Ooops: unintentional transmit on 121.5
Margy Patterson
Rori Stumpf wrote:
>
> After accidentally transmitting on the Emergency Frequency (121.5), should
> the pilot remain on the frequency until ATC confirms that the transmission
> should be ignored and is not a distress call?
>
> Are there any other considerations?
>
> Rori....@mindspring.com
> PP-ASEL (N-RENTER)
I think that would be a really good idea. I once had the experience of
listening to a student lost and on 121.5. The pilot found an airport
and disappeared off frequency. Not even a thanks alot! The folks at
121.5 tried for a good 10 or 15 minutes to get a response.
Margy
Chad R. Speer
I say listen for ten or fifteen seconds. If nothing is heard, just
leave the frequency. If you hear a response, answer it and say
something like, "Unintentional transmission on 121.5. Disregard." I
wouldn't say anything like, "I am NOT declaring an emergency," because
Murphy will make sure someone at extreme range hears only the word
"emergency"!
Also, don't repeat your callsign. Reminds me of the aircraft who, in
the dead of night, with very little traffic says, "I'm F*cking bored!"
ATC comes back with, "Aircraft that made that transmission, identify
yourself!" Pilot responds, "I said I was bored, not f*cking stupid!"
Chad Speer
PP-ASEL, ATCS
Rori Stumpf
After accidentally transmitting on the Emergency Frequency (121.5), should
the pilot remain on the frequency until ATC confirms that the transmission
should be ignored and is not a distress call?
Are there any other considerations?
Rori....@mindspring.com
PP-ASEL (N-RENTER)
Dave Bostock
The ELT emits a continuous sweeping tone, if you had a big emergency,
you'd be prefacing your call with May Day! May Day! which is how us
unedurcatd slopy egrish peple prununce a French phrase. If you had a
troublesome condition such as low on fuel, lost, wet your pants etc. You
would be saying Pan Pan, which I don't have a clue about the origins of.
If you are transmitting on the frequency you are blocking any other
transmissions in the area. Since too wrongs don't make a right I think
you can draw your own conclusion. Now, if you find your house surronded
by CAP cadets in the morning you will know not to post such a question on
the internet.
Rori Stumpf (Rori....@mindspring.com) wrote:
: After accidentally transmitting on the Emergency Frequency (121.5), should
: Rori....@mindspring.com
: PP-ASEL (N-RENTER)
--
Dave Bostock dea...@dc.seflin.org Florida, USA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~ EXCELLENT SPAM SMASHING INFORMATION IS AT http://spam.abuse.net ~~~~~
Rori Stumpf
Dave Bostock <dea...@dc.seflin.org> wrote in article
<5r3s92$f...@nntp.seflin.org>...
>
> The ELT emits a continuous sweeping tone, if you had a big emergency,
> you'd be prefacing your call with May Day! May Day! which is how us
> unedurcatd slopy egrish peple prununce a French phrase. If you had a
> troublesome condition such as low on fuel, lost, wet your pants etc. You
> would be saying Pan Pan, which I don't have a clue about the origins of.
> If you are transmitting on the frequency you are blocking any other
> transmissions in the area. Since too wrongs don't make a right I think
> you can draw your own conclusion. Now, if you find your house surronded
> by CAP cadets in the morning you will know not to post such a question on
> the internet.
>
Okay Dave, I see you have a basic understanding of MAYDAY and PAN calls and
their relationship to the Civil Air Patrol - now how about answering the
question?: "After accidentally transmitting on the Emergency Frequency
(121.5), SHOULD THE PILOT REMAIN ON THE FREQUENCY until ATC confirms that
the transmission should be ignored and is not a distress call?"
The reason I asked the question is that I am under the impression (correct
or incorrect), than an alarm is generated at some centers monitoring the
121.5 frequency. So, it may be possible that the controllers/FSS divert
their attention from normal operations to handle the "emergency"? Is this a
correct assumption?
Monitor 121.5 on x-country flights and you may eventually hear an
unintentional transmission...
Fly safely, have fun,
Rori Stumpf
Tom Boucher
Walter Murray wrote in article <5r5b97$lib$1...@rosenews.rose.hp.com>...
