New Mission? ELT/EPIRB registration data checks

[RiverAux]

So, all the new ELTs and EPIRBs have to be registered and as was mentioned in another thread, that registration data can quickly get out of date. 

As CAP will be one of the primary users of this data, what about having a program set up within CAP to work on trying to keep the registration database up-to-date? 
For example, calling or emailing (if they collect that information) registrants on a regular basis to confirm the currency of the data in the system and making the proper notifications when it is wrong, out-of-date, or just plain ain't working any more.

This would be quite similar to the program where CG Auxiliary members regularly check on aids-to-navigation on rivers and coastlines to make sure that they are still there and working properly. 

Obviously, this would require very close cooperation between several federal agencies and CAP, but I think it could be done. 

This could be done as an AFAM so as to provide for reimbursement of long-distance phone calls. 

Besides the obvious benefit of having a good, clean database available, having CAP head-up this program would do wonders for our visibility among key user groups.  Besides the one-on-one contact, I could also see publicity campaigns focused on this issue that would prominently feature CAP. 

There may be some privacy issues that would have to be worked out, but I don't see them as major since I envision us acting in our role as the AF aux while contacting these folks. 

The bigger problem would be in trying to convince folks that it isn't some sort of scam.

Thoughts?

[davidsinn]

I pay taxes for this sort of thing. Why would I want to volunteer my limited time to do something like this?

[RiverAux]

So don't do it..... Seriously though, think about the money that could potentially be saved on non-emergency missions that had to be done due to bad or old registration data if CAP was working on keeping the database up to date?  There is the money saver. 

How much would be saved? Hard to tell without more information.  Some info from AFRCC on how many new ELT/EPIRB missions are being handled by phone with no resource activation would be helpful in that regard. 

If NOAA already has some sort of system in place to do this sort of work, great, but I sort of doubt it.  It doesn't cost them any money if the database is bad (it just makes other agencies spend more money to prosecute missions) so it isn't to their advantage to spend their money to keep it up to date.

And while the Coast Gaurd pays their personnel a lot of money to keep aids to navigation working, there are still plenty of volunteers out there willing to spend their time to assist that effort, so I could see some (but by no means a majority) of CAP members willing to do this.

[sardak]

NOAA does have a system for checking registrations. Registered owners are sent a letter and when known, an email, every two years reminding the owner to verify and update as required their registration information. I'm a registered owner and I do get the notices.

Originally, registration was done by letter, but for a number of years now, registration and updates are done via the Internet. NOAA estimates about 2/3 of registration activities are done on the Internet. 

NOAA started registering 406 MHz beacons in 1990. Registration stats as of January 1, 2009.
Number of registered beacons 225,007 - 68% EPIRBs, 19% PLBs, 13% ELTs
There were 29,705 new registrations in 2007 and 30,184 in 2008.

NOAA also keeps the stats on database accuracy and alerting.

- Some ELTs can have the tail number encoded in the beacon data stream. NOAA found 956 mismatches between the encoded tail number and the tail number in the database, with 2828 matches, for 25% mismatches.

- In an apparently random check of the database (I don't have background on the info) NOAA found that 86.6% of owner info was correct, 78.9% of contact info was correct and 85.9% of vessel info was correct.

- An analysis of registration usage for alerts for the first quarter of 2008
Distress 39 of 47 - 83%  Of the 39, in 13 cases the registration info was the primary means of resolving the case.

Non-distress 603 of 624 - 97%  In 456 of the 603 cases, registration was the primary means of resolution.

Signal ceased 54 of 120 - 45%  I guess this means they called the numbers on the registrations and someone admitted their beacon had gone off.

- NOAA also keeps track of the alerts by beacon model, since the beacon model is encoded in the data.  In 2007, ELTs held the top nine spots in false alert rate by model number.

Finally, 103 countries have their own registration database, with about 424,056 registered beacons as of 12/31/07.

Mike

[heliodoc]

sardak is on point

If NOAA already has this on a data base, then CAP ought to just tap in with those agencies in the know..

Rather than trying to keep a"CAP database" it goes to show, more and more, CAP has to get out of its own sandbox and WORK with the rest of the world

Until CAP can REALLY learn to update written and reading material  (Specialty Tracks dated 1985), I'll stick with an agency(ies) with day to day proven track records in data collection......

[wingnut55]

The AOPA and most of General Aviation is solidly against the conversion to the 406MHZ system, and you may remember when CAP members could sneak around peoples airplanes and write down the N numbers and reporting them to the 'FED" just because they had some mud on their tires or a soiled airplane or just because they did not like the person!!!

It set CAP back twenty years in good relations with their fellow pilots, many pilots still bring it up to me. The 121.5 units will be phased in eventually. But you must admit the FAA and the FCC have fallen flat on their face on this whole ELT conversion thing.

[RiverAux]

Okay, so they've got a decent system going.  I'd probably recommend yearly checks, but oh well.

Sardak - where did you get those stats from?

Thanks.

[sardak]

I got the stats from a couple of NOAA presentations here:
http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/Meetings.html

Look for the NOAA presentations for the actual stats, but there are other good presentations in both meetings.

Mike

[heliodoc]

Understandable wingnut...

But the 406 deal has been on the table for almost 10 years now...

AOPA and GA probably have got a lot to say but when this stuff was in the pipeline, well I don't know how AOPA and GA really could have stopped all of it.  I been a  member of AOPA also and maybe they could done more


Oh and the Fed thing back when for mud on the wheels......... that set back CAP, you are right

BUT somethings that CAP has done by ITSELF has set ITSELF back on its own!!!!! Can't blame everything on the Fed, FAA, DHS, 1AF, Bush, Obama etc.....!!!!!

[wingnut55]

hey


the other day we had 7 Elts going off from longbeach to San Diego

It was extremely windy raining, Ice conditions , snowing above 4,000 ft

No one would answer the page. Finally a few guys went out and the began to shut them off.

This is our future in Southern California, when we get an Airborne hit as our people go out it turns out we are getting multiple ELTs that have been going off.

Some times the ELT have gone on for days  and I mean 4 days. Than they begin to slowly die out, the signal gets weaker and weaker.

[JoeTomasone]

Just got back from a 406 mission - we got the call because the registration data on the EPIRB was bogus.  Turns out the boat was sold sometime in 2008 and the new owner never re-registered the beacon, and no one could contact the current owner.

Here's something I did NOT know: When you register an EPIRB, NOAA sends you a sticker to put on it that has the ID, vessel name, and an expiration date.   In this case, the expiration date was 7/31/2000. 

On a side note, I am going to have to set something up to monitor 406 and compare AOS to the 121.5 side.

Another interesting thing: The sweep tone was different from every other ELT/EPIRB I've ever heard.   I recorded a bit of it and plan to incorporate it in a "What's new now that SARSAT is gone?" presentation I plan to make.   Also got a recording of the data burst (sounds about like you'd expect if you've ever heard packet radio or something similar) that I will put in.