHZ before engine start and after shutdown. …
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,976
Received 104 Likes
on
59 Posts
Having the second of the VHF radios set on 121.5 when not otherwise being required was SOP with a Company I worked for a few years back.
Yeah Creamie,
For a looong time 'we' (in FS) argued that this should read 'from' engine start, and 'until' after shut-down, as it may imply that 121.5 should be checked only whilst on the ground.
Fat lot of good that would do...in most cases....
As Pinky says, to monitor whenever one is able to is good.
Although......
In the early 80's I was witness to, and attended the crash of an Aerostar at a WA minesite called Teutonic Bore, some 30nm or so NW of LEO.
The following day, whilst flying the site with the then Air Safety Bureau investigator for the photos etc, I selected 121.5 and there was the beacon - LOUD and clear - and within VHF range of what were then, 2 TCTA routes.
In a full 24 hr period, no-one had reported this beacon.
Cheers
For a looong time 'we' (in FS) argued that this should read 'from' engine start, and 'until' after shut-down, as it may imply that 121.5 should be checked only whilst on the ground.
Fat lot of good that would do...in most cases....
As Pinky says, to monitor whenever one is able to is good.
Although......
In the early 80's I was witness to, and attended the crash of an Aerostar at a WA minesite called Teutonic Bore, some 30nm or so NW of LEO.
The following day, whilst flying the site with the then Air Safety Bureau investigator for the photos etc, I selected 121.5 and there was the beacon - LOUD and clear - and within VHF range of what were then, 2 TCTA routes.
In a full 24 hr period, no-one had reported this beacon.
Cheers
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Running up that hill
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somebody once told me most RPTs will monitor 121.5 above A100. Certainly every time I've asked one to monitor 121.5 the reply has been along the lines of "we have been and nothing heard yet".
Once a beacon has been pinpointed or a homing aircraft is looking for it however we may get told no further reports needed.
Once a beacon has been pinpointed or a homing aircraft is looking for it however we may get told no further reports needed.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wide Brown Land
Age: 39
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it may imply that 121.5 should be checked only whilst on the ground.
Fat lot of good that would do...in most cases....
Fat lot of good that would do...in most cases....
Agree it wouldn't be much use for other beacons though!