I have a related question. When flying cross country, I have often
been tempted to transmit a test message on 121.5 just to see if
anyone answered. I would identify myself, of course, and make
it clear that it was just a test. Would such an action be frowned
upon?
Walter
I believe if you tested it 5 min past the hour you would be OK. (I think
that is the time you can test ELTs, right?)
TOm
BTurner783
As a controller, I would call for the aircraft that made the transmission
and look for someone squawking emergency. If I got no response, I would
just disregard the transmission.
>: After accidentally transmitting on the Emergency Frequency (121.5),
>: the pilot remain on the frequency until ATC confirms that the
transmission
>: should be ignored and is not a distress call?
or instructions) then it's no big deal.
Walter Murray
Rori Stumpf (Rori....@mindspring.com) wrote:
: After accidentally transmitting on the Emergency Frequency (121.5), should
: the pilot remain on the frequency until ATC confirms that the transmission
: should be ignored and is not a distress call?
I have a related question. When flying cross country, I have often
Ron Natalie
Walter Murray wrote:
> I have a related question. When flying cross country, I have often
> been tempted to transmit a test message on 121.5 just to see if
> anyone answered. I would identify myself, of course, and make
> it clear that it was just a test. Would such an action be frowned
> upon?
>
frequently monitor 121.5 (unless I'm really bored and switch
COM 2 over to 122.75). I've heard one real honest to god
distress situation and the FSS system answered the lost student
pilot immediately. They promptly got her a squawk code from
the nearest radar facility to help her find her way...
-Ron
Ron Natalie
> I believe if you tested it 5 min past the hour you would be OK. (I think
> that is the time you can test ELTs, right?)
This is only for ELT's, and only for three sweeps (if you've ever
heard an ELT whooping, not more than three of these), and you
shouldn't expect to hear a response.
Do you call 911 periodically to make sure they answer their
phones?
nightjar
Walter Murray <wal...@hprctbs3.rose.hp.com> wrote in article
<5r5b97$lib$1...@rosenews.rose.hp.com>...
> I have a related question. When flying cross country, I have often
> been tempted to transmit a test message on 121.5 just to see if
> anyone answered. I would identify myself, of course, and make
> it clear that it was just a test. Would such an action be frowned
> upon?
>
In the UK we have a two procedures for pilots to get familiar with using
the emergency frequency and Distress and Diversion services. Pilots are
encouraged to use them whenever there is no real emergency in progress.
The first call is 'Training Fix'. The D&D centre will simply reply with the
position of the aircraft making the call. You are expected to know where
you are when you make this call, rather than use it instead of making a PAN
PAN call if lost. The centre may ask you to verify that their fix is
accurate as a cross-check on their own systems.
The second call is 'Practice PAN'. For this you get exactly the same
service as you would for a real PAN, but everyone knows that it is just an
exercise. It can be terminated at any time by either party.
The priority of calls is MAYDAY, PAN PAN, Training Fix, Practice PAN.
Colin Bignell
Chad R. Speer
I don't really have a problem with a test transmission here, but it
should be done for the right reasons. The frequency works. If you
think you're radio might not work, check another frequency. The only
reason I can think of for testing 121.5 (or 243 for that matter) is to
check if any facility "guards" the guard frequency.
I would preface this by calling local ATC facilities to see if they do
monitor it. If they do, maybe you can arrange a test transmission so
there are no surprises. If you can't find a facility that guards it
(many don't), and they can't tell you who does, by all means test it!
Just make sure you clearly state that it is a test.
Example: "This is a test. Any air traffic facility, this is Cherokee
32456 with a test message on Guard. How do you hear?"
Also, it would be a good idea to alert the nearest FAA facility (FSS,
Center, Approach, Tower) of the test in case they get a call from a
distant facility that picks up on your message.
I don't think this would be necessary in many places. FAA coverage for
guarding 121.5 and 243.0 should be complete in most areas.
Chad Speer
PP-ASEL, ATCS
Dave Bostock
I like Chad Speers answer, it seems to be the most pragmatic/courteous
thing to do. If you really really want me to answer the question, then
please e-mail $27,643.00 in singles or Cyndy Crawfords home phone number.
