121.5-only Emergency Beacons illegal from February

Submitted: Tuesday, Jan 19, 2010 at 21:19
ThreadID: 75342 Views:4869 Replies:18 FollowUps:47
This Thread has been Archived

Related Pages

A search in the Blue Mountains last week showed yet again how hard it can be to find people in the Australian bush, even if you have helicopters and the search area is quite small.
-SMH - Search for canyoners

Six people were due to return on Tuesday night from a day trip, so on Wednesday the Police started the search using ground parties and a helicopter. More ground parties joined the search on Thursday and there was limited helicopter searching due to low cloud.

Luckily they were sighted by the helicopter at 4.20 pm on Thursday and winched out in dangerous weather conditions, but sadly one person had been killed in a rockfall three hours before they were found.

They had no Emergency Beacon or other way of contacting anyone while they were lost - they were only a few kilometres from civilisation - there’s no mobile coverage. If they did have a Beacon, they could have set it off when they saw helicopters searching for them - the helicopter would have flown directly to them, since all Rescue helicopters have homing receivers and ANY aircraft radio can detect and localise the 121.5 beacon signal which the new 406 Beacons also emit for homing.

Many people are reluctant to spend $600 on an item you are very unlikely to ever need. Some people even consider taking a beacon along is planning to fail !

In the Blue Mtns, 406 Beacons are available for free loan from Katoomba Police Station or Blackheath NPWS Office, however for these 6 people coming from Sydney, Katoomba or Blackheath would have meant even more distance to travel on the way to Mt Wilson. Maybe they weren’t aware of this free loan facility.

There are still plenty of the old 121.5-only Beacons around, and this type is totally effective to make searching aircraft quickly aware of where you are, even with zero visibility. Certain boating and aviation people who are required by law to carry a new 406 beacon, now have lots of the older beacons lying idle.

However the government has decided that “no Beacon” is better than a 121.5 Beacon - as of February it will be illegal to use 121.5 for any activity.
http://beacons.amsa.gov.au/ - “After 1 Feb 2010, it will be illegal to use a 121.5 MHz Distress beacon for ANY purpose.”
http://beacons.amsa.gov.au/distress-beacons.html - “When a distress beacon is activated, it transmits a signal that is detectable by satellites and overflying aircraft.”
http://beacons.amsa.gov.au/usage.html - “With the satellite system no longer receiving alerts from 121.5 MHz from 1 February 2009, over-flying aircraft are the only means of detecting activated analogue beacons.”


Those who can’t afford or can’t justify the $600 for a new 406 Beacon, will now not have the legal option of taking a 121.5 beacon.

So if you’re lost or immobilised out in the bush with an old 121.5-only beacon you will face a tough decision - will I -
a) comply with the law and not set off the beacon, igoring how much money it’s costing to have the helicopters and ground parties searching, hoping no-one gets injured during the protracted searching, hoping they will eventually see me. They searched for over a week for Jamie Neale, there were several serious injuries to searchers, yet they did not sight him.
b) set off the Beacon and have the helicopter fly straight to your position.

There were valid reasons for the government banning the old style beacons -
1) Old beacons were going off accidentally and resources had to be diverted to search for them.
2) False activations jam the frequency and can block reception of a genuine emergency.
3) The old beacons had no accompanying digital 406 signal, which would allowed the vessel/aircraft/owner to be identified and contacted as to the whereabouts of the beacon.

However I’m convinced a 121.5-only beacon is much better than no Beacon at all, so if my 406 Beacon is unavailable, the choice between a) and b) will be easy.

I’ll be contacting my Federal MP to point out the disdvantages of the banning of 121.5-only beacons.
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: olcoolone - Tuesday, Jan 19, 2010 at 22:07

Tuesday, Jan 19, 2010 at 22:07
don't see what the problem is, if you don't want to use the new PLB then don't use it.

We have a new one with GPS and I think it is fare superior then the old dinosaur ones of yesteryear.

New technology must be a good thing in PLB's.

And for those's who can't afford or justify it...let it be, some people value their lives cheaply and others like me value life more.

Again I don't see what all the fuss is over.

Gees, hate to see what you will be like when the phase out analogue TV, it must of been hard to cope when they introduced broadband internet for you...LOL
AnswerID: 400258

Follow Up By: Member - Mike DID - Tuesday, Jan 19, 2010 at 22:15

Tuesday, Jan 19, 2010 at 22:15
A person died last week . . . and you compare it to watching TV ?????
0
FollowupID: 669370

Follow Up By: Member - Mike DID - Tuesday, Jan 19, 2010 at 22:25

Tuesday, Jan 19, 2010 at 22:25
You can afford to spend $600 on emergency equipment (as can I) - but you don't care one bit about people who are less fortunate than you.
0
FollowupID: 669376

Follow Up By: Alloy c/t - Tuesday, Jan 19, 2010 at 23:21

Tuesday, Jan 19, 2010 at 23:21
Mike I will very rarely aggree with olcoolone but in this instance he is correct , he is not comparing a life to a digital TV , new technology ALLWAYS seems expensive and untill the old is made totally redundant someone will allways complain , as they say when you go to buy a m/cycle helmet "you got a $50 head you only buy a $50 helmet".


