Has anyone started training for the Non-SARSAT environment? Since we (presently) do not have a 406 MHz requirement here in the states, in Feb 09 we will be back to "old school" ELT searches.
I'm currently trying to update some old National SAR School scenarios for use in my current wing and was wondering if anyone else is doing this.
The difference would be having to do a lot more searching at high altitude trying to pin down the signal's general area. For example, if an airliner at 30000' reports hearing an ELT, the area from which that ELT could be coming could be huge. Might require several airplanes to be put in the air in order to localize it. However, once you pick up the signal, it wouldn't be any different than what we do today.
So for the next SAREX, instead of giving the crew a relatively precise area to begin their search, you might tell them it is coming from somewhere in an area comprising 4 complete grids.
Are we absolutely sure the 406 satellite packages can't pick up 121.5 at all? I know they're shutting off the old satellites but it just doesn't seem quite right that there hasn't been something legal put out about aircraft changing to 406's like with boats. Usually entities like the AOPA or whoever won't fight mandated changes that would prevent the disappearance of a major safety backup unless there is something that indicates that there is some "reasonable" measure in place that ensures the safety factor still remains in some form. Can the 406 packages maybe pick up 121.5 but can't do as good of a job of determining a location?
I am certainly no expert on the subject, but we did have a lengthy discussion of this whole deal at the CAWG Conference this weekend. As far as I know, the 406 beacons on the satellites will not detect the 121.5 signal. With the new 406 beacons, they still emit on 121.5, but at a Quarter watt, vice the much stronger signal of the current 121.5 ELTs. That pretty much insures that the 121.5 signal from a 406 ELT can only be detected up close: much too close for satellite altitudes. Remember, the satellites used in SARSAT are in two different types of orbits: one around 500 miles(I think) and the others at 22,000+ miles(geosynchronous orbits).
We did get briefed on some technology under development which will potentially be placed on mountain tops or tall towers in those areas devoid of mountains, which will detect the 121.5 signal and potentially be able to provide some sort of basic directional information. Apparently still in the developmental stage, but it is being worked on.
Stand by to stand by.
BTW: AOPA has stated vehemently that they will oppose any sort of mandatory changing of the current breed of ELT for the 406 ones. The FAA has not shown any inclination to make the change mandatory, but they have been known to waffle and change their positions on lots of things.
There is a new 406 ELT that costs in the $600 range: a far cry from the $3000 ones that are currently available.
Read here (http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/121phaseout.pdf), here (http://www.equipped.org/406_vs_1215.htm), here (http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/080904elt.html), here (http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/faq.html), and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Position-Indicating_Radio_Beacon).
The story here (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/FAARemindsUsStandardELTsWillFadeFromSatellites_196098-1.html) provides a link to a CT post (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=2960.msg55200;topicseen).
Quote from: bosshawk on September 15, 2008, 04:44:31 AM
That pretty much insures that the 121.5 signal from a 406 ELT can only be detected up close: much too close for satellite altitudes. Remember, the satellites used in SARSAT are in two different types of orbits: one around 500 miles(I think) and the others at 22,000+ miles(geosynchronous orbits).
Apparently not true. I've gone after a 406 where the IC was told by AFRCC that they were only picking up the 121.5 signal.
sure, because the 121.5 satellites are still up there looking for these things.
And they pick up signals of low battery levels and such so it stands to reason that they could easily pick up a 1/4 watt signal
After all the info I made available, y'all didn't read it. :(
The hardware in orbit isn't changing. The capacity to do anything with the 121.5 signals is what's changing. There are no "121.5" satellites, or "406" satellites, it's all in the programming of units that currently respond to and process both signals.
The 121.5 homer in most of the 406 beacons I've tracked down (over 10) is anything but "weak" I've not noticed any range difference really. In fact the beacon that my AOS was furthermost from source was a 406.
I'm averaging 2 miles in a heavy urban environment and 3.5 in a suburban. That's good enough for me, as most 406 plots we are getting are within a 1/4 mile.
As for 121.5 only's post Feb 09, it's anyone's guess if this will still be an AFRCC assigned mission for us. (It probably will be, but no one has said one way or another yet).