Rori Stumpf (Rori....@mindspring.com) wrote:
: Okay Dave, I see you have a basic understanding of MAYDAY and PAN calls and
: their relationship to the Civil Air Patrol - now how about answering the
: question?: "After accidentally transmitting on the Emergency Frequency
: (121.5), SHOULD THE PILOT REMAIN ON THE FREQUENCY until ATC confirms that
: the transmission should be ignored and is not a distress call?"
: The reason I asked the question is that I am under the impression (correct
: or incorrect), than an alarm is generated at some centers monitoring the
: 121.5 frequency. So, it may be possible that the controllers/FSS divert
: their attention from normal operations to handle the "emergency"? Is this a
: correct assumption?
David Abrams
Well for 5 minutes after the hour you can test your ELT on 121.5 so I would
suppose you could test during those times. I always tell the controllers I
am going to do the elt test on the normal comm freq so that may be a good
idea for a voice test as well.
David Abrams
Galactic Industries Corp
395 Main Street
Salem, NH 03079
(603) 898-7600 Voice
(603) 898-6228 (FAX)
d...@galactic.com
http://www.galactic.com
Walter Murray wrote in article <5r5b97$lib$1...@rosenews.rose.hp.com>...
>>
>I have a related question. When flying cross country, I have often
>been tempted to transmit a test message on 121.5 just to see if
>anyone answered. I would identify myself, of course, and make
>it clear that it was just a test. Would such an action be frowned
>upon?
>
>Walter
>
>
Chad R. Speer
Have you ever checked the response time (or even response percentage) in
some of America's cities? Maybe somebody should be checking! :)
Chad Speer
PP-ASEL, ATCS
Hotel Q
>>>I have a related question. When flying cross country, I have often
been tempted to transmit a test message on 121.5 just to see if
anyone answered. I would identify myself, of course, and make
it clear that it was just a test. Would such an action be frowned
upon?>>>
YES, it would be frowned upon!! When you transmit on 121.5, everyone in
the Center is hearing what you are saying via a loudspeakers installed
over various sectors in each area. This is very annoying, and it
interferes with our regular communications on our headphones. If you
REALLY need to test your radio, ask the controller first, then transmit a
few words as possible. Be assured that the Center's emergency
frequencies are tested daily to make sure they are working.
HQ - ZBW
Clayton L. Cranor
Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> Walter Murray wrote:
> > I have a related question. When flying cross country, I have often
> > been tempted to transmit a test message on 121.5 just to see if
> > anyone answered. I would identify myself, of course, and make
> > it clear that it was just a test. Would such an action be frowned
> > upon?
> >
> frequently monitor 121.5 (unless I'm really bored and switch
> COM 2 over to 122.75). I've heard one real honest to god
> distress situation and the FSS system answered the lost student
> pilot immediately. They promptly got her a squawk code from
> the nearest radar facility to help her find her way...
>
I have been asked to transmit just such a "test" request on 121.5 by the
FSS. The times I have been asked to do this were when I was over a
remote com site & I was asked to transmit on all freqs the RCO could
handle.
Clay
I wouldn't do it unless asked to.
ca...@magicnet.nospam.net
Hotel Q wrote:
>
> >>>I have a related question. When flying cross country, I have often
> been tempted to transmit a test message on 121.5 just to see if
> anyone answered. I would identify myself, of course, and make
> it clear that it was just a test. Would such an action be frowned
> upon?>>>
>
> the Center is hearing what you are saying via a loudspeakers installed
> over various sectors in each area. This is very annoying, and it
> interferes with our regular communications on our headphones. If you
> REALLY need to test your radio, ask the controller first, then transmit a
> few words as possible. Be assured that the Center's emergency
> frequencies are tested daily to make sure they are working.
>
> HQ - ZBW
Also, if the rest of your communications gear is working normally why
would you need to test just one freq? If the radio works on your normal
channels (tower, ground , etc) then it will work on 121.5.
