Today is the day February 1st 2009

[isuhawkeye]

There has been a lot of talk and speculation as to how the transition away from 121.5 monitoring by COSPAS/SARSAT will affect the search and rescue community.  Specifically we have talked about the possible affect on CAP who's bread and butter SAR mission is the tracking and deactivation of these beacons. 

I did not post this for people to speculate, or hypothesize  (we've done that).  I'm looking for first hand accounts as to how this transition is affecting you. 

Has the volume of missions changed?

Have you had to adapt your tactics??

if yes please explain.

[JoeTomasone]

Already one 406 mission in FLWG today.   Officially FLWGs posture hasn't changed much except to treat every mission as a possible distress mission.   We will still hunt essentially the same way, and train essentially the same way.   The only real difference is the detection/alerting mechanisms.

On a somewhat related note, I silenced the last 121.5 ELT pre 1 FEB in FLWG.   

[jayleswo]

According to Aero-News Network (link to article here-> http://www.aero-news.net/news/commbus.cfm?ContentBlockID=2dd4b2de-fd1a-49ae-8eee-54502b05eeae&Dynamic=1), the USCG has selected Becker for their SAR MAN-PACK.
While we are still using Little L'per's and DF'ing on 121.5. Maybe we shoudl try and piggy back on the Coastie's contract and get some of these?

[wingnut55]

Are you kidding!

All 406 Mhz ELT units also transmit a sweep tone on 121.5, it is going to be very weak and our equipment
(the Old L-Pers) may not be sensitive enough at a distance.

We are going to be in trouble, I bet 100 Bucks President Obama makes the USAF turn the system back on. People are flat wrong saying the satellites are no working. The USAF has just cancelled all payments to the contractor that runs the ground station monitor of the Satellites, and to pass the information on to AFRCC.

go to the becker web site,and look at the system.  Do you think CAP is going to buy a $10,000 or $15, 000 unit for a nitwit to drop and break within a month of issue? NHQ does not trust us, they will not buy 4x4s for the ground DF teams.

[lordmonar]

You forget that our initial coordinates will be much closer have less false positives then the old system.

The low power 121.5 will fine.

[JoeTomasone]

Are you kidding!

All 406 Mhz ELT units also transmit a sweep tone on 121.5, it is going to be very weak and our equipment
(the Old L-Pers) may not be sensitive enough at a distance.

Cite, please.

I have yet to discover the 406 Mhz ELT that has a 121.5 Mhz radio of under 50mw, and that is a COMMON power level in 121.5 only ELTs that have been in the field for years.   The ELT I just located the other night was a 50mw 121.5/243.

[jayleswo]

Do you think CAP is going to buy a $10,000 or $15, 000 unit for a nitwit to drop and break within a month of issue? NHQ does not trust us, they will not buy 4x4s for the ground DF teams.

Well, they buy us $2,000 radios, $5,000 SDIS gear, $25,000 vans and $350,000 airplanes. Why not a $10-$15,000 Becker DF unit? If the Coasties seem to feel there might be some utility in having a ground based Becker DF unit, that's reason enough for us to at least look into this and evaluate a few units in the field. If it does the job for us, then equip some units who have active ground teams with this gear.

[isuhawkeye]

OK gang,

Thanks for the input, but I asked a few specific questions. 

Has the volume of missions changed?

Have you had to adapt your tactics??

if yes please explain.

[wingnut55]

Today I got a phone call from a former squadron C.O. who got a Phone call from the Assistant Airport manager, he got a call from The FAA Tower: They were picking up an ELT, possibly on the field..

The former C.O. asked if I could jump in my car and go look for an ELT. So now, you ask your self:  the easiest thing to do is just go do it?  But, that would be wrong, so I called an IC, he called the Director of Operations who called the AFRCC got a Mission Number and then the DO called an IC who put out a page for a DFing crew and an aircraft!!!

AFRCC, the FAA, Pilots flying, and CAP have lots of work to do.

