121.5/ 243 Illegal? Let's discuss how 406 MHz fits into all this

[Major Carrales]

elts-illegal

Your ELT will be no good after Feb. 1, 2009.

That's the date the International Cospas-Sarsat Program goes into effect for aviation emergency locator beacons. What's more, you'll have to register your individual beacon with the government.

In October 2000 the International Cospas-Sarsat Program announced at its 25th Council Session held in London, that it planned to terminate satellite processing of distress signals from 121.5 and 243 MHz (military) emergency beacons on the above date.ÊAll aviators, and individuals using emergency beacons on those frequencies will need to switch to those operating on the newer, more reliable, digital 406 MHz frequency if they want to be detected by satellites, a spokesman said.

Boaters should already know that the use of a 121.5 MHz EPIRB became illegal after Jan. 1 of this year (except for man overboard devices).

"The decision to stop satellite processing of 121.5/243 MHz (the latter being military) signals is due to problems in this frequency band which inundate search and rescue authorities with poor accuracy and numerous false alerts, adversely impacting the effectiveness of lifesaving services," the agency spokesman said.Ê"Although the 406 MHz beacons cost more at the moment, they provide search and rescue agencies with more reliable and complete information to do their job more efficiently and effectively."

PIZZA OVENS?

In fact, 121.5 is so unreliable that a study showed 99% of calls picked up were false; moreover, some were being broadcast by ATM machines, sports stadium scoreboards and pizza ovens. Also, the signal strength was usually so weak that it could only indicate an area as large as 12 to 15 nautical miles for search and rescue teams to cover.

The Cospas-Sarsat Program made the decision to terminate 121.5/243 MHz satellite alerting services, in part, in response to guidance from the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). These two agencies of the United Nations are responsible for regulating the safety on international transits of ships and aircraft, respectively, and handling international standards and plans for maritime and aviation search and rescue.

More than 180 nations are members of IMO and ICAO.

NOAA, along with the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Air Force, and NASA (the four Federal Agencies who manage, operate, and use the SARSAT system) are strongly advising users of 121.5/243 MHz beacons to make the switch to 406 as soon as possible.Ê

The three types of beacons currently in use are aviation's Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs), emergency position-indicating radio beacons (EPIRBs, now illegal), used on boats, and personal locator beacons (PLBs) used by hikers.

After Feb. 1, 2009, the 121.5 MHz band will no longer be be processed by search and rescue satellites. The new beacon will be mandatory by law and must be registered with the NOAA either online or at the time of purchase.

Intentional false activation can be punishable with fines of $250,000, imprisonment for six years and payment of all costs associated with the rescue attempt.

From...  http://www.landings.com/_landings/pacflyer/feb4-2007/Fn-37-elts-illegal.html

[Major Carrales]

ELT CHOICES

406 MHZ vs. 121.5 MHZ


How Much is Your Life Worth?



U.S. Air Force Rescue Coordination Center

Langley Air Force Base, VA


National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration

U.S. Mission Control Center

Suitland, MD


How 406 MHz Beacons Save Lives


1. A 406 MHz Beacon on a downed aircraft activates either automatically or manually.  The ELT transmits a digital identification code to the first satellite that comes into range.


2. The satellites receive the signal and relay it to a ground station.  If there is no ground station in view, the satellite will record the digital signal in its onboard memory and down load it to the next ground station.


3. The ground station processor measures the Doppler shift of the signal and calculates its position, this calculation is usually accurate to within 1.5 nm on the first satellite pass and is refined further with each pass.  If the beacon has an integrated GPS or is connected into the onboard NAVCOM the position is imbedded into the initial digital data stream. 


4. After the ground station has completed processing, it transmits the identification and position to the United States Mission Control Center (USMCC).  The USMCC attaches the information contained in the 406 MHz beacon registration database for that particular ELT and generates an alert message.  If the location lies within the continental U.S., the alert is sent to the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center (AFRCC) at Langley AFB, VA.  The AFRCC then takes the registration data and attempts to ascertain the aircraft's disposition.  By calling the emergency contact numbers or by calling flight service stations with the N-number, they can quickly determine whether or not the aircraft is safe on the ground.  Since most activations are false alarms, the ability to resolve them over the phone will save the AFRCC (i.e. U.S. taxpayers) millions of dollars.  More importantly, it will save SAR assets for actual emergencies.


5. If the AFRCC in unable to verify the aircraft is safe on the ground, they will launch a Search and Rescue mission. This normally involves assigning the search to the USAF Auxiliary Civil Air Patrol and may include requesting assistance from the local SAR responders or law enforcement personnel.






Registration

The unique digital code of each 406 MHz beacon allows it to be associated with a particular aircraft.  The registration contains information such as tail number, home airport, type of aircraft, color of aircraft and several emergency points of contact.  This provides rapid access to flight plans and other vital information.  This can speed the search effort and can be the difference between life and death.   