Frank van der Hulst
"Rori Stumpf" <Rori....@mindspring.com> writes:
> Okay Dave, I see you have a basic understanding of MAYDAY and PAN calls and
> their relationship to the Civil Air Patrol - now how about answering the
> question?: "After accidentally transmitting on the Emergency Frequency
> (121.5), SHOULD THE PILOT REMAIN ON THE FREQUENCY until ATC confirms that
> the transmission should be ignored and is not a distress call?"
>
> Monitor 121.5 on x-country flights and you may eventually hear an
> unintentional transmission...
A friend of mine (not me, no, really) accidentally called on 121.5, when
what he wanted was 125.1. Response was almost instantaneous. After
switching to 125.1, the requested clearance (controlled VFR through their
airspace) was denied.
Frank.
--
fra...@dogbox.manawatu.planet.org.nz (Frank van der Hulst)
=== Users at this site are charged high mail fees. ===
Please don't send binaries without prior permission of the account holder.
(This is the default system sig. If you see this, assume a Usenet newbie)
JS
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------121646BE757B
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Not true. I had a radio in a Ba-3100 that had problems on a couple of
frequencies but worked fine on all others. I wouldn't use that to
justify test transmissions on 121.5 though.
JS
MD-88 FO
--------------121646BE757B
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="Link.htm"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Link.htm"
Content-Base: "file:///C|/Web%20Pages/Misc/Link.htm"
<BASE HREF="file:///C|/Web Pages/Misc/Link.htm">
<HTML>
<BODY>
<PRE><A HREF="http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/jayschne"><IMG SRC="http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/jayschne/banner.gif" HEIGHT=40 WIDTH=400></A>
http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/jayschne</PRE>
</BODY>
</HTML>
--------------121646BE757B--
John Prickett
In article <33DE5A...@sprynet.com>, JS <jays...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
>ca...@magicnet.nospam.net wrote:
>>
>> Also, if the rest of your communications gear is working normally why
>> would you need to test just one freq? If the radio works on your normal
>> channels (tower, ground , etc) then it will work on 121.5.
>
>
>Not true. I had a radio in a Ba-3100 that had problems on a couple of
>frequencies but worked fine on all others. I wouldn't use that to
>justify test transmissions on 121.5 though.
>
>JS
>MD-88 FO
>
sorta depends on the radio and how it generates its frequencies. i
would suspect that most modern radios use freq. synthesis, and would
be pretty reliable for the one works == all works hypothesis. (i do
admit that there could be a divider problem, or an attenuation
problem in the tuned circuits if a component fails, but by and large
these would be remote possibilities).
on the other hand, the old mk 12a used a frequency mixing technique.
i once had a single crystal fail, and could not transmit on anything
that ended in .4 or .9. other frequencies worked fine.
don't know why i wrote this, probably nobody cares anymore (new
radio regs & all).
john
--
'i'd rather be flying'
john.p...@amd.com
ca...@magicnet.nospam.net
I stand corrected.
397
"nightjar" <nigh...@pavilion.co.uk> wrote:
>Walter Murray <wal...@hprctbs3.rose.hp.com> wrote in article
><5r5b97$lib$1...@rosenews.rose.hp.com>...
>> I have a related question. When flying cross country, I have often
>> been tempted to transmit a test message on 121.5 just to see if
>> anyone answered. I would identify myself, of course, and make
>> it clear that it was just a test. Would such an action be frowned
>> upon?
>>
>In the UK we have a two procedures for pilots to get familiar with using
>the emergency frequency and Distress and Diversion services. Pilots are
>encouraged to use them whenever there is no real emergency in progress.
>The first call is 'Training Fix'. The D&D centre will simply reply with the
>position of the aircraft making the call. You are expected to know where
>you are when you make this call, rather than use it instead of making a PAN
>PAN call if lost. The centre may ask you to verify that their fix is
>accurate as a cross-check on their own systems.
>The second call is 'Practice PAN'. For this you get exactly the same
>service as you would for a real PAN, but everyone knows that it is just an
>exercise. It can be terminated at any time by either party.
>The priority of calls is MAYDAY, PAN PAN, Training Fix, Practice PAN.
>Colin Bignell
121.500 is an Emergency ONLY frequency! Not a test frequency!
Use 123.450 if you want to play around with the radios or get a CB!