This will be a fun year

[es_g0d]

Tactics will need to change, because by specification, 406 MHz ELTs transmit their 121.5 MHz homer at a nominal initial power of 25 mW.  This is specified in FAA technical standard order (TSO) 126.  When compared to the run-of-the mill ELT at 100 mW, we see that this is 1/4 the power.  This means we will need to be 16 times closer to receive the same power at a receiver (Maxwell's inverse square law).  The increased accuracy by geolocation from SARSAT should help with this problem, but for us end-user SAR crews the most difficult problem will likely remain the same: initial acquisition of the signal.

Handheld Becker SAR-DF-517 units, or some variant thereof, are really not the answer.  They are simply cost prohibitive as a handheld unit.  I could see, but probably not justify, Beckers mounted to vehicles.  But if Beckers aren't the answer, what then, must change in terms of tactics?

We need to be good at DF--BETTER.  Furthermore, we need to be MUCH better at air to ground coordination (my favorite soapbox).  I have personally witnessed a 406 beacon successfully DFed by an aircrew, who was then unable to get a ground team on-site.  Why?  Because the ground team had difficulty DFing the signal on the ground (and I personally verified, it was a VERY challenging signal due to low power, significant reflections combined with signal refraction).  Essentially, the aircrew was able to get the GT within 1/4 mile but that was insufficient.  This will be very challenging for us in CAP because we won't have as many opportunities for "live" practice.

In short, life just got a whole lot more interesting!  Last, but not least, wingnut55, I TAKE THAT BET.  You tell me the date you expect reversal, and I'll let you know where you can send my benjamin.

[Major Carrales]

On a somewhat related note, I silenced the last 121.5 ELT pre 1 FEB in FLWG.   

You know, I think I got the last one in Texas (01/29/09) pre 1 FEB .

[RiverAux]

OK gang,

Thanks for the input, but I asked a few specific questions. 

Has the volume of missions changed?

Have you had to adapt your tactics??

if yes please explain.

Uh, its only been 2 days....hard to gauge any change yet don't you think?

[isuhawkeye]

from what i've heard about florida and california with many missions daily I wanted to see if anyone had noticed any major changes. 

If you havnt noticed any then say so, and we can move along.

[sardak]

I hate to keep this derailment of ISU's thread going, but it is necessary to keep correcting misinformation. TSO C-126 makes no mention of the power output of ELTs. It states that 406 MHz ELTs must meet the performance requirements in RTCA Document DO-204. The wording from DO-204 for the 121.5 MHz homing signal power:
EIRP shall not be less than -13 dBW or greater than -4 dBW
Translated into CAP talk, that is 50 mW to 400 mW for ELTs

PLBs and EPIRB specs are in different documents, but have the same power rating, which is not the same as ELTs. They are 25 mW to 100 mW (specifically 25 mW -0/+6dB PEIRP). These are lower power, and from personal experience, the reception range is less as theory predicts :clap:. In urban areas the environmental RF noise alone has an added negative effect.

In the same thread where I posted those numbers before, http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=6145.0, I also mentioned the USCG-Becker MAN-PACK "portable" 406 DF. Becker showed it at the NASAR conference last summer. The unit was backpack size and the Becker rep's talking cost was $20k+.

Reminder to Wingnut, the Air Force is at the same level in the Sarsat program as the Coast Guard (one step above CAP). Neither one owns or controls the satellites or the Sarsat packages on them. The Coast Guard was in favor of discontinuing the 121.5 monitoring, agreeing with the rest of the world.

Mike

[JoeTomasone]

I hate to keep this derailment of ISU's thread going, but it is necessary to keep correcting misinformation. TSO C-126 makes no mention of the power output of ELTs. It states that 406 MHz ELTs must meet the performance requirements in RTCA Document DO-204. The wording from DO-204 for the 121.5 MHz homing signal power:
EIRP shall not be less than -13 dBW or greater than -4 dBW
Translated into CAP talk, that is 50 mW to 400 mW for ELTs

Correct.   Just got home from my first post-Feb 1 mission, a 406 at Tampa Airport.  The unit in question was an Artex C406-1, which interestingly claims to be 50mw on the unit's label, 100mw in the product's brochure, and 200mw in the operation manual.   

The change in tactics here was that the unit was localized to the airport by AFRCC, who called the airport, who verified the signal on the field but was unable to locate it.    We found it in short order just as we would have found any other ELT.    I got AOS at 3.7 miles from the source - again, just like a normal 121.5 ELT hunt.   

As far as the number of missions go, time will tell.   But from where I sit, the actual prosecution of the mission hasn't changed terribly thus far -- with the exception of a much more exact location.   Perhaps we won't need to launch aircraft for 406 beacons?

[ctrossen]

This past weekend, Wisconsin Wing put on a training event for Mission Base Staff-rated (and those who want to become rated) personnel. Because we were going to be specifically talking about SAR strategies and tactics, our wing DOS and current Duty Officer both called down to AFRCC to get some firsthand information.

(I'm going off of memory here as I don't have my notes in front of me, but the following should be substantially correct.)

For non-406 MHz ELT missions:

AFRCC will open a mission based on airborne reports routed through ATC.

Prior to contacting CAP (or the appropriate state agency), the controller will solicit for additional airborne reports (focusing on 10k ft or less, IIRC; maybe even 7k or less? I have a lot of different numbers from the weekend running through my head at the moment); the goal of these additional solicitations will be to narrow the search area down to a 30nm radius or less (the AFRCC controller will apparently do all of the mapwork and plotting to come up with this area).

The controller will be able to e-mail the assigned IC this graphical information.

Instead of relying upon missed SARSAT passes to close the mission, AFRCC will use negative reports from CAP to determine whether to close the mission (though I'd have to assume that if the controller received a slew of negative reports from ATC, that will also be a consideration).

The short of it is that AFRCC will do its best to narrow the search area as much as possible (if only to figure out which of a four--or more--state region the offending ELT actually is in) before turning the mission over to us. They, after all, do have a somewhat limited "pot of money" with which to prosecute SAR missions.


That all said, this will still be a particularly difficult type of mission if weather prevents useful low airborne reports. I think we may well be alerting ground teams across the state for a potential deployment until we can narrow the search area. I think we may well also be putting up several aircraft at once (two SAR birds plus a HIGHBIRD for coordination)--giving the "extras" a recall order as soon as we're able to actively track the signal.

One other concern *I* have as an apartment-dewlling IC: I don't have the ability to put up a decent permanent VHF antenna. So those 2 am missions will either require me to travel to a permanent ICP (about a 30 min drive for me--okay, 20 at night) or put up one of the two aircraft in the wing that have sat phones installed as HIGHBIRD (and hope that Globalstar will work reliably enough for them to pass traffic back and forth to me).

All in all, it'll be far more of a challenge for the IC. It'll probably also require us to put more assets in the field at once. Which will work for a while--eventually the "novelty" of putting several aircrews and teams out at once will wear off unless we only have a moderate number of these missions tasked (and right now we're probably running at 1 to 1.5 ELT missions a month on average).

[RiverAux]

Sounds to me like the days of running ELT missions out of your apartment are over in any case.  If you're going to be having 3 aircraft and multiple ground teams running around you're probably going to need a real mission base going -- not full scale, but with at least a radio operator and an OSC on duty. 

[N Harmon]

One other concern *I* have as an apartment-dewlling IC: I don't have the ability to put up a decent permanent VHF antenna. So those 2 am missions will either require me to travel to a permanent ICP (about a 30 min drive for me--okay, 20 at night) or put up one of the two aircraft in the wing that have sat phones installed as HIGHBIRD (and hope that Globalstar will work reliably enough for them to pass traffic back and forth to me).

Why not call in some communicators to operate the ICP? Then they can rely back to you via cell (or better yet, IM and email).

Of course, it would also be nice if our repeaters were equipped with something like echolink which allowed you to operate the CAP radio network from your apartment.

[ctrossen]

Pretty much.

Don't know if an IC would want/need anything more than himself/herself--initially, but at least whenever I run the typical 2am mission, all of the phone calls seem to come at once every few hours. Having that second person available would be good.