Geostationary Satellites


In addition to the polar orbiting COSPAS and SARSAT satellites, 406 MHZ beacons can be received by GOES geostationary satellites.  These are always visible and provide instantaneous alerting.  They are not capable of Doppler locating 406 MHz beacons but can provide identification and are designed to instantaneous relay the identification and location of beacons that have an integrated GPS or are connected to an aircrafts NAVCOM,  allowing for substantially reduced search area and almost immediate notification to SAR forces.





False Alarms


The impact of false alarms on SAR forces is greatly reduced by 406 MHz beacons.  These beacons are less susceptible to inadvertent activation.  If one does activate inadvertently, a phone call to the contact number provided in the beacon registration will usually prevent the expenditure of SAR resources.  121.5 MHZ Beacons have a large false alarm rate and can not be tracked down with registration data, each alert must be homed in on to determine the source.




Location Accuracy



406 MHz ELT W/GPS

Accuracy – .05 nm

Search Area – .008 sq nm

Search Area reduced by a factor of 45!



121.5 MHz ELT

Accuracy – 12 nm

Search Area – 452 sq nm


406.0 MHz ELT

Accuracy – 2 nm

Search Area – 13 sq nm




Coverage:


121.5 MHz beacons

Local

Satellite, ELT and ground station must be mutually visible.  Information is not held


406 MHz beacons

Global

Satellites store data and download to next ground station down range

[fyrfitrmedic]

 With all due respect, doesn't this come under the category of 'old news'?

[Major Carrales]

With all due respect, doesn't this come under the category of 'old news'?

Yes, I suppose it does.  But a question was asked about it at the lst meeting and I wanted to solicit fresh commentary on it.

Also, I have been deployed twice in as many days to BOGUS 121.5 missions (one coming from an US GOVERNMENT facility) the other a mafunctioning device bleeding onto 121.5.

The sections discussing inaccuracy, thus, resonates with me of late.

[Chaplaindon]

While I strongly encourage a shift to 406 beacons --for all of the reasons the USAF and NOAA have stated-- I wonder if this phase-out will ultimately resemble the events surrounding the termination of LORAN-C (Long Range Area Navigation ... a predecessor to GPS whose equipment was installed in virtually every CAP aircraft for a while).

Frankly, I don't know where that stands today, I have to suspect that after nearly 20 years of thereatening to do so (and setting multiple deadlines that were all ignored or extended due to public and user group pressure) that the LORAN-C chains have now FINALLY been deactivated in favor of BETTER, simpler, more accurate, and cheaper GPS.

I do know that many deadlines --certainly the first-- passed and LORAN-C lived.

IMHO, there's every reason to believe the same sort of thing may happen with the 121.5/243.0 beacons. By legislative fiat SARSAT/COSPAS will keep listening and processing signals for/from them -- less accurate though they may be-- well past Feb 2009. Someone(s) is/are likely to start complaining and/or filing suits that terminating the 121.5/243.0 program is placing a needless financial burden on ordinary citizens and making our Nation less safe (during the transition) during a time of war and global terrorism. I can just hear it now.

I thus suspect that Congress will "buckle" and order NOAA and the USAF delay the scheduled temination.

Out of curiousity ... when were the LORAN-C chains silenced?

[CLB]

Look at it this way.  There is no one on the planet that can beat us in DF'ing a beacon. 

ELT's will always be one of our main jobs, no matter what frequency it may be on. 

[DNall]

Not much to DF. AFRCC calls the pilots direct, and his family if they can't get a hold of him. If he's supposed to be out flying then they send the fire dept to the GPS point. Once you get to that point a line search of the area would be more useful than a DF, and anyway, who has 406 DF gear?

We'll still do actual missing aircraft searches, and there will be a few DF jobs steadily decreasing over the years - look how much less work we have already. That means it will be so infrequent that we need to find other things to be our main focus.

[Major Lord]

Respectfully, I can't seem to find any law prohibiting the use of 121.5 elt/epirbs, only agreements that the SARSAT satellites wil not be monitoring those frequencies. In fact, FCC regulations are very clear that any type of transmitter may be used in any radio service in an emergency. Criminal penalites for possesion is a new one on me! Can anyone tell me where I can find that law?

Capt. A. Lord

[bosshawk]

A couple of points which may contribute to this discussion.  One, the new 406 ELT also transmits on 121.5 when activated, although at a much reduced power.  I am told that you will have to be within a mile or two of the ELT in order to receive the signal.   The CAP 206 that I fly has the new ELT in it and it has two antennas: one for 406 and one for 121.5.  I believe that all of the CAWG aircraft have the 406 ELTs installed.  Two, I don't think that the FAA has mandated the replacement of the current breed of 121.5 ELTs, but wouldn't be at all surprised if and when they do. 

The important point that I think AFRCC and everyone else is trying to make is that the satellites will no longer monitor 121.5, so that should give most GA pilots pause.  There are, of course, many who will simply say: "who cares" and go on about their business.  I suspect that the vast majority of GA pilots never give a second thought to the prospects of being found in the event that they make an off-airport landing. 