121.500 MHz is for voice calls when an aircraft is in danger and/or
the ELT (Emergency Locator Transmitter) that is activated when G-shock
occurs if/when an aircraft crashes or has some other mishap that puts
the pilots and the plane in danger.
nightjar
"397" <hin...@amel.tds.net> wrote in article <5rregh$j...@news2.tds.net>...
> "nightjar" <nigh...@pavilion.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In the UK we have a two procedures for pilots to get familiar with using
> >the emergency frequency and Distress and Diversion services. Pilots are
> >encouraged to use them whenever there is no real emergency in progress.
>
> >The first call is 'Training Fix'. The D&D centre will simply reply with
the
> >position of the aircraft making the call. You are expected to know where
> >you are when you make this call, rather than use it instead of making a
PAN
> >PAN call if lost. The centre may ask you to verify that their fix is
> >accurate as a cross-check on their own systems.
>
> >The second call is 'Practice PAN'. For this you get exactly the same
> >service as you would for a real PAN, but everyone knows that it is just
an
> >exercise. It can be terminated at any time by either party.
>
> >The priority of calls is MAYDAY, PAN PAN, Training Fix, Practice PAN.
>
> >Colin Bignell
>
> 121.500 is an Emergency ONLY frequency! Not a test frequency!
> Use 123.450 if you want to play around with the radios or get a CB!
> 121.500 MHz is for voice calls when an aircraft is in danger and/or
> the ELT (Emergency Locator Transmitter) that is activated when G-shock
> occurs if/when an aircraft crashes or has some other mishap that puts
> the pilots and the plane in danger.
>
This is one of several differences between flying in the UK and in the USA.
The procedures I describe are set out in the CAA publication CAP 413,
Radiotelephony Manual. They are officially approved and the CAA Safety
Promotion Group actively recommends pilots to use them. Obviously, only
when there is not a genuine emergency in progress.
It helps both sides. The pilots get to become familiar with D&D procedures
while the D&D controllers get to test their systems. If no-body uses them
except in an emergency, how do you know when they stop working? Pilots
flying across the English Channel, in particular, have been asked to use
the Training Fix, so that the extent of coverage of the autotriangulation
system can be explored.
There is also a trend to move away from 121.50 for automatic transmitters.
The distress satellites do not pick that up, so you are more likely to be
found quickly using a 243MHz transmitter, although these tend to be more
bulky.
BTW what is 123.45 used for in the USA? It has no particular significance
in the UK.
Colin Bignell
Will Flor
In article <01bc9ea9$189aefc0$7983f2c2@default>, "nightjar" <nigh...@pavilion.co.uk> wrote:
>
>There is also a trend to move away from 121.50 for automatic transmitters.
>The distress satellites do not pick that up, so you are more likely to be
>found quickly using a 243MHz transmitter, although these tend to be more
>bulky.
The COSPAS/SARSAT distress satellites most definitely pick up 121.5 as well as
243. In the US, 243 is military-only, and military ELTs also transmit on
121.5. For more information on the COSPAS/SARSAT system, their home page is
at: http://www.worldserver.pipex.com/cospas-sarsat/ and information on the
121.5 MHz system is at:
http://www.worldserver.pipex.com/cospas-sarsat/beacons/121bcns.htm
-Will Flor wi...@will-flor.spamblock.com
Appropriately adjust my return address to reach me via e-mail.
Richard Moore
I had always heard that 121.5 could be pinpointed by the NOAA polar orbiter
satellites, but it takes a lot longer (more sweeps to get the Doppler
effect needed). Also, with the new ELT's, they are coded so rescuers can
determine the registration of the aircraft within minutes (and of course if
it is an boat, aircraft, portable, etc.)
--
Richard Moore
"And the Dish ran away with the Spoon. But Hawaii was the only state that
would recognize the marriage as legal."
nightjar <nigh...@pavilion.co.uk> wrote in article
<01bca135$167a8c80$a283f2c2@default>...
>
>
> Will Flor <wi...@will-flor.spamblock.com> wrote in article
> <5s5juq$ogg$2...@news.inc.net>...