My second initial thought when we all really started considering this was to put the OSC up in the highbird. He/she coordinates all of the air/ground ops, at least for as long as it would take to pare down to one aircraft and a couple of ground teams, at which time we can go back to the normal "run the mission from home" paradigm.

Then again, as was pointed out to me, that's a bit of an advanced concept and despite our 16ish current ICs, we really only have a handful of people that could handle that level of multitasking (basically being OSC and CUL at the same time while also stilll dealing with being part of an aircrew).

Personally, I think it sounds fun...

[ctrossen]

Why not call in some communicators to operate the ICP? Then they can rely back to you via cell (or better yet, IM and email).

Exactly.

One thing's for sure: the "simple" ELT mission has a pretty good chance of no longer being particularly simple...

[JoeTomasone]

The unit in question was an Artex C406-1, which interestingly claims to be 50mw on the unit's label, 100mw in the product's brochure, and 200mw in the operation manual.   

Clarified this today with Artex.   They stated that the 100mw was nominal (full voltage), the 50mw was at EOL for the battery, and that the 200mw was a mistake. 

So in other words -- the 121.5 side is pretty much like any 121.5 ELT has ever been.   One nice new touch - this unit had a lithium battery pack, which will obviously run a lot longer at the maximum voltage.

[BigMojo]

On a somewhat related note, I silenced the last 121.5 ELT pre 1 FEB in FLWG.   

And I silenced one of the First Non-Sat Coverage 121.5s on 2 Feb.  (without the aid of an aircraft)

[Johnny Yuma]

There has been a lot of talk and speculation as to how the transition away from 121.5 monitoring by COSPAS/SARSAT will affect the search and rescue community.  Specifically we have talked about the possible affect on CAP who's bread and butter SAR mission is the tracking and deactivation of these beacons. 

I did not post this for people to speculate, or hypothesize  (we've done that).  I'm looking for first hand accounts as to how this transition is affecting you. 

Has the volume of missions changed?

Have you had to adapt your tactics??

if yes please explain.

KSWG ran 3 ELT missions the day after 121.5 SARSAT monitoring was turned off, all unregistered 406 units in the Wichita area.

There are too many unregistered ELTs and PLBs floating around, I don't see the Opstempo changing much. Cabela's is selling them at fire sale prices in the Bargain cave with no paperwork to register them.

[sardak]

Unfortunately, most of the ones we chase will be unregistered. In theory, if they're registered, a phone call or two to the phone numbers on the registrations should take care of it. Of course, planes are registered to corporations which are closed after hours, weekends, holidays, etc.

For the record, our wing has had one unregistered 406 beacon search since Feb. 1.  We had three in January.

The latest Sarsat package was launched Friday morning, February 6, from Vandenberg AFB onboard NOAA-19 (NOAA N-Prime). Everything appears to be operating normally. There is a 45 day system check-out before the satellite is declared operational.   
http://www.osd.noaa.gov/POES/noaa_n_prime.htm

Mike

[JoeTomasone]

Of course, planes are registered to corporations which are closed after hours, weekends, holidays, etc.

The registration asks for after-hours emergency contact data for that very reason.   Of course, over time, that data will grow stale due to personnel changes or sale of the aircraft without re-registration of the beacon - and that will likely generate more missions as well.

It would be interesting if AFRCC was keeping track of how many times they did NOT send us out due to properly registered 406 beacons that they were able to get silenced with a phone call.

[lordmonar]

Here's an intresting bobble.


According to the FCC all 406 ELT's must be registered.  If an unregistered ELT goes off.....we could be doing a criminal search as well as an emergency search.

Does Posse Commutadas (sp?) kick in?

[bosshawk]

Give that one to the lawyers.

[JoeTomasone]

Posse Commitatus would not apply since we are performing the SAR component, not the law enforcement component.   

[Major Carrales]

Posse Commitatus would not apply since we are performing the SAR component, not the law enforcement component.   

Agreed, ours is to find and save a life (if possible), after that...what there people do with the date we collect is beyond our scope of control.

One could say that an unregistered ELT constitutes a waste of resources or some sort of false alarm, but that is not for us to judge.