Don't know about most of you folks, but I have chased more false alarms in ELTS than I ever hope to count.  We will still do that in the future, just not as many because nobody will hear them.

[sardak]

elts-illegal

Your ELT will be no good after Feb. 1, 2009.

That's the date the International Cospas-Sarsat Program goes into effect for aviation emergency locator beacons.

What's more, you'll have to register your individual beacon with the government.

Landings.com needs to remove that from its site because whomever wrote it is an idiot.  None of the above statements are true. What is correct:

On Feb. 1, 2009 the Cospas-Sarsat system stops processing 121.5/243.0 MHz signals.

In fact, by law, general aviation will still be REQUIRED to use 121.5 MHZ ELTs after Feb. 1, 2009.   The laws regarding carriage of ELTs still specify the old beacons (with a few exceptions).  There are no laws or regulations prohibiting the use of 121.5 MHz ELTs.

The Cospas-Sarsat system has been in use for aviation emergency beacons since the 1980s.

The only beacons that have to be registered are 406 MHz beacons and that requirement has been in effect as long as there have been 406 MHz beacons, which is almost 15 years.

Boaters should already know that the use of a 121.5 MHz EPIRB became illegal after Jan. 1 of this year (except for man overboard devices).

True.  121.5 MHz EPIRBs were designated Classes A, B and S.

TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION
CHAPTER I--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (CONTINUED)

PART 80_STATIONS IN THE MARITIME SERVICES--Table of Contents

Subpart V_Emergency Position Indicating Radiobeacons (EPIRB's)

Sec.  80.1053  Special requirements for Class A EPIRB stations.

Class A EPIRBs shall not be manufactured, imported, or sold in the
United States on or after February 1, 2003. Operation of Class A EPIRB
stations shall be prohibited after December 31, 2006. New Class A EPIRBs
will no longer be certified by the Commission. Existing Class A EPIRBs
must be operated as certified.
[68 FR 46974, Aug. 7, 2003]

Sections 80.1055 and 80.1059 have the same wording for Class B and Class S EPIRBs.

IMHO, there's every reason to believe the same sort of thing may happen with the 121.5/243.0 beacons. By legislative fiat SARSAT/COSPAS will keep listening and processing signals for/from them -- less accurate though they may be-- well past Feb 2009. Someone(s) is/are likely to start complaining and/or filing suits that terminating the 121.5/243.0 program is placing a needless financial burden on ordinary citizens and making our Nation less safe (during the transition) during a time of war and global terrorism. I can just hear it now.

I thus suspect that Congress will "buckle" and order NOAA and the USAF delay the scheduled termination.

Out of curiosity ... when were the LORAN-C chains silenced?

The LORAN-C system is still in use.  The latest public comment period on its use closed on February 7, 2007.  The link to publication in the Federal Register is here:
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/eLORAN/E6-22421.pdf

As for the government caving in on the 2009 date...  The termination date was published in the Federal Register in 2000.  The dates to get rid of 121.5 EPIRBs came and went without change.  Aviation isn't required to change, so there is no financial burden to complain about.

Mike

[DNall]

Don't be silly. turning off ELTs is a total waste of time & money. It's great that 406 lets AFRCC call the owner & take care of it before anyone is called out. The loss of EPIRD & availability of 406 has already cut misson load dramatically. I don't know about yall, but more than one per week (6-8/mo) down to less than one per month here in my Gp is pretty huge. That transition will continue down beyond 2009 to the smallest of trickles.

The way 406 works is, and I've seen it: AFRCC calls the owner directly, and if not them then family/job/friends/etc (scary what they can find about you so quickly); if they were out flying & FAA doesn't have them then local fire/police are getting dispatched to the GPS location, not CAP & your one hour response time to go find out if emergency assistance is needed.

Aviation as been transitioning to this vaery quickly, and will continue to do so. Prices will come down with volume, and demand will go up at that point. Of course there will still be some old ELTs to track down in the transition, but you need to accept it now that it's not going to be an important part of what we do anymore.

[Major Carrales]

I don't think we will be out of the DF business with the 406 types.  It only means the following in my opinion...

1) Greater accuracy in coordinates so we can pin point the starting point of a UDF mission

2) Elimanation of so many gosh darn false alarms.  Now AFRCC can contact some one at a place like VAN ES private Airfield in Bruni, Texas and get someone to shut it off at 0300 hrs instead of waking the Texas Wing Alerting officers, a IC in Victoria, Brownsville or San Antonio who will call a unti commander or ES officer in Corpus Christi to send me and some other CAP Officer on a 200 mile round trip false alarm.

3) Loss of many find ribbons. 

Yes, there will be less missions, but those that we will get called out on will be or greater quality.  Meaning, a 406 signal might well be "the real thing!!!"

That might mean more training for UDF.  Or, dare I say it, UDF merged into GROUND TEAM 3.

Now we can begin to ponder this seriously.