Quote from: SarDragon on September 15, 2008, 06:53:58 AM
After all the info I made available, y'all didn't read it. :(
The hardware in orbit isn't changing. The capacity to do anything with the 121.5 signals is what's changing. There are no "121.5" satellites, or "406" satellites, it's all in the programming of units that currently respond to and process both signals.
I did! ;D Copied off the 406/121.5 comparison chart to distribute at this week's meeting where UDF training will be conducted.
The 121.5 homing signal on a 406 beacon is 1/40 of a watt (25 mW) not 1/4 watt, and yes, the satellites can receive the signal.
QuoteAs for 121.5 only's post Feb 09, it's anyone's guess if this will still be an AFRCC assigned mission for us. (It probably will be, but no one has said one way or another yet).
The AFRCC/CC has said that 121.5 reports after 1 Feb 09 will be handled just as they are today. They just won't be coming from the satellites.
QuoteThe hardware in orbit isn't changing. The capacity to do anything with the 121.5 signals is what's changing. There are no "121.5" satellites, or "406" satellites it's all in the programming...
Not quite. The GEOSAR system (the geostationary sats) can only receive 406, so are "406 satellites." As for what happens next year, the 121.5 and 243.0 receivers on the LEO sats will be turned off.
In fact, on NOAA 16, Sarsat 8, this recently occurred:
07/29/2008 15:45:46 121 RECEIVER SARR 121 MHz Rx successfully disconnected per USMCC/SARSAT request.
07/29/2008 15:46:40 243 RECEIVER SARR 243 MHz Rx successfully disconnected per request of USMCC/SARSAT.
Source: NOAA 16 Subsystem Summary (http://www.oso.noaa.gov/poesstatus/componentStatusSummary.asp?spacecraft=16&subsystem=16)
The status of all the Sarsats can be found here: http://www.oso.noaa.gov/poesstatus/
METOP-A = Sarsat 11, NOAA 18 = S10, NOAA 17 = S9, NOAA 16 = S8, NOAA 15 = S7
The GEO sat status is here (look under the COMM system for the SAR subsystems):
http://www.oso.noaa.gov/goesstatus/
Mike
Quote from: BigMojo on September 15, 2008, 12:38:14 PM
As for 121.5 only's post Feb 09, it's anyone's guess if this will still be an AFRCC assigned mission for us. (It probably will be, but no one has said one way or another yet).
It will. But instead of the Lat/Longs we get from the SARSAT, we're gonna get "A 737 at 32,000ft heard an ELT over this VOR, and a MD-82 heard an ELT 30 miles west of the same VOR at 34,000ft."
It'll be interesting ;D
Quote from: SJFedor on September 16, 2008, 06:25:56 AM
Quote from: BigMojo on September 15, 2008, 12:38:14 PM
As for 121.5 only's post Feb 09, it's anyone's guess if this will still be an AFRCC assigned mission for us. (It probably will be, but no one has said one way or another yet).
It will. But instead of the Lat/Longs we get from the SARSAT, we're gonna get "A 737 at 32,000ft heard an ELT over this VOR, and a MD-82 heard an ELT 30 miles west of the same VOR at 34,000ft."
It'll be interesting ;D
I can see this as being good for our coordination skills. In this situation, it would take forever for a single team to zero in on the signal. So, we will have to put up aircraft and multiple ground teams to quickly locate it, and our teams will have to coordinate closely to find the ELT quickly.
There is no way you could send out the single ground team for this and have any reasonable expectation of it being found in a reasonable time.
[rumor mill]
I've "heard" from sources that can't be confirmed that the USCG just got a grant to place Becker DF sites along the East Coast (on towers) to help triangulate 121.5's in the post Feb 09 world. I'll believe it when I see it, but it sounds good.
[/rumor mill]
They've been doing that for years and years from CG stations and even from personal towers operated by CG Auxies. You may have been hearing about the CG's "Rescue 21" system that will have some of those features.
Speaking only from RUMINT, that isn't Becker DF's but traingulation on the maritime distress frequency using a computer software package that would be similar to DFing a cell phone.
Searching for a radio signal on open water is a little bit easier though than in hilly terrain.