Psst ,got a sat phone going real cheap ,only ever used for 7min in the last 5 yrs , [ why u ask ] because the damn satellites failed.
0
FollowupID: 669396

Follow Up By: Member - Mike DID - Tuesday, Jan 19, 2010 at 23:47

Tuesday, Jan 19, 2010 at 23:47
"it must of been hard to cope when they introduced broadband internet for you...LOL"

- yeah, I can tell how serious he is about saving lives of people who are lost.
0
FollowupID: 669398

Follow Up By: olcoolone - Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 08:45

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 08:45
Don't pull stuff out of content and try and turn it around.

The two bits you pulled out of my post had nothing to do with saving lives or even about PLB's.

If you want to fight the new laws....do so.

Your life is in your own hands and nobody else's so stop trying to blame someone else for something you don't want to comply to!



Mike sit down and laugh and smile for once!
0
FollowupID: 669412

Reply By: JustT - Tuesday, Jan 19, 2010 at 22:21

Tuesday, Jan 19, 2010 at 22:21
Yep - I've still got mine.

IF i ever need it - I'll be happy to pay the fine, once they come get me.
AnswerID: 400262

Follow Up By: Member - Graham H (QLD) - Tuesday, Jan 19, 2010 at 22:28

Tuesday, Jan 19, 2010 at 22:28
If they come to get you.


It will no longer be a requirement to monitor the frequency so you will only get found if someone bothers.


As they only give a location in about a 20km area I would save my beer money and buy a new one.

They can be bought for a bit over $400 or more for the ones with GPS



0
FollowupID: 669377

Follow Up By: Member - Mike DID - Tuesday, Jan 19, 2010 at 22:58

Tuesday, Jan 19, 2010 at 22:58
You, and the government, are ignoring how hard it is to find someone in the Australian bush.

If the helicopters are already up there searching for you because you are overdue, the frequency IS being monitored by an aircraft with a homing receiver, that can go directly to the beacon. In too many cases in recent years, there has been no beacon to home onto.

Everyone seems to forget that the new 406 beacons have a 121.5 transmitter in them for aircraft in the search to home onto the beacon. Homing onto a 1 second transmission every 50 seconds from the 406 Beacon is extremely difficult and very few aircraft have this capability.
0
FollowupID: 669387

Reply By: Member - Stephen L (Clare SA) - Tuesday, Jan 19, 2010 at 22:41

Tuesday, Jan 19, 2010 at 22:41
Hi Mike
There is a reason why the Government has done this and everyone has had ample warning and it is something that has not just happened. We have all had at least 3 years warning, so just how much time do we need. If we were given 5 years warning, there would still be people complaining that they were still not given enough warning.

With the old units, when they were set off, the search and rescue people do not know who set the unit off. The starting search area was 200 square kilometres and then have to home in from there.

New units start off by letting the authorities know just who has set it off by transmitting the units unique code, letting the authorities know just who has set it off and giving the authorities 3 contact phone numbers to confirm if the person may be in trouble. The non GPS units start off with a 5 kilometre square search area, while the GPS enabled PLB give a 5 metre starting area, so realy there is no question to argue about the new v old units.

For any serious minded person they are just like our insurance policies we pay for our home, contents and motor vehicles. When the time comes when we need it, those that do not have any insurance are always the very first to cry.

That my 2 cents worth. And yes for the record, I have had a GPS enabled Garmin PLB for over 2 years and hope that I never have to set it off.


Stephen
Smile like a Crocodile

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 400269

Follow Up By: Member - Mike DID - Tuesday, Jan 19, 2010 at 23:17

Tuesday, Jan 19, 2010 at 23:17
" We have all had at least 3 years warning"

- no, you're confusing the 3 year notice of cessation of satellite monitoring of 121.5 with the banning of 121.5-only beacons in the last few months.
Ships and Aircraft that must carry a beacon have had to install a 406 Beacon.
There is no requirement on walkers or car drivers to carry any beacon so they could use whatever beacon they wanted to - until this recent change.



"With the old units, when they were set off, the search and rescue people do not know who set the unit off. The starting search area was 200 square kilometres and then have to home in from there. "

- this is totally irrelevant if you set it off when you see helicopters searching for you. The reason 406 Beacons have a 121.5 transmitter is so aircraft in the search area can home in directly on you. An old 121.5 beacon will perform exactly the same for final homing.



"so realy there is no question to argue about the new v old units."

- there is no doubt that 406 beacons are much better than the old 121.5 only beacons, but recent extended bush searches have shown that people just won't buy $600 beacons. A 121.5 beacon is so much better than no beacon at all.

With all the upgrades to 406 beacons from mandatory users, there are plenty of 121.5 beacons that were being given away.