[lordmonar]

Respectfully, I can't seem to find any law prohibiting the use of 121.5 elt/epirbs, only agreements that the SARSAT satellites will not be monitoring those frequencies. In fact, FCC regulations are very clear that any type of transmitter may be used in any radio service in an emergency. Criminal penalites for possesion is a new one on me! Can anyone tell me where I can find that law?

Capt. A. Lord

It's not so much that you are not allowed to have them....it is that no one will be listening for them.  SARSAT will be turning off those satellites.  121.5 is still a good ELT frequency.  Even the 406 still transmit on 121.5 but it is intended to be used for close in searches (like CAP does) not for SARSAT activation.

It will be the FAA not the FCC that forces the push.  The USCG has already mandated the switch for vessels that come under their jurisdiction.  So if they pull you over and do an emergency equipment check and you are not in compliance they will ticket and fine you.  The FAA will do something similar in the next year or so.  They will require your ELT to be check during the next annual or 100 hour and if it is not the right ELT then you plane is grounded.

It is a stretch to say that requiring a $1000 ELT is a financial burden on aircraft owners!  It is not like they have been keeping this a secret of anything.

[DNall]

406 hits, they call the owner, if he's missing they call the police to check the general area, THEN if they can't find it they think about calling CAP. It's nto a big deal for CAP to adjust to doing this well.

What is a big deal is the mission load will be so small that few people will want to train & stay qual'd for something they do for a few hours once or maybe twice a year on the outside.

It also takes away that "95% of all inland air SaR dispatched by AFRCC" cause 99% of that has always been false alarms, which is why they've kept using CAP rather than qualified rescuers, but those mostly go away with this quantum leap.

What that ultimately means is we aren't worth the money that gets spent on us... not unless we adjust to pick up more missing person & PLB stuff, as well as move beyond SaR, in both cases requiring NIMS which is a challenge for us to convert to.

The important thing is to accept that it is time to change & our traditional bread & butter won't be there in enough quantity to keep us busy, staffed, & funded; to define where we're going with that change, and get the hell there before we fall further behind.

[RiverAux]

I have worked in a high-intensity ELT mission area (1-3 missions for my unit each month) and a low intensity ELT mission area (3-5 times a year) and I've got to say that after the first few months in the high-intensity area the thrill was definetely gone.  So, I won't miss the ELT missions too much. 

[Major Carrales]

The adpatation Dennis mentions will mean CAP will have to concentrate on the mission activity like the one mentioned in this article I've written...


Civil Air Patrol Continues to Search the TEXAS/NEW MEXICO border for Missing Pilot
Major Joe Ely Carrales, CAP/PAO

9 March 2007

Texas/New Mexico Border – Efforts are approaching the week mark as Aircraft and Volunteers of the Civil Air Patrol (CAP), the US Air Force Auxiliary, continue to search West Texas and Southern New Mexico for a California pilot that disappeared from radar near Guadalupe Peak on Feb. 28.

Jim Willess, a veteran former Army and airline pilot, was flying a bright red two-seat home-built Vans RV-6 experimental aircraft when he disappeared. His original objective was to leave from Mojave, Calif. to a point in Virginia. Willess, however, disappeared into the Guadalupe Mountains shortly after refueling in Marana, Ariz. Willess did not file a flight plan nor inform anyone of the route.

Officers and resources from two Civil Air Patrol Wings (Texas and New Mexico) have been deployed to Western Texas and Southern New Mexico since Friday, 2 March 2007 in response to a request from the Air Force Rescue and Coordination Center (AFRCC) recently relocated to TYNDALL AFB, Florida.

A mission base was initially established at Cavern City Airport, near Carlsbad, NM for New Mexico Wing operations and another at Addison, TX for the Texas Wing. Both Wings are coordinating their resources in the search effort. At the time of this report 102 air sorties and 6 ground sorties were either flown, preparing or in the planning stages.

Varied search methods are being employed by Civil Air Patrol searchers. A vast area of the Guadalupe Mountains is being searched by CAP's Air and Ground resources. Ground teams have included expeditions on mule back and Aircrews that utilize cutting edge Airborne Real-time Cueing Hyperspectral Enhanced Reconnaissance, or ARCHER, technology to search of the virtually inaccessible mountain.

ARCHER technology is an advanced imagining system that uses visible and near-infrared light to examine the surface of the Earth and find suspected crash sites or evaluate areas affected by disasters.

More traditional Radio Direction Finding techniques have not been employed due to the fact that there seems to be no ELT (Emergency Locator Transmitter) in play. These beacons activate upon crashing and broadcast a signal on 121.5 MHz.

Lt. Col. D. Whisennand, an incident commander with the Civil Air Patrol confirms... "No distress signal has been picked up."

A helicopter from the Texas Department of Public Safety has also flown in support of the search effort without success.

Also, hampering the efforts are the older crash sites of more than thirty aircraft on the last half-century or so in the Guadalupe Mountain National Park area.

CAP aircraft have covered more than 6,500 square miles. Two of the search aircraft carry modern hyperspectrum imaging equipment that can detect objects unlikely to be seen by human observers.

