> Dave
> With these instruments going out of date I would have thought it would be
> hard to...

> While satellites won't be listening out for them, won't
> aircraft still be monitoring these frequencies?

> While satellites won't be listening out for them, won't aircraft still be
> monitoring these frequencies?
>

> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:44:28 +1000, AA yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
>

>> Spartan613 wrote:

>>> While satellites won't be listening out for them, won't aircraft still be
>>> monitoring these frequencies?
>>>

>> I certainly wouldn't count on aircraft listening out 121.5 when ELT freq
>> has moved to 406. it - if you are going to get an ELT, get one based on
>> safety (406MHz), not cheapness (121.5MHz) - how much is your life worth?
>> AA

>
> The ELT frequency isn't moving, a new one for SARSAT is being added.
> The new beacons will still transmit on 121.5 and 243 MHz,
> simultaneously with the 406 MHz signal intended for SARSAT use. 121.5
> and 243 MHz remain precisely because mandatory monitoring of those
> frequencies will continue with those aircraft already obliged to
> monitor them, and no requirement for monitoring 406 MHz is presently
> anticipated. The lower frequencies will still be used for SAR ...

> Paul Saccani wrote:

>> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:44:28 +1000, AA yahoo.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>

>>> Spartan613 wrote:

>>>> While satellites won't be listening out for them, won't aircraft still
>>>> be monitoring these frequencies?
>>>>

>>> I certainly wouldn't count on aircraft listening out 121.5 when ELT freq
>>> has moved to 406. it - if you are going to get an ELT, get one based on
>>> safety (406MHz), not cheapness (121.5MHz) - how much is your life worth?
>>> AA

>>
>> The ELT frequency isn't moving, a new one for SARSAT is being added.
>> The new beacons will still transmit on 121.5 and 243 MHz,
>> simultaneously with the 406 MHz signal intended for SARSAT use. 121.5
>> and 243 MHz remain precisely because mandatory monitoring of those
>> frequencies will continue with those aircraft already obliged to ...

> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:49:54 +1000, "Sr20goer"
> live.com.au> wrote:
>

>> Agreed and all should understand 406 is not a NEW frequency but has been in
>> use for yonks.
>>
>> For $600 you get an Oz PLB with embedded GPS accurate to around 40 metres,
>> position update 20 min intervals, 121.5 homing signal, and up to 10 year
>> life/warranty. With your personal details and contact numbers triggered at
>> AMSA by the (registered) I/D.
>> Homing on 121.5 is almost obsolete when you have the level of data available
>> on 406.

>
> That's only for static targets with GPS in the GEOSAR region, Brian.
> The data used by SAR would probably be no more than 15 minutes old.
> In the LEOSAR region it might well be more than an hour old.
>
> For non-GPS beacons the position is within 5 km, a considerable
> improvement on the 20 km of the 121.5/243 MHz resolution. Hence the ...

> On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 02:44:59 GMT, nick hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>

>>Not to mention that many / most PLBs do not meet the legal requirements
>>of carrying an EPIRB on your vessel.

>
> That's certainly the position of the maritime authorities. At least
> in WA, they made a small blunder in the regulations, and despite what
> they say, a PLB does meet the letter of the law. The regs specify
> AS/NZS 4280, whereas they claim that AS/NZS 4280.1. is required.
>

>> Most will not float right way up
>>and therefore don't compare to an EPIRB that is designed to do so...

>
> Yep.
>

>>That said, PLBs are great for the use that they are intended for and
>>that is as a personal beacon... just not the distress beacon for a ...

>On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 02:44:59 GMT, nick hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>

>>I wonder how long it will be before a technology like bluetooth gets
>>incorporated in these things so that an onboard GPS or Chartplotter can
>>send on regular intervals the current GPS fix and devices such as EPIRBS
>>and PLBs will able to receive and store that data?

>
>Never would be my guess. Too many integrity issues.

> Spartan613 wrote:

>> While satellites won't be listening out for them, won't aircraft still be
>> monitoring these frequencies?
>>

> I certainly wouldn't count on aircraft listening out 121.5 when ELT freq
> has moved to 406. it - if you are going to get an ELT, get one based on
> safety (406MHz), not cheapness (121.5MHz) - how much is your life worth?
> AA

>On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 12:56:30 GMT, Coop chariotnose.netwheel.au>
>wrote:
>

>>The one I have has provision for a connection (via cable and infrared
>>LED) to an existing GPS to enable downloading of GPS data to the
>>beacon.

>
>The optical interface for NMEA is fairly common - and reliable.
>
>The price difference between an EPIRB with the NMEA interface and one
>with integral GPS is usually only about $100. Personally, I think I
>would spend the extra $100 if I wanted my EPIRB to transmit a GPS
>position. Much more reliable.