A government decision in one area has now meant that these beacons will be unavailable to people who could make effective use of them. It will also increase the search costs for state governments.
0
FollowupID: 669394

Reply By: Member - Graham H (QLD) - Tuesday, Jan 19, 2010 at 23:07

Tuesday, Jan 19, 2010 at 23:07
I did a web search and found they can be bought UNDER $400.

When I bought my old one aboutr 5 years ago it cost me about $250

So really the new ones are not so dear at all considering the enhanced features..

If they allow the old ones there will be the same old same old

Woops a beacon has gone off wonder where it is.

AS said we were told about 3 years ago it was going to happen.

Cheers I'll just stick to my satfone and not go bushwalking.


AnswerID: 400274

Follow Up By: Member - Mike DID - Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 07:39

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 07:39
"Cheers I'll just stick to my satfone" - and ignore supporting those who aren't as affluent as you ?
0
FollowupID: 669406

Follow Up By: Member - Graham H (QLD) - Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 09:33

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 09:33
I would not consider myself affluent but as we have been travelling in remote parts for a year, I spent the money to be safe.

The ones who got into trouble in a risky situation should have shown more responsibility and either got one of the free ones on offer or if they do this on a regular basis spent the money and been safe.

I worked in the bush for 5 yrs and there were no Epirbs or even helicopters then so you learnt to be careful and stay alive.

Far too many people take no precautions and then moan when others who risk their own lives to find them, take too long.

Whilst your concern is admirable as said may cause more problems than it cures.

Basically it is all down to people taking resposibility for their own actions.

So if you want to do whatever and it turns to custard dont blame anyone else or expect instant rescue if you havent bothered to take the sensible precautions.

As far as money is concerned do they consider their lives arent worth $395.

0
FollowupID: 669418

Reply By: Alloy c/t - Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 00:02

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 00:02
Mike , the people in this instance had NO beacon ,,,,,, old frequency or new , nothing would / could change the outcome that eventuated.
AnswerID: 400282

Follow Up By: Member - Mike DID - Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 07:37

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 07:37
Read my post again please.

I'm not talking about the past - I want to reduce the likelihood of more injuries and deaths from long drawn-out searches in the future.

The Government is about to make illegal the hundreds of perfectly working 121.5-only beacons out there that are currently owned by bushalkers and clubs. These beacons put out EXACTLY the same signal that 406 beacons put out for use during the homing phase of a search.

What the government should be doing is recycling any 121.5-only beacons that have been returned by those users who can now only use 406 beacons.
0
FollowupID: 669405

Follow Up By: Member - Timbo - Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:38

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:38
I think what Mike was trying to say is that there will be a lot of people just chucking away the old style beacons - since these will be so readily available at low (or no) cost, why couldn't people use/carry them? Surely people are more likely to carry a cheap/free PLB than a $600 (or $400) one?
0
FollowupID: 669440

Follow Up By: Member - Mike DID - Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:45

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:45
Timbo - well summarised, thankyou.
0
FollowupID: 669442

Follow Up By: Maîneÿ . . .- Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 17:56

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 17:56
"The Government is about to make illegal the hundreds of perfectly working 121.5-only beacons out there that are currently owned by bushalkers and clubs"

Mike, is the Government going to make them "illegal" ????

I'm under the impression they will no longer be monitored, they are still a legal product, just as a knife is still legal, but now you can make the choice to take away something that is no longer strickly monitored, or go the monitored way with new 406 technology eperbs.

I had the choice just last month to buy the less expencive and obsolete technology, so it is still available.

After all we have known for a number of years this decision was being implemented.

I've asked you previously what department 'will monitor the old system' and it has gone unanswered, can I assume you don't know either ??

Maîneÿ . . .
0
FollowupID: 669498

Follow Up By: Member - Timbo - Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 18:02

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 18:02
If I understood the thread correctly, it seems that no department will monitor the old EPIRBs.

HOWEVER, in the case of people notifying the authorities that our friends/family/etc. didn't come home when they were supposed to, a search party is launched. Assuming this search party uses aircraft, they would be monitoring the 121.5MHz frequency and would therefore not be relying purely on 'sighting' the lost party.

It would rely on the relatives/friends reporting the 'overdues' and initiating a search. I guess they could be making them illegal because there's probably a tendency for people to think "I've got an EPIRB, I don't need to tell people where I'll be or for how long..."
0
FollowupID: 669500

Follow Up By: Member - Mike DID - Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 20:58

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 20:58
"Mike, is the Government going to make them "illegal" ???? I'm under the impression they will no longer be monitored, they are still a legal product,"


READ MY ORIGINAL POST


http://beacons.amsa.gov.au/
- this is a link to a government website, usually a reliable source of the current legal situation.


“After 1 Feb 2010, it will be illegal to use a 121.5 MHz Distress beacon for ANY purpose.”
- the quotation marks show that is a quote from this government website.
0
FollowupID: 669524

Follow Up By: Maîneÿ . . .- Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 21:57

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 21:57
Mike,

Mike you say: "I'm not talking about the past - I want to reduce the likelihood of more injuries and deaths from long drawn-out searches in the future"

That is the exact reason why the old technology 121.5 MHz system is being replaced with the very superior 406 MHz digital technology in the new eperbs.
I’m sure you will admit the new digital eperbs are superior to the old system.