The incident Commanders remain hopeful and sorties are expected to continue through at least Thursday, when bad weather may cause efforts to come to a halt, provided the pilot and aircraft can be found sooner.

"The pilot was an experienced combat military and airline flier," conveyed Lt Col Whisennand, " [The pilot is]familiar with the area and survival techniques."

Current Incident commanders for this joint mission are Capt Shirley Kay, of the ALAMOGORDO COMPOSITE SQDN (New Mexico), and Lt Col Dietrich Whisennand of the IRVING COMP SQDN (Texas) Personnel who may be available for deployment early next week are requested to prepare and be on alert.

A call for additional Civil Air Patrol resources was issued Wednesday

Major Joe Ely Carrales, CAP/PAO


While these intense SARs are not often, thsi is what our Ground forces need to train for. 

[DNall]

The adpatation Dennis mentions will mean CAP will have to concentrate on the mission activity like the one mentioned in this article I've written...
[article]
While these intense SARs are not often, this is what our Ground forces need to train for. 

That's redcap, and absolutely that's what out GTs should & theoretically do now train for. That's supposed to be the dif btwn UDF & GTM3. The standard they need to meet is WSAR from NIMS. Lots of discussion on that. Once you meet that standard then you can deploy on a much wider varriety of stuff.

Even with that SaR alone isn't goig to be enough to justify us. We can make a bigger contribution in Disaster Assessment & be out at the pointy end, but that too is few & far between. Ultimately there should be other things we do as well beyound SaR/DR. HLS is noce too, and augmentation should be on the table in a lot of forms. None of this is very complicated. Set dawn the vision, the membership & Congress will buy it, everyone else will follow when leaders step up.

[lordmonar]

What that ultimately means is we aren't worth the money that gets spent on us... not unless we adjust to pick up more missing person & PLB stuff, as well as move beyond SaR, in both cases requiring NIMS which is a challenge for us to convert to.

So let's switch to DHS and maybe we can do some real missions for America?

[DNall]

Couple things about that...

1) It means no more cadet programs or AE, cause DHS has no use for them & won't cut their program funds to pay for it. ES alone can't support the administrative cost of CAP, not even a portion of it big enough to operate a 20k person org. That means there is no structure we can take under DHS that would allow us to live.

2) There's no mission for us there. DHS does LE, not really HLS, but that depends on how you define it. The govt won't allow civilian volunteers to do LE, regardless of PCA. Which you can see evidenced by the policies that govern CGAux. Fact is they can & do from time to time ask 1AF for help & when CAP is the right tool we are assigned. At the same time DHS has a gigantic air force of their own that they want to loan out to 1AF cause they don't have enough mission for all of it & don't want to lose it. You bring in CAP & their budget gets cut hand over fist, making the country less safe & hurting DHS. They like us with 1AF. W/o a strong tie there I think you'll find they'd prefer us not to exist because of the danger it presents to them.

3) The NIMS standards are sitting there, get that done & you got plenty of work. 1AF has missions if we were the right tool to do air recon over US territory - that's what you want to do right? You want to do something worthwile for the country, 1AF is where it's at, CAP is the reason we don't get more missions. Fix your own house & we can go to work, or don't & neither DHS or anyone else has work for you either.

[Pumbaa]

Actually DHS does more than LE, remember other departments have been rolled under it, thus some of the cluster %&^ that occured during Katrina.

Check out their site to get an idea
http://www.dhs.gov/xprepresp/programs/

I agree with most of what has been said here.  Technology is going to change the way things are done.  However, like most, we need to adapt to the changes or die.

Disaster releif/ recovery should become the bigboy in our portfolio.  Aerial surveys of disaster areas, rebuilding/ clean up, etc... (Smaller S&R will probably still be around but good point who wants to train to call out but a small bit.)

The thing is CAP needs is to expand their portfolio, ADVERTISE those things if it is to be called and used.

The summer of 06 their was major flooding in this area of NY, deaths were attributed. The damage was incredible.  We are still recovering from it. Since I was just moving up to the area I do not know what capacity local CAP contributed.  I am working on finding out. My hunch is limited to none, that is sad.

Even if CAP is not called out during the actual event, why not assist in the recovery?  CAdets could easily be invloved in that.  This is a way to get the CAP name out as well as the other missions it performs.  Look at some of the press after Katrina/ Rita.. limited, but good..  We need more of that on the smaller community level too.

I can say the recent SAREX I was in, there were no local cadets invloved, just ones from other squad'ns.  Actually there were many more seniors than cadets.

The main point is... CHange or die.

Hurricaine season is just a few months away now.  Focus on training for that on all ends, send out press releases, letters to LE, etc.

The main thing is, what can we do NOW, what training can be done that is still within our current mandate that can be expanded, modified to the current/ upcoming climate of change for CAP?

[DrDave]

Sorry, I may be completely off base here, but isn't this entire discussion about SAR frequencies on a public forum violating OPSEC?

Just curious.  Correct me if I'm wrong (no flames please! <grin>).