> > In article <01bc9ea9$189aefc0$7983f2c2@default>, "nightjar"
> <nigh...@pavilion.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > >There is also a trend to move away from 121.50 for automatic
> transmitters.
> > >The distress satellites do not pick that up, so you are more likely to
> be
> > >found quickly using a 243MHz transmitter, although these tend to be
more
> > >bulky.
> >
> > The COSPAS/SARSAT distress satellites most definitely pick up 121.5 as
> well as
> > 243. In the US, 243 is military-only, and military ELTs also transmit
on
>
> > 121.5.
>
> Interesting. In the UK 243MHz is used in marine emergency beacons. In a
> recent case HM Coastguard pinpointed a beacon as having gone off in
> Inverness Harbour within two minutes of its activation. They telephoned
the
> local Police (as it was inside the harbour and assumed to be a false
alarm)
> from their satellite monitoring station in Plymouth, at the other end of
> the country. The Police then arrived in time to find thieves breaking
into
> a yacht from which they had thrown overboard anything they did not want -
> including the water activated beacon.
>
> On 121.5, the D&D service uses ground stations. This is fine if you are
> South and East of Manchester where autotriangulation will give the
> controller your position by the time he responds. Outside that area it
can
> take several minutes of manual plotting to locate a distress call on
121.5.
> I was had been told that this system was used due to problems with the
> satellites not picking up that frequency, but it would appear not.
>
> Colin Bignell
>
>
>
nightjar
Will Flor
In article <01bca150$72d2bb40$5b86...@425144924worldnet.att.net>, "Richard Moore" <moo...@juno.com> wrote:
>I had always heard that 121.5 could be pinpointed by the NOAA polar orbiter
>satellites, but it takes a lot longer (more sweeps to get the Doppler
>effect needed). Also, with the new ELT's, they are coded so rescuers can
>determine the registration of the aircraft within minutes (and of course if
>it is an boat, aircraft, portable, etc.)
Yes, the 121.5 signals are tracked by SARSAT packages that are on NOAA
polar weather satellites. It takes two "SARSAT hits" to get a fix, and
sometimes (depending on where the satellites are relative to the ELT) it can
take a while - as much as 48 hours - to get a fix. OTOH, sometimes a fix is
obtainable in minutes. The 406 MHz ELTs are indeed coded as you mention;
many also transmit on 121.5 as the 406 MHz signal can't really be tracked
by ground- or air-based SAR teams.
BTW, I made a mistake in my previous posting - the 243 MHz frequency isn't
military-only in the US; civilian class A and B EPIRBs (ELTs for boats)
transmit on 243 as well as 121.5 and sometimes 406. Military ELTs (the only
ones I've dealt with) transmit on both 121.5 and 243 if they're functioning
properly; the only time I've encountered a 243-only ELT, it was due to a
malfunction (and mounted in the empennage of a US Navy C-9B.)
Will Flor
In article <01bca1d0$271e54e0$a283f2c2@default>, "nightjar" <nigh...@pavilion.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>Will Flor <wi...@will-flor.spamblock.com> wrote in article
>
>>
>> Interesting - in the US the police would not have been the agency
>contacted.
>
>If it had outside the harbour, the local Coastguard station would have been
>notified and they would have co-ordinated a search by helicopter or by
>lifeboat. At one time the helicopters would have been RAF or Navy. With
>cutbacks the coverage of these is reducing and HM Coastguard does also
>operate its own. There has also been talk of using civilian contractors to
>operate SAR helicopters.
>
>As most calls originating inside a harbour are false alarms, the first step
>is generally to ask the local Police to check whether there is a real
>emergency. It is a lot easier and cheaper than launching a full scale
>search and rescue mission.
>
That's very interesting, Colin - I've learned a lot about how this stuff is
handled on your side of the Atlantic. Around here, the cops don't really
know much about ELTs and the like; on the occasion that we have to call
them to the scene (like when we find the plane or boat but can't find the
owner to call) they're usually very interested and want a demonstration.
