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

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.

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.

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?

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. :=)

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.

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.

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

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.A very good idea, in my opinion.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. 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.

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.Mine's on my hip and I practice activating it in the air. Less than 3 seconds. All of which points up the prudence, in my opinion, of activating all ELTs, PLBs and EPIRBs in the air, having practised doing it.And 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

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:

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

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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?

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:

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.

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.

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

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.

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??

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.

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....

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

: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.

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.

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.

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.

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

This claim is news.

Specific details of the incidents?

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.

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,

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?

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.

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: