Now that we have a few months under our belt since they shut down the 121.5 system, I'm interested to hear if the number of SAR missions are going up, down or remain unchanged?
Also, since we are now relying on verbal reports does the reporting process work? Is the FAA calling AFRCC when they get a report or do they sit on it?
Quote from: Auxpilot on May 19, 2009, 07:18:38 PM
Now that we have a few months under our belt since they shut down the 121.5 system, I'm interested to hear if the number of SAR missions are going up, down or remain unchanged?
Doesn't seem like it has changed much - perhaps a bit less.
Quote from: Auxpilot on May 19, 2009, 07:18:38 PM
Also, since we are now relying on verbal reports does the reporting process work? Is the FAA calling AFRCC when they get a report or do they sit on it?
For certain definitions of "works". There are threads on this already, but the short version is that pireps are often altitude + location, usually yielding a search area so large as to make sending a GT before an aircraft ill-advised in a flat State like FL where the signal can be tens to dozens of miles away from the location of the pirep. We rarely (read "never", IME) get anything more useful like course and first heard/last heard. My guess is that the FAA had this thrust upon them and don't really have the desire to do much more than forward what they get.
FAA calls AFRCC usually.. AFRCC lately doesn't seem to fire off a mission unless there's more than one pirep -- judged by the fact that we had some single pirep missions in Feb/Mar and don't seem to be getting them any more.
If I had to sum in one sentence, I'd say that it's different, but not substantially more or less in terms of workload. YMMV (and likely does).
In California, the activity level in Northern California is way off from pre sarsat, same in Central and LA. Most of California's missions have been in the San Diego area that seem to average at least one every three days and they are finding multiple ELT each time. What hasn't
changed is finding ICs, aircrews and udf teams to go out a look for these signals. The IC and the alerting officers are putting out multiple pages to find resources for the missions. California is still broke. At least now the Wing is looking at moving aircraft away from units that don't fly them on A-1 missions.
Quote from: calguy on May 22, 2009, 04:13:27 AM
In California, the activity level in Northern California is way off from pre sarsat, same in Central and LA. Most of California's missions have been in the San Diego area that seem to average at least one every three days and they are finding multiple ELT each time.
Interesting that they are finding multiples on each sortie. Does that indicate that there may be a lot not getting reported and thus found on the one that does or is that normal?
Our volume of calls seems to me to be down (no hard data to back that up, just my impression) but I don't know if it is a result of a lot of folks having already switched to 406 or if the things are just ringing away until the battery goes dead.
Quote from: Auxpilot on May 22, 2009, 12:37:44 PM
but I don't know if it is a result of a lot of folks having already switched to 406 or if the things are just ringing away until the battery goes dead.
I suspect the latter. I had a 121.5 on the field at a local airpark recently. When the owner responded, I asked him if he was planning to upgrade, and he said that he had thought about doing it at the annual but the cost, etc, etc, etc. I politely let him know that we were called out around 11pm and found it at 2am; given that he'd been working on the plane and activated it at 3pm made 11 hours that he could have been in distress somewhere -- and at that, he was lucky that there were pireps on it. He did not seem terribly concerned.
Here is a recent report from Canada, courtesy of the National SAR Secretariat's SARScene magazine (http://www.nss.gc.ca/site/ss/magazine/vol18_1/406/goodbye_e.asp)
On March 14, 2009, various high-flying aircraft reported an ELT signal somewhere within 100 nautical miles of Fredericton, New Brunswick. It was only when a local flight plan expired a half-hour later that the signal was confirmed to be an actual distress transmission, and the probable identity of the aircraft known. Notwithstanding, the 121.5 MHz ELT was instrumental in leading a Hercules aircraft and a Cormorant helicopter from 413 Squadron to the denselyforested crash site, located approximately 25 nautical miles north of Fredericton. The three occupants of the aircraft were treated by SAR technicians, and transported to medical aid. This case also underlines the added value of filing a flight plan.
Mike
I think Joe has hit the nail on the head. We will get less calls, but those we do get calls on will take longer to solve. All ELT missions are going to be from someone monitoring guard and not from sarsat hits. Searches for overdue aircraft will not change much.
I don't think my wing has had an ELT yet in 2009. Usually we would have had 5-10 (never was big business for us).
Quote from: calguy on May 22, 2009, 04:13:27 AM
In California, the activity level in Northern California is way off from pre sarsat, same in Central and LA. Most of California's missions have been in the San Diego area that seem to average at least one every three days and they are finding multiple ELT each time. What hasn't
changed is finding ICs, aircrews and udf teams to go out a look for these signals. The IC and the alerting officers are putting out multiple pages to find resources for the missions. California is still broke. At least now the Wing is looking at moving aircraft away from units that don't fly them on A-1 missions.
And most of the San Diego "ELT's" turn out to be Navy aircraft and ships with malunctioning equipment.
Multiple ELT trargets seems to be the norm now. The last 3 missions I have been on have ALL had more than one target.
We are called out on one, but in locating one we pick up others. The last mission had 3 active ELT's we had to shut down.
I read Keilholtz's latest closing traffic:
1 signal on board a Navy ship (transmitter)
4 ELTs Navy Helicopters
4 in aircraft, one was df'ed into Mexico
and I understand he just had another one in an aircraft.
Another mission with multiple signals in southern Caifornia that ceased.
Seems like there are still a lot of signals out there. Most are not getting reported. Of interest, I see none of these were EPIRBs.
CAWG cannot get squadrons to fly. Most of these missions are getting completed by Maj. Keilholtz and maybe 5 other people. they do over 75% of the CAWG ELT missions.
Gee how can we justify all the airplanes and pilot training when 5 or 10 people do 75% of the work??
CAWG is on a serious implossion run, we hear giant sucking sounds as squadrons slowly and painfully deconstruct due to morral scraping the ground.
Than the Air Force stops monitoring 121.5 Just what CAWG needed to put another nail in the coffin.
But that is not to say they Aircrews will not respond to a Missing Aircraft Mission, They do well in that area.
Just there is no recruiting in California, Nevada, Arizona.
During the Fossett mission some civilian pilots called us ' The Depends Patrol" because so many of our aircrews are over 70 years old.
Not to belittle the experienced guys at all!! They are Rocks, but were will we be 5 years from now.
I have noticed a signifiucant drop in ELT alerts so far this year. The ELTs are still going off they just aren't being reported. Heck I accidentally found one in a Mooney after landing at an airfield. The Tracker was on so the alarm alerted us to an active signal. As usual it was a non-distress ELT in a hanger with a bad electronics package but a new battery.
Why is CAWG imploding, no recruiting? Is this something new or a sign of the times?
Here are stats AFRCC presented to the state SAR coordinators last week.
Incidents 08 to 09 Beacons 08 to 09 Missions 08 to 09
2008 2009 % change 2008 2009 % change 2008 2009 % change
January 456 570 +25.0% 431 540 +25.3% 146 147 + 0.7%
February 563 392 -30.4% 530 361 -31.9% 186 84 -54.8%
March 638 447 -29.9% 579 406 -29.9% 204 102 -50.0%
April 663 386 -41.8% 603 347 -42.5% 194 80 -58.8% |
Mike
wow, those are some significant numbers.
By last week do you mean the NASAR conference?
^^^^I was there, anyone else?
Quotewow, those are some significant numbers.
By last week do you mean the NASAR conference?
Yes, those are significant numbers. and yes, the state SAR coordinators meeting was held as a pre-conference session at the NASAR meeting. There were representatives from 17 states, the largest group yet, though not all were actually the SAR coordinator for their state.
Mike
Quote from: isuhawkeye on June 03, 2009, 03:06:18 AM
wow, those are some significant numbers.
35% drop!
I think it basically mean, we really don't need to be buying any additional DF ground equipment at this point. I was going to buy a magnetic mount antenna for the squadron van, but we've had NO callouts this year & I have a personal magnetic mount antenna we could use.
Probably not worth the effort to train a lot more people on this type of DF'ing. Maybe CAP could get involved with Project Lifesaver tracking devices to DF?
RM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on June 03, 2009, 10:26:19 PM
I was going to buy a magnetic mount antenna for the squadron van, but we've had NO callouts this year & I have a personal magnetic mount antenna we could use.
The only thing you use your van and radios for is ELT searches?
Didn't the van come with a radio and an antenna?
Quote from: Eclipse on June 03, 2009, 10:31:47 PM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on June 03, 2009, 10:26:19 PM
I was going to buy a magnetic mount antenna for the squadron van, but we've had NO callouts this year & I have a personal magnetic mount antenna we could use.
The only thing you use your van and radios for is ELT searches?
Didn't the van come with a radio and an antenna?
Presumably the antenna is an airband antenna for the DF gear.
Quote from: JoeTomasone on June 03, 2009, 10:35:46 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on June 03, 2009, 10:31:47 PM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on June 03, 2009, 10:26:19 PM
I was going to buy a magnetic mount antenna for the squadron van, but we've had NO callouts this year & I have a personal magnetic mount antenna we could use.
The only thing you use your van and radios for is ELT searches?
Didn't the van come with a radio and an antenna?
Presumably the antenna is an airband antenna for the DF gear.
Ah! Bach!
A 35% drop in useless missions is a very good thing.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on June 03, 2009, 10:26:19 PM
Quote from: isuhawkeye on June 03, 2009, 03:06:18 AM
wow, those are some significant numbers.
35% drop!
I think it basically mean, we really don't need to be buying any additional DF ground equipment at this point. I was going to buy a magnetic mount antenna for the squadron van, but we've had NO callouts this year & I have a personal magnetic mount antenna we could use.
Probably not worth the effort to train a lot more people on this type of DF'ing. Maybe CAP could get involved with Project Lifesaver tracking devices to DF?
RM
I wouldn't change your plans. The majority of EPIRB's, PLB's and ELT's have a 121.5 homing signal. The only equipment we have in inventory to track the 406 signal is the Becker. I also spoke to the AFRCC folks and they pointed out that the newest regulation with regard to these devices require the 121.5 homing signal if the unit is operated in the US....