Then Mike you make this ludicrous statement:
“But if the government really wants to make lost or injured people easy to find, they only have to make a slight change to existing laws making Beacons on ships and planes compulsory”

Mike, they are "compulsory" in ALL boats that go out deep sea fishing, that is why I had to buy one, simply because it IS the law, yes it is compulsory.

Maîneÿ . . .
0
FollowupID: 669544

Reply By: mikehzz - Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 07:18

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 07:18
Hey Mike

I believe your post was well intentioned and informative, but it seems you have been slagged off for it. I say thanks for the info.

Mike ( too)
AnswerID: 400284

Follow Up By: Member - Mike DID - Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:50

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:50
Mike, thanks for your support.

As usual, I continue to learn so much from the contributions on Exploroz Forum.

Even those who have mis-interpreted my intent still help me with their feedback, by making it clear where I need to state my intent more clearly in future.
0
FollowupID: 669443

Reply By: The Landy - Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 09:11

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 09:11
Mike

I think the issue is that unless you eventually ban the use of these devices (121.5 beacons) then people will continue to use them. I understand your point here, but the problem remains that others may continue to use them to initiate a ‘search phase’ rather than at the point it will assist an aircraft to home in on the 121.5 signal. And this is precisely what the authorities are endeavouring to avoid.

Like it or not, by the government banning their use they are effectively covering themselves from not initiating a search based on a 121.5 signal (old device).So giving old units to those that can’t afford the new ones may be creating a false sense of security…will anyone come looking if it is activated?

The actual legal change taking place is that the Class Radio Licence for old 121.5 beacons will be revoked. . Whilst the 406 Beacon also transmits on 121.5 it is not for Distress Alerting, but simply there to assist search aircraft to home in on the signal (as you indicate).

The long lead in time for the changeover has been sufficient for most people to be aware of the change, and in any case most 121.5 devices have a definitive battery life that would make the serviceability of units questionable after three years.

Whilst we have disagreed previously on the need to ‘force’ people to take PLBs etc when walking/trekking, and my preference has always been to leave that up to the individual, I think that whilst your intention is well meaning here, it may create more problems than it solves.

Cheers
AnswerID: 400293

Follow Up By: Off-track - Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 22:33

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 22:33
Now THAT has pretty much summed up the reason behind the 'banning'. You can still utilise them if you dont want to/cant upgrade to the new epirb, it's just that you will cop a fine for your troubles. Fair enough too.

So it's a bit like having an insurance policy with an excess if you use it. The new epirbs are a much better insurance policy, whilst they might be dearer to upgrade, there is no excess.
0
FollowupID: 669550

Follow Up By: The Landy - Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 23:07

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 23:07
No, quite to the contrary, no-one will come looking for you if you activate a 121,5 beacon in the future...and therin lies the problem with this type of discussion. Forget the legality of it........read no-one will come looking for you.
0
FollowupID: 669554

Follow Up By: The Landy - Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 23:15

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 23:15
I'll correct my last comment to the extent...no-one will come looking for you based on a 121.5 beacon transmission....... a search may be initiated based on yuor non-arrival etc...
0
FollowupID: 669556

Follow Up By: Off-track - Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 23:17

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 23:17
Nah, what I mean is that IF someone has alerted that you are missing and know the region you are located, SAR can be called to home in on your position, providing that you are transmitting a homing signal.
0
FollowupID: 669557

Follow Up By: Off-track - Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 23:52

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 23:52
LOL, yes we are on the same page Landy. :-)
0
FollowupID: 669561

Reply By: Member - Beatit (QLD) - Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 09:22

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 09:22
Mike,

Are you saying that if I buy my new EPIRB (as I intend to) I would get a whole lot more use out of my old EPIRB by turning it on some days after I activate the new one. I mean that if I had an emergency and had not been rescued - does that make sense? This would certainly allow me to get further value out of my old unit!

I know that I could be fined etc but like a previous poster said I would deal with that after my rescue.

Kind regards
AnswerID: 400294

Follow Up By: Member - Mike DID - Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 09:29

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 09:29
Yes, Beacons have a limited transmit time.

There could be a fault in your 406 EPIRB and it doesn't transmit on 406 but only on 121.5, so it's assumed to be a false alarm and they suspend the search.

You could then turn on your old 121.5 only beacon - it transmits EXACTLY THE SAME signal as the homing beacon in a 406 beacon.

A 121.5-only beacon gives much better homing than no beacon at all.
0
FollowupID: 669417

Follow Up By: Member - Beatit (QLD) - Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 09:36

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 09:36
Thanks Mike, I will travel with both from here on in. The old one is one one of those smaller personal units with servicable batteries which I use to keep in a pocket just in case.

Kind regards
0
FollowupID: 669419

Follow Up By: Maîneÿ . . .- Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 18:24

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 18:24
"There could be a fault in your 406 EPIRB and it doesn't transmit on 406 but only on 121.5"

The new tech 406 beacons have a test capability inbuilt, you would know it does not work before you go out with it.

Maîneÿ . . .
0
FollowupID: 669504

Follow Up By: Member - Mike DID - Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 21:00

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 21:00
"The new tech 406 beacons have a test capability inbuilt, you would know it does not work before you go out with it. "

- and we all know that electronic devices never ever fail for at least a year after being tested.
0
FollowupID: 669525

Follow Up By: Off-track - Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 22:48

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 22:48
So you would prefer to carry an older unit and hope for the best then?
0
FollowupID: 669551

Follow Up By: Maîneÿ . . .- Saturday, Jan 23, 2010 at 18:38

Saturday, Jan 23, 2010 at 18:38
Mike,
Cany you 'self test' the old 121.5 MHz system ????

However, the New digital 406 systen, as I stated, can be 'tested'
even every hour if you get pedantic about your own safety and when it fails you will know it has, so what do you do then, head back to shore and save a search and possibly your life too.

Maîneÿ . . .

0
FollowupID: 669973

Follow Up By: Member - Graham H (QLD) - Saturday, Jan 23, 2010 at 18:46

Saturday, Jan 23, 2010 at 18:46
Yes the old ones had a self test button.










0
FollowupID: 669975

Reply By: Maîneÿ . . .- Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:50

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:50
An emotive post :)

Some relevant facts:

# The old 121.5 MHz system NEEDS the satellite to be actually in view of the beacon and also the LUT before it can even transmit the beacons position.
Even then it will only transmit to the satellite (or aircraft) when it is in view, remember the satellite is continually moving in just one direction.
# The new 406 MFz system has true global coverage.

* The old system gave a signal, but no other information at all.
* The new 406 system tells who you are, where you live and also 3 phone numbers of people to contact to confirm everything is correct and not just an 'accidental setoff' of the 406 Mhz system.

I bought one last month, their price is only relevant to the value you place on YOUR life.
They are <$400 which is nothing compared to the value I've put on mine.

The following 'picture' is information from the brochures included in the 406MHz box.
Image Could Not Be FoundMaîneÿ . . .
AnswerID: 400303

Follow Up By: Member - Mike DID - Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:31

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:31
How the hell is this relevant to the subject of this post ???

I wrote "If they did have a Beacon, they could have set it off when they saw helicopters searching for them - the helicopter would have flown directly to them"

I'm only suggesting they be used in the homing phase where the transmissions from the old and new type beacons are identical !

No-one has ever suggested that the old 121.5 beacons are anywhere near as effective as 406 beacons in the alerting phase.

No wonder everyone else here has stopped wasting their time replying to you trying to educate you. You should stop wasting people's time by cutting and pasting irrelevant info to make yourself look smart.
0
FollowupID: 669431

Follow Up By: Maîneÿ . . .- Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:51

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:51
Mike,
you posted: "If they did have a Beacon, they could have set it off when they saw helicopters searching for them - the helicopter would have flown directly to them"

So who told the 'helicopter' they were even lost in the first place ??

Mike, who monitors the old system now ??

If as you say I've "cut and pasted information" to here it's NOT my information, but that of the eperbs manufacturers, now do you suggest it is wrong?

Maîneÿ . . .
0
FollowupID: 669433

Reply By: Member - Graham H (QLD) - Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 14:30

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 14:30
As I see it if you cant educate people to even carry a beacon its going to be

even harder to educate them NOT to turn it on till they see the helicopter.

Presuming the searchers are using one and its not grounded because of the weather.

Most would say Oh dash we are lost, turn on the beacon

Back to where we were last year.


There comes a point when things become obsolete and despite not liking it

we must progress with obviously better technology.


AnswerID: 400334

Reply By: JR - Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 16:26

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 16:26
What people arent realising is there are hundreds of false 121 alarms every day.
By banning the old tech beacons reduces the load on SAR services and raises the chance of real alarms being traced
Also keep in mind a false or old 121 beacon will BLOCK OUT a real or 406's homing signal if its closer than the real beacon
As for ANY aircraft monitoring 12, youve been mislead, you mean any which can be bothered listening (yes they sometimes have to have it turned on) or doing anything about it. You are also only talking BIG aircraft too, very few small ones can listen to it as well as the other 2 or 3 it has to monitor as well.
Think of 121 like UHF channel 40 - so much rubbish mixed with useful comms not many listen anymore
Just get a new beacon might save your life - GPS version is even better
AnswerID: 400345

Follow Up By: Member - Mike DID - Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 16:41

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 16:41
"What people arent realising is there are hundreds of false 121 alarms every day."
- 121.5 transmitters in the new 406 Beacons would be totally useless in that case.


By banning the old tech beacons reduces the load on SAR services and raises the chance of real alarms being traced "
- matches and cigarettes cause dangerous fires - have they been banned ???
- knives are used to commit crimes - have they been banned ???


"As for ANY aircraft monitoring 12, youve been mislead, you mean any which can be bothered listening (yes they sometimes have to have it turned on) or doing anything about it. You are also only talking BIG aircraft too, very few small ones can listen to it as well as the other 2 or 3 it has to monitor as well. "
- You need to learn to read what I actually WROTE - any aircraft receiver can be used to localise a 121.5 transmission - I've never written that every aircraft will monitor it.
- Read Enroute Supplement Australia - a document that every Pilot needs to understand - on how to use ANY aircraft receiver to localise a beacon.


"Think of 121 like UHF channel 40 - so much rubbish mixed with useful comms not many listen anymore "
- so why is QANTAS policy to leave the secondary receiver on 121.5 when not needed for other purposes ?
- 406 Beacons include a 121.5 transmitter - because it's essential for homing.


"Just get a new beacon might save your life "
- recent actual searches show people AREN'T willing to spend hundreds of dollars - just in case.



0
FollowupID: 669483

Follow Up By: The Landy - Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 23:01

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 23:01
Mike, having a high flying aircraft (say Qantas at 30,000 feet) detecting a signal will give you a search area so wide as to make it useless.

And therein lies the problem of 121.5 beacons.....

As I mentioned before......whilst perhaps your suggestion is well intenioned how will you stop people trying to use an old 121.5 beacon to 'activate' a search phase versus just using it when they hear the helicopter in their area?

If you are about safety for those lost, and those undertaking rescues then why not simply back this as a step forward.



0
FollowupID: 669553

Reply By: Alloy c/t - Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 16:59

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 16:59
Mike ,you forget one very important perspective in your advocation of the old 121.5 beacons , and the reuse of same , be it free or at minimal cost ,basic human nature will decree that " oh I have a beacon that I got for nix , dont need to buy a new one ,she'l be right."
AnswerID: 400350

Follow Up By: Member - Mike DID - Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 21:16

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 21:16
Someone who is only willing to spend $100 on a just-in-case 121.5-only beacon will be found quickly when search aircraft arrive, if lost in the Australian bush.

Recent cases have proven that people lost without ANY beacon are in grave danger of their own lives, endanger searchers and place a huge cost on taxpayers.

- A 406/121.5 Beacon is much better than a 121.5-only beacon
- A 121.5-only beacon is much better than no beacon at all

But if the government really wants to make lost or injured people easy to find, they only have to make a slight change to existing laws making Beacons on ships and planes compulsory -
- also make the carrying of 406 beacons compulsory for ALL vehicles and walkers travelling in an area where there is no mobile phone coverage.

That's just as easy to enact as the law making 121.5-only beacons illegal - and so much safer for people travelling in remote areas.

Maybe I should suggest that as an alternative to my MP.
0
FollowupID: 669531

Reply By: Member - greg S (QLD) - Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 21:14

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 21:14
Were these bushwalkers part of a bushwalking group? If so would it not be advisable for the group as a whole get a new 406 beacon. If not then you have 6 bushwalkers who could split the costs ($100ea) and they would of been easy to find.

Or surely someone would rent these things out.
In fact they do......www.epirbhire.com.au

So for as little as $88 for 7 days hire you too can rent a 406 beacon.

Now is that too much to pay for your life or your family members life.
AnswerID: 400380

Follow Up By: Member - Graham H (QLD) - Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 23:24

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 23:24
Its not even that much You can buy a 406 without GPS for UNDER $400


0
FollowupID: 669558

Follow Up By: Maîneÿ . . .- Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 23:28

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 23:28
You can get them WITH *GPS* for <$400 :-)

Maîneÿ . . .
0
FollowupID: 669559

Follow Up By: Member - greg S (QLD) - Thursday, Jan 21, 2010 at 14:52

Thursday, Jan 21, 2010 at 14:52
On the info given above (Mainey and Graham) lets redo the figures shall we...

For less than $70 each they could of been rescued. Jeez it's expensive to save your own life!!!. What does that work out to be.....let me think.....a couple of bottles of wine/spirits or 3 or 4 packets of cigarettes, a night out on the town, a meal at a nice restaurant. Is it really too much to ask people (maybe I am being naive) to give these up for a week or two to save themselves. If you aren't prepared to sacrifice a little to save yourself then why ask others to risk their life to save you.

Harsh....Yep....But some people need a good kick up the butt to wake up to themselves, and take responsibility for their actions.

Greg
0
FollowupID: 669615

Reply By: Crackles - Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 23:45

Wednesday, Jan 20, 2010 at 23:45
"Some people even consider taking a beacon along is planning to fail !"
It's not taking the beacon that's planning to fail, rather many see the EPIRB as a relatively cheap alternative to proper planning. The above discussion is a point in case. If the extra cost of a 406 is prohibative to so many, could you imagine them spending the extra time & money to properly prepare for a remote/hi risk trip???
I say turn off the 121.5's. I know my mate in the Vic Pol S&R squad is sick of chasing false alarms.
Cheers Craig....................
AnswerID: 400408

Follow Up By: The Landy - Thursday, Jan 21, 2010 at 07:53

Thursday, Jan 21, 2010 at 07:53
Yes...a well made point with respect to planing...
0
FollowupID: 669571

Reply By: Member - Matt M (ACT) - Thursday, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:50

Thursday, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:50
Mike,

I think you make a valid argument in that having any beacon is better than having none at all and there is no question that an activated 121.5 beacon will help searchers localise you much more quickly if they have the homing equipment on board; whether it emits from a 406 EPIRB or an older 121.5 beacon.