Will Flor
In article <5sf8f6$4...@prefect.cc.bellcore.com>, pat...@cc.bellcore.com (patterson,george r) wrote:
>In article <5s5juq$ogg$2...@news.inc.net>,
>Will Flor <wi...@will-flor.spamblock.com> wrote:
>>In article <01bc9ea9$189aefc0$7983f2c2@default>, "nightjar"
> <nigh...@pavilion.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>There is also a trend to move away from 121.50 for automatic transmitters.
>>>The distress satellites do not pick that up, so you are more likely to be
>>>found quickly using a 243MHz transmitter, although these tend to be more
>>>bulky.
>>
>>The COSPAS/SARSAT distress satellites most definitely pick up 121.5 as well as
>>243. In the US, 243 is military-only, and military ELTs also transmit on
>>121.5.
>
>frequencies. The applicable standard is TSO C91a. The reason for the
>move is that the satellites don't pick up 121.5 very well. This has been
>true for several years now.
>
Yep, I made a mistake in the original posting. The only ELT I've ever
encountered that only transmitted on one frequency transmitted on 243 only,
and that was due to a malfunction (it was supposed to transmit on 121.5 as
well.) It was in the empennage of a US Navy C-9B, BTW.
Don Meyer
hin...@amel.tds.net ("397") wrote:
>121.500 is an Emergency ONLY frequency! Not a test frequency!
>Use 123.450 if you want to play around with the radios or get a CB!
>121.500 MHz is for voice calls when an aircraft is in danger and/or
>the ELT (Emergency Locator Transmitter) that is activated when G-shock
>occurs if/when an aircraft crashes or has some other mishap that puts
>the pilots and the plane in danger.
The frequency 123.45 is not a test frequency either.
I probably *should* be, or be CTAF or UNICOM or something "common", but I
believe it is just another normal assignable frequency.
Don Meyer
me...@vitek.com
patterson,george r
In article <5s5juq$ogg$2...@news.inc.net>,
Will Flor <wi...@will-flor.spamblock.com> wrote:
>In article <01bc9ea9$189aefc0$7983f2c2@default>, "nightjar" <nigh...@pavilion.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>There is also a trend to move away from 121.50 for automatic transmitters.
>>The distress satellites do not pick that up, so you are more likely to be
>>found quickly using a 243MHz transmitter, although these tend to be more
>>bulky.
>
>The COSPAS/SARSAT distress satellites most definitely pick up 121.5 as well as
>243. In the US, 243 is military-only, and military ELTs also transmit on
>121.5.
Not any more. All modern ELTs transmit on 243, and most transmit on both
frequencies. The applicable standard is TSO C91a. The reason for the
move is that the satellites don't pick up 121.5 very well. This has been
true for several years now.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| When a journalist maligns a citizen, or attacks
George Patterson - | his good name on hearsay evidence, he deserves to
| be thrashed for it.
| Samuel Clemens
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Weir
me...@vitek.com (Don Meyer)
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:
->hin...@amel.tds.net ("397") wrote:
->
->>121.500 is an Emergency ONLY frequency! Not a test frequency!
->>Use 123.450 if you want to play around with the radios or get a CB!
->
->The frequency 123.45 is not a test frequency either.
->It probably *should* be, or be CTAF or UNICOM or something "common", but
I
->believe it is just another normal assignable frequency.
Forgive me for being a bit sensitive...
but 123.4 and 123.45 are assignable ONLY to manufacturers of airframes and
equipment for flight test. You can't imagine the pleasure we get at the
end of a long test procedure with good data only to have Charlie Schmuck
call Joey Putz on the frequency and completely blow a full run of test
data.
It AIN'T fun and there have been some instances where manufacturers have
won civil damages for lost time and materials with repeated, warned,
knowing offendors. For some reason, Warbird drivers and airline captains
seem to think they own these frequencies, and I'm happy that they seem to
have the money to pay the fines and damages quite easily when caught.
Jim
Jim Weir (A&P, CFI, and other good alphabet soup)
VP Engineering, RST
Web address: www.rst-engr.com
Ron Natalie
> Was this appropriate? I was somewhat amused, but also somewhat
> surprised that the controller's patience did not grow short. The
> transmissions were frequent enough, and the frequency crowded
> enough, that I nearly said something about air-to-air frequencies
> to the guy... but I just put the music back on and kept my mouth
> shut.