[MIKE]

No, these ELT/EPIRB/PLB freqs are public knowledge.

[RiverAux]

Seeing as how ALL of our SAR training materials and policies are available without restriction from the CAP NHQ web site, there isn't much we could give away here...

[wingnut]

you got to be kidding me OPSEC over ELT frequencies, ARE YOU A PILOT? No . . . ok your making me talk to my self


sorry was that too much flame??? :angel:

[DNall]

Actually DHS does more than LE, remember other departments have been rolled under it, thus some of the cluster %&^ that occured during Katrina.

Check out their site to get an idea
http://www.dhs.gov/xprepresp/programs/

Hype verus reality. It's a bunch of LE agencies rolled together & sharing resources now to do the same LE missions they always did. Look at the resource deployments & such, not to mention the campaign you see to conenct drugs w/ terrorism. It's all budget hype. They got no one flying the border to prevent terrorist coming across with bombs, that's 1AF.

I agree with most of what has been said here.  Technology is going to change the way things are done.  However, like most, we need to adapt to the changes or die.

Disaster releif/ recovery should become the bigboy in our portfolio.  Aerial surveys of disaster areas, rebuilding/ clean up, etc... (Smaller S&R will probably still be around but good point who wants to train to call out but a small bit.)

Just a word of caution that disaster relief belongs to Army, and they got that well covered. The overall air response (mil & civilian) is run by 1AF... So, the best way to get ground teams involved is as part of an organic air/grd/CnC task force to do first in assessment. At that point you have your foot in the door & have made an early first impression with the highest level officials involved in the event, which puts you in place to follow on with additional personnel.

The thing is CAP needs is to expand their portfolio, ADVERTISE those things if it is to be called and used.

The summer of 06 their was major flooding in this area of NY, deaths were attributed. The damage was incredible.  We are still recovering from it. Since I was just moving up to the area I do not know what capacity local CAP contributed.  I am working on finding out. My hunch is limited to none, that is sad.

Even if CAP is not called out during the actual event, why not assist in the recovery?  CAdets could easily be invloved in that.  This is a way to get the CAP name out as well as the other missions it performs.  Look at some of the press after Katrina/ Rita.. limited, but good..  We need more of that on the smaller community level too.

I can say the recent SAREX I was in, there were no local cadets invloved, just ones from other squad'ns.  Actually there were many more seniors than cadets.

The main point is... CHange or die.

Hurricaine season is just a few months away now.  Focus on training for that on all ends, send out press releases, letters to LE, etc.

The main thing is, what can we do NOW, what training can be done that is still within our current mandate that can be expanded, modified to the current/ upcoming climate of change for CAP?

PR no-doubt is a big thing thru which we can maximize the opportunities we can address. Absolutely you should be cognizant of it & addressing it at every turn. At the same time, our capabilities & reputation are lacking. We need to professionalize our cuture so people take this seriously as though they were professional resucers, cause they's what they are supposed to be, just w/o the paycheck. We need to work on our quality control & training standards to gain greater standing with our parent & outside orgs, as well as greater capability to carry out complex missions. And, we need to address the technology package we are deploying. We got all these nice efficient platforms to put over target areas, and very little more than a set of eyes to carry. That's not very useful in most situations.

[Nick]

I would not tag the collective DHS as a bunch of LE agencies rolled together.

Law Enforcement Agencies Transportation Security Administration US Customs and Border Protection US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Federal Law Enforcement Training Center US Coast Guard US Secret Service

Non-Law Enforcement Agencies National Communications System National Cyber Security Division US Fire Administration Office of National Capital Region Coordination Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Directorate for Science and Technology Federal Emergency Management Agency Office of Operations Coordination Domestic Nuclear Detection Office US Citizenship and Immigration Services

Now granted a few of the non-LE entities have a limited LE function (such as the FEMA Inspector General), but in general DHS fulfills a bigger picture than just a bunch of LE agencies rolled together.

[DNall]

That's a little misleading. Some of those aren't full stand alone agencies. Sci/Tech for instance mimics the same division under CIA. Same with Ops coordination, NatCapReg, Cyber, etc. those are support directorates. Immigration, that's a regulatory agency that's fed by CBP & ICE. Some of the others were stand alones that got whipped in & hadn't changed at all. Like Fire Admin for instance, great org, but they don't have anything to do with homeland security.

I'm not saying they don't do any HLS & it's all LE... what I'm saying is there's a lot of confusion & most of the missions people would like to do for them are actually 1AF jobs, not DHS. If they have missions they want us to fly, then they can & do ask 1AF for that help. Don't get me wrong, I think there is a great partnership to be had with DHS providing us some toys to fly around, particularly for radmon, but ultimately it is best done thru AF.

[Hartley]

Hi Guys,

  Back to the original question area..