The difficulty as I see it is that many people (less knowledgeable perhaps than many on this forum) will just see it as a beacon. "I have this little orange thing, and if I activate it, someone will come and get me". If faced with the choice of a beacon that costs $150 (121.5) vs one that costs $400 (406) then I'll have the cheap one thanks. Without realising (perhaps) that the expensive one offers a far greater chance of rapid location and rescue.

There are a number of good reasons to end global monitoring of 121.5 MHz. Not the least of which is the fact that it is not a dedicated SAR frequency (the UHF Ch 40 analogy). So if you accept that global 121.5 monitoring is unsustainable, then perhaps it is better to force people to cease relying on them, particularly as they may not realise the essential difference between the two systems and head into the bush thinking that they are covered if something goes wrong.

Maybe the best analogy I can offer is fire extinguishers. Just buying a fire extinguisher and thinking you are good to go is not enough unless you realise what type it is and what type of fires(s) it should be used on. The assumption that it can deal with any type of fire you face is a dangerous one. OK, maybe not the best analogy, but near enough.

That said, I can understand your argument and maybe there is a case to extend the transition period with a bit better public information campaign.

Do you know if it will be illegal to buy (vice operate) a straight 121.5 beacon? I don't know the answer to that, but maybe if it is then the problem goes away over time.

Interesting thread.

Matt.

AnswerID: 400436

Follow Up By: Member - Mike DID - Thursday, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:12

Thursday, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:12
"There are a number of good reasons to end global monitoring of 121.5 MHz. Not the least of which is the fact that it is not a dedicated SAR frequency (the UHF Ch 40 analogy)."
- do you really think they built a dedicated satellite monitoring system for a frequency that wasn't dedicated for search and rescue.

Do people realise that if you press the transmit button on any radio in the Aviation Band (118 to 136) without holding an Aviation Radio Operators Cerfitificate, you are breaking the law ?

" UHF Ch 40 analogy"
- do people realise that if they transmit on UHF ch 5 or 35 when it's not an emergency they are breaking the law - Ch5/35 is by law a dedicated emergency channel pair.

"If faced with the choice of a beacon that costs $150 (121.5) vs one that costs $400 (406) then I'll have the cheap one thanks. Without realising (perhaps) that the expensive one offers a far greater chance of rapid location and rescue."
- I doubt that people would assume a beacon costing three times as much would be no better.

Recent events have proven that people aren't taking beacons on bush trips - for several reasons - the solution is to make MORE beacons easily available - and to educate people that beacons save lives in the unlikely event that things go wrong.

The government could encourage carrying of existing 121.5-only beacons where 406/121.5 is not mandatory.

The government could buy 406/121.5 GPS beacons and lend them out for free - they'll get the money back in reduced search and medical costs.

The government could force people to pay for them - by making them mandatory, like they are for some boats and planes.

The government could ban the sale of non-GPS 406/121.5 beacons - tracking down false alerts from these will take almost as long as 121.5-only beacons - and localising a victim to within 5km can take up to 5 hours.

Right now the government is only focussing on reducing their immediate search costs for false alerts (ignoring increased search costs for people with NO beacons) by banning perfectly useful 121.5-only beacons.
0
FollowupID: 669597

Follow Up By: Maîneÿ . . .- Thursday, Jan 21, 2010 at 13:09

Thursday, Jan 21, 2010 at 13:09
Mike,
who is confused ?

“they only have to make a slight change to existing laws making Beacons on ships and planes compulsory”

"The government could force people to pay for them - by making them mandatory, *LIKE THEY ARE* for some boats and planes"

Maîneÿ . . .


0
FollowupID: 669606

Follow Up By: Member - Matt M (ACT) - Thursday, Jan 21, 2010 at 15:05

Thursday, Jan 21, 2010 at 15:05
Mike,

"do you really think they built a dedicated satellite monitoring system for a frequency that wasn't dedicated for search and rescue."

Well, yes actually.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. The 121.5 MHz (or Inernational Air Distress (IAD)) frequency also carries voice (albeit distress) traffic in addition to beacon signals. As well as voice traffic, the frequency has also been subject to interference from, amongst other things, ovens and ATMs. In addition, monitoring distress beacons on 121.5 requires that both the transmitter and the ground station be under the satellite's footprint; and that coverage is not 100% of the earth's surface.

406MHz on the other hand truly dedicated to one purpose only and that is for 406MHz distress beacons (no voice). It is not as susceptible to other sources of interference and the 406 EPIRBS only rely on satellite access (not ground stations), so coverage is truly global.