Not the way I would do it. When I was hanging out with the Red
Baron Pizza Stearman pilots (while weathered in), they travel
in flights of two. The lead ship will have two radios and the
other will only have one.
Coming back from OSH this year there were a pair that was hilarioius
on 122.75. The one guy kept asking for navigational assistance,
instructions on operating the LORAN, etc... from the other plane.
When he asked the other plane if he should switch fuel tanks, I
told Margy that I thought it was customary for the flight instructor
to ride in the same aircraft...
We picked up another flight of two outside of Bluffton, OH (popular
lunch stop). They let us depart ahead and we were about 50 miles
ahead of them all the way back to the DC area so we could give
them route weather updates. I've played the same trick with other
pilots where I've been the lagging ship.
-Ron
Will Flor
In article <33F0A8...@sensor.com>, Ron Natalie <r...@sensor.com> wrote:
>Will Flor wrote:
>
>> BTW, I made a mistake in my previous posting - the 243 MHz frequency isn't
>> military-only in the US; civilian class A and B EPIRBs (ELTs for boats)
>> transmit on 243 as well as 121.5 and sometimes 406.
>
>both 1215 and 243. Knowning how chincy it is, it probably transmits
>on all the harmonics of 121.5...
>
Yes, it may - but that's not our problem. Our problem is other stuff
transmitting on 121.5. My CAP squadron has finds from power generating
stations, electric fences, radio stations, a Bart Simpson video game (the
voice we thought we heard on 121.5 turned out to be Homer saying DOH!)
You get the picture.
Ron Natalie
Will Flor wrote:
> BTW, I made a mistake in my previous posting - the 243 MHz frequency isn't
> military-only in the US; civilian class A and B EPIRBs (ELTs for boats)
> transmit on 243 as well as 121.5 and sometimes 406.
I was pretty sure my Narcoleptic civilian aviation unit transmits on
both 1215 and 243. Knowning how chincy it is, it probably transmits
on all the harmonics of 121.5...
-Ron
Ron Natalie
> Yes, it may - but that's not our problem. Our problem is other stuff
> transmitting on 121.5. My CAP squadron has finds from power generating
> stations, electric fences, radio stations, a Bart Simpson video game (the
> voice we thought we heard on 121.5 turned out to be Homer saying DOH!)
This leads me to think of a new unit that when the pilot does
something stupid and crashes, the device transmits on 121.5:
"DOH...DOH...DOH...
Leonard Wojcik
Will Flor wrote:
>
> Yes, it may - but that's not our problem. Our problem is other stuff
> transmitting on 121.5. My CAP squadron has finds from power generating
> stations, electric fences, radio stations, a Bart Simpson video game (the
> voice we thought we heard on 121.5 turned out to be Homer saying DOH!)
Here in SLC we once DF'd a copy machine. It had some serious power
supply problems and was putting out all sorts of stuff including a big
splash at 121.5. To make matters worse, it was near some big power
lines, so the signal propagated up and down the valley with no
pin-pointable source .... hell of a job to chase it down.
> -Will Flor wi...@will-flor.spamblock.com
> Appropriately adjust my return address to reach me via e-mail.
--
Leonard Wojcik Leo...@wojciktech.com.remove-this
Don Meyer
j...@rst-engr.com (Jim Weir) wrote:
>me...@vitek.com (Don Meyer)
>shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:
>
>->The frequency 123.45 is not a test frequency either.
>->It probably *should* be, or be CTAF or UNICOM or something "common", but
>I believe it is just another normal assignable frequency.
>
>Forgive me for being a bit sensitive...
>but 123.4 and 123.45 are assignable ONLY to manufacturers of airframes and
>equipment for flight test. You can't imagine the pleasure we get at the
>end of a long test procedure with good data only to have Charlie Schmuck
>call Joey Putz on the frequency and completely blow a full run of test
>data.
Yep, that's what I meant - it's only usable if you have been assigned it
(like ATC saying "contact me on xxx.xx", or as an ATIS freq. etc).
You can't just hop on it and start chatting any more than you would any
other random frequency!
Don Meyer
me...@vitek.com