  The 406 ELT/EPIRB does have a 50 mW 121.5 transmitter for "last mile" homing.  Not all (or even most) 406 units have an active GPS onboard, so they may transmit no info, or the info may be old (as in the last position the onboard GPS sent to it).  This is probably more important with regard to Marine units, which might be drifting, than a crashed aircraft on land.  While they are not going to "alert" on 121.5 mHz signals after the cutoff, they will certainly still use the SARSAT assets to monitor and track these signals when a "missing aircraft/vessel" situation occurs - those satellites will be up there for a long time to come!

  SAR frequencies, including our VHF-AM channels (122.9 & 123.1), Marine channels (6,16,21A,22A,82A, 83A, 2182 kHz, etc) and the NTIA -designated interoperability channels are all "Public Record", and are NOT FOUO like CAP's internal VHF & HF frequency set.

  The AFRCC/USCG gets it's info on the owner/operator of the 406 unit via the registration process - the forms involved are mostly "How do we get hold of you - who might know where you are?" questions.. and they are very easy to complete and submit.  Their primary concern is being able to ID and contact the owner or someone who can tell them if the unit might be in distress.  Part of the reason for this is that they will get an IMMEDIATE notice of the activation of a unit via the receivers on the geostationary satellites, but may not get a good location fix (from the LEO sats) for some time - they are willing to launch assets into the general area of a verified (or strongly suspected) distress activation even before they have a specific location.  In the Marine world, there have been several reports of CG aircraft launched within minutes of a 406 activation that the USCG believed was a true distress situation - and all they had at the time was a "somewhere between San Diego and Cabo San Lucas" location.

73 DE Hartley
 

[DNall]

Yes, but the 406 does ID the tail number, and from it the owner & his contact info, which in turn gets them called &  on the way to scilence the non-distress signal...

The point being w/o the volume of non-distress activity our ground & air crews will not have adequate work under current circumstances to keep up their skills, and there will not be an adequate mission load to justify our current funding levels.

All of which requires branching out, which in turn brings on a debate about if that branching should be toward AF & DoD or other federal agency missions, which is our primary purpose as an org but may require serious change, or if we should focus on state/local, which can be warm & fuzzy but doesn't & never will pay the bills.

Posting known info like this thread, or about current NIMS compliance standard, or NIMS FPIS-201 ID standards for credentialling... and about draft info like the credentialing standards for SaR... all of that is meant to educate people to the reality of a changing world that we need to start adapting to - comm is the only place we're remotely up to speed on.

[lordmonar]

Also 406 will get you a position to withing 2km vice the 20km of 121.5.  With GPS it will get you withing 100m!

Also the 406 only requires 5 minutes to get a fix as opposed to 45 minutes for 121.5...so even if your target was moving you can get a more up to date fix on it.

All around the 406 is a much better system.

Also when you got the COMPAS web site...they are saying they are turning off the 121.5 system on 1 Feb 2009.....so that looks like the hard date for the FAA to get off their butts unless there is someone else monitoring the signals.

[sardak]

The FAA is not going to get off its collective butt.

The FAA can't just start telling aircraft owners to change their ELTs to 406 MHz beacons.  That requires a change to federal law (14CFR91.207).   The Coast Guard got the law changed and started the EPIRB transition in 2003 giving mariners three years to comply.  This allowed a two year grace period (2007-08) before Sarsat stops listening, thus giving the USCG time to make sure "everyone" is converted (there will always be those who don't comply). 

The last major changes to ELT requirements for general aviation took the FAA five years to get through the process.

The FAA isn't going to get the law changed before 2009 not just because of time, but because FAA won't even try.  Why would it try to change at the 11th hour when it's had six years since termination was announced?  And of course 2008 is an election year.  The aviation community has been opposed to another ELT change.  Here is the Aircraft Owners' and Pilots' Association (AOPA) position:

"AOPA opposes any attempt to mandate or otherwise require the replacement of existing 121.5/243-MHz ELTs with 406-MHz units."
   http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/elt.html

If one reads the history of this issue, in 1992 the US recommended to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) the use of 406 ELTs.  The NTSB and other groups recommended to the FAA that the mandatory transition to 406 ELTs begin in 1994, but the FAA was opposed.  So now it's 2007, Sarsat monitoring of 121.5/243 stops in two years, and 406 MHz ELTs still aren't required in the US.

Some of the opposition to making 406 MHz ELTs mandatory has to do with cost.  $1000 for an approved aviation 406 MHz ELT is at the rock bottom. Cessna's site shows that a new 182 comes with a 121.5/406 beacon with no GPS capability, which one can find on the Internet for about $1000.  The factory upgrade to a 121.5/243/406 ELT connected to the aircraft GPS is $7195!!  I found the same model on the Internet for $4650, uninstalled.  There are less expensive ones, too.

While both the FAA and AOPA are opposed to mandatory requirements, both organizations encourage owners to equip aircraft with 406 MHz ELTs.  Failing that, the two groups suggest pilots carry PLBs to gain the advantage of the 406 beacons at a much lower cost ($600 or so) while still having the FAA required 121.5 MHz ELT in the aircraft.