Coupled with the digital (vice analogue) signal of the 406's, this means that the ONLY signals which make it to SAR authorities are from an activated beacon (whether triggered accidentally or not). I think the figure for actual alerts are something like 1 in 500 (and many of these are not distress beacons at all) for 121.5 versus something like 1 in 12 for a 406 (and these are all beacon activations).

I disgaree with your statement that tracking down false alerts from non-GPS 406 EPIRBS takes almost as long as from 121.5 beacons. For a start, there are drastically fewer false alerts from any 406 beacons, and secondly the initial uncertainty from a non-GPS 406 is still about 65 km2, versus some 800 km2 from a 121.5. Still a pretty significantly reduced search area.

So if you want to save our tax money, shutting down the 121.5 MHz beacons is an excellent start because it drastically reduces the number of launches based on false alerts as well as drastically reducing the initial search area.

So I stand by my statement that ceasing to monitor 121.5 MHz makes perfect sense. What happens from there? Well I kind of agreed with some of your points, but not forever. Maybe just extend the period of time the old beacons could be used for local direction finding, but eventually they have to go.

Matt.
0
FollowupID: 669616

Reply By: The Landy - Thursday, Jan 21, 2010 at 17:46

Thursday, Jan 21, 2010 at 17:46
"I’ll be contacting my Federal MP to point out the disdvantages of the banning of 121.5-only beacons."

I'd be interested in the response.

What you are proposing will never happen....121.5 will not be monitored and implying that a 121.5 beacon is better than nothing at all might lead some to believe that someomne will come to their aid if they activate one.....that is irresponsible at best!

AnswerID: 400476

Reply By: Shaker - Thursday, Jan 21, 2010 at 19:11

Thursday, Jan 21, 2010 at 19:11
From AMSA website:

Buyers beware!
* IMPORTANT NOTICE *
•From 1 February 2009, analogue 121.5 MHz distress beacons are no longer detected by satellite.
•From 1 February 2010, use of a 121.5 beacon will be illegal.
•You must carry a digital 406 MHz distress beacon.
•If purchasing a distress beacon, DO NOT purchase a 121.5 MHz distress beacon. Models that should be avoided are shown below.


AnswerID: 400485

Follow Up By: Member - Mike DID - Thursday, Jan 21, 2010 at 19:36

Thursday, Jan 21, 2010 at 19:36
"You must carry a digital 406 MHz distress beacon. "

- oh dear, they've made it compulsory to wear a beacon wherever we go.
0
FollowupID: 669653

Follow Up By: Shaker - Thursday, Jan 21, 2010 at 23:38

Thursday, Jan 21, 2010 at 23:38
You are reading a c & p of part of the article, it is compulsory to carry an EPIRB when operating more than 2 nautical miles offshore.
0
FollowupID: 669701

Follow Up By: olcoolone - Friday, Jan 22, 2010 at 08:55

Friday, Jan 22, 2010 at 08:55
"You must carry a digital 406 MHz distress beacon. "

- oh dear, they've made it compulsory to wear a beacon wherever we go."


Again why take something out of context and try to turn it around Mike?

I take it that you know the rules better then anyone else on here about EPIRBS and PLD's.


0
FollowupID: 669721

Follow Up By: Member - Graham H (QLD) - Friday, Jan 22, 2010 at 09:36

Friday, Jan 22, 2010 at 09:36
I take from that line if you carry a beacon it must be a 406


0
FollowupID: 669729

Follow Up By: Maîneÿ . . .- Saturday, Jan 23, 2010 at 18:58

Saturday, Jan 23, 2010 at 18:58
My post was in referance to the legal requirement that a digital 406 eperb has replaced the 121 analog system for search and rescue in the open sea from this year.

The old 121 analog system is no longer *monitored* so the chance of being found when your in trouble out at sea is not worth your life, well it's not worth it to me :)

Maîneÿ . . .
0
FollowupID: 669978

Reply By: Maîneÿ . . .- Monday, Feb 15, 2010 at 10:53

Monday, Feb 15, 2010 at 10:53
GPS Eperb information;

"A distress beacon with an encoded (GPS) location is usually detected by the RCC and located within minutes.

Distress beacons that do N0T have the capability to provide an encoded position also provide an initial alert to the RCC within minutes, but there will be no associated position sent. If the RCC has to rely on Polar-orbiting satellites to determine the location of a beacon, the time to gain an accurate position may take longer thereby delaying search operations.

NOTE: Polar-orbiting satellites over-fly the Australian region on average every 90 minutes but passes may be anywhere from minutes to 5 hours apart.
To improve response times, ensure distress beacons are registered and inform emergency contacts of trip details. Even once a position is obtained, response times then depend on the time for a search and rescue unit, such as a helicopter, aircraft or ground party to be readied and transit to the search area. The more remote the location of the distress incident, the longer the response time."

(the above is coppied from Eperb website)

Maîneÿ . . .
AnswerID: 404295

Sponsored Links