But the FAA is already thinking to the future, this is section 6-2-5 of the FAA Airman's Information Manual:
To ensure adequate monitoring of these frequencies [121/5/243.0] and timely alerts after 2009, all airborne pilots should periodically monitor these frequencies to try and detect an activated 121.5/243.0 MHz ELT.

Mike

[Tubacap]

My question is, after 2009, is the only way to find out if a plane went down with the 121.5 system an overdue status?  If so, it seems that we may find ourselves in more protracted missions lasting longer.  A few years ago we did a GTE with USAF where they had us plot out every airport from NJ through the center of PA.  I think we calculated it would take about a day of calling to check everything all the airports to see if the plane had landed. 

Without at least a decent SARSAT hit, could this be a more realistic view of what a distress or non-distress ELT search would be like?

[lordmonar]

Generaly I like the AOPA....but this position statment is just assinine!

We don't want to change, even if no one is listening!

They sound like a bunch of 5 year olds....

[DNall]

Generaly I like the AOPA....but this position statment is just assinine!

We don't want to change, even if no one is listening!

They sound like a bunch of 5 year olds....

They're looking out for their member's desires, and their desire to keep them members, you can't blame them for that. That doesn't mean they & most people aren't more flexible when it doesn't saound so much like them taking a hit in the pocketbook.

Honestly I think the prices will continue to go down on teh units as they become more universal. When your batter expires after 2009 & you're in for an annual or something, I'm pretty confident it'll get switched out at that point. Personally I think it's irresponsible of the FAA to allow a gap in coverage like this. They shlould have used the lead time to get people switched, and/or maintain alerting from the old system while they buy that time.

[lordmonar]

Again I agree with you....it is irresponsible to wait this long to do anything.

Talk about being out of the ELT buisness.  If the 406's are not required on all aircraft (they are required on comercial aircraft) then once SARSAT is switched off, we are almost out of a job completly. Sure the 121's will still be required....but who's listening?

[sardak]

We go back to the pre-satellite days.  Overflying aircraft will be the primary source, but the mission count definitely goes down.   High flyer ELT reports without Sarsat hits are the missions where the ICs earn their pay and lose their sleep.  I know.

Pilots will also need to be encouraged to file flight plans, use flight following and/or make more pilot reports, to increase their chances of being noticed sooner in case of a problem.

Note that a certain organization has been noticeably quiet on promoting the need for aviation to switch to 406.  I think I know why, but I'm not pleased with the reasons.

Mike

[Major Carrales]

The superfluous missions may go down, but the the need will still be there.

Honestly, I would rather be raised at 0300 hrs by a real "Paul Revere" to find a "fellow aviator" than to have to deal with irrate aircraft owners at Cualquiera Co. Airport who's ELT went off.

Rest assured, we will not be out of the ELT business with 406, we will merely be in a better world.  A more accurate world with less wasted time and a greater opportunity to assist.

[DNall]

The thing is though if they have a location within a mile or two they aren't calling you with your hour plus response time. They're calling the cops to drive around looking for a mess.

You'll still get some calls. 406 goes off on airport, AF calls the numbers provided by the guy, but he's gone on a cruise & not answering the phone or the door when the cops show up. So you'll get called to find & silence it. It's so many fewer missions though that our capability & cost effectiveness will drop off considerablly. Plus we won't have that 95% of inland-ASAR number to toss around as our bread & butter.

If really want to do something, start looking into getting the new 406 DFs for the planes that the CG is installing now.

[Major Carrales]

The thing is though if they have a location within a mile or two they aren't calling you with your hour plus response time. They're calling the cops to drive around looking for a mess.

The Cops?  I don't think the police have the time to be doing our job. 

In anycase, lets just see what happens.

[lordmonar]

Rest assured, we will not be out of the ELT business with 406, we will merely be in a better world.  A more accurate world with less wasted time and a greater opportunity to assist.

My point is that there is not going to be a 406 world.  If the FAA does not mandate them, who is going to spend the $1K-$1.5K for them?

I agree that if/when the FAA gets around to mandating them...we will be in a much better world (especially if they mandate the GPS option as well!)...but if they do not by 1 Feb 2009 we will be in a much worse world.  Now will be tracking lost planes with only the flight plan to go off of.  Which means AFRCC is not going to get the first notificaiton 45 minutes after the crash but maybe 2 hours after the pilots fails to close out his flight plan.  An istead of having a 20km radius to search we will have to search the entire flight plan from last radio/radar contact.  It will be like the 1970's all over again!

[RiverAux]

The federal government somehow found the cajones to make everybody buy new television sets or expensive adapters, so I think requiring a BETTER safety device on airplanes shouldn't be much of a stretch. 

[lordmonar]

The federal government somehow found the cajones to make everybody buy new television sets or expensive adapters, so I think requiring a BETTER safety device on airplanes shouldn't be much of a stretch. 

Oh I agree.....but we have had what 10 years to take of this...and the FAA has 20 months to get it done or there will be a lot of guys with $200 worth of ballast in the planes and no one out looking for them to crash.