121.5 -- Anybody llistening?

[maddog52]

The airlines don't monitor 121.5 unless ATC ask them to.

Not true. Many airlines require their crews to monitor 121.5 when ever practical. We generally use comm 2. We hear and report ELTs fairly regularly. I've also been asked by ATC to contact other aircraft on GUARD (including one forced down in the desert of Nevada).

I think monitoring 121.5 is becoming more common based on the number of inadvertant calls to CTAF, unicom etc that I've heard in recent years. Unfortunately, the self appointed "GUARD Nazis" jump all over some one that makes one call on 121.5, further clogging up the freq.

I teach my students to monitor 121.5 unless you need to listen to something else. It just makes sense and could really help you or someone else someday.

 

[Teller1900]

Seems like most of the airplanes I hear reporting ELTs are airlines. In addition, the airline guys who have come to work for us are the most diligent in switching the frequency to 121.5. Maybe it's because most of these pilots came from a specific airline which was required by company policy to monitor.

Our FOM says to monitor it whenever practical. Most guys flip over to it once we're out of the terminal area and leave it there until we start getting into the decent phase and making our in-range calls/listening to ATIS. I don't even know how many ELTs I've reported over the last year, or how many times we've been asked to listen or relay over Gaurd.

 

[poadeleted20]

Given the number of "in range" reports, Center check-ins, and cabin announcements I hear on Guard, it's pretty obvious the airliners are all monitoring 121.5 on the #2 -- and forgetting to go off it when they want to use #2 for other things.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I hear lots of airlines on guard. In fact I often hear ATC calling planes on guard.

Maybe one of the heavy metal drivers can let us know what their policy is.

OK, since I'm one of those guys I'll tell you. We don't monitor 121.5. In our aircraft we have 2 comms (some have 3) and we use one for ATC and the other to monitor an assigned company frequency or SelCall. I've asked some friends that fly for other carriers and they don't monitor either.

The Russians monitor with a satellite. I have been asked to switch over and listen then report back. If the Russians receive a signal they contact Norad who contacts the FAA.

 

[sba55]

Total waste of time. That "bearing and distance" text was written for the VOR/airway days.

That's not quite accurate. Lat/Long don't help a controller much. BRG/DIS, on the other hand, does.

That's why you're not supposed to file Lat/Longs unless you're in the flight levels.

-Felix

 

[poadeleted20]

OK, since I'm one of those guys I'll tell you. We don't monitor 121.5. In our aircraft we have 2 comms (some have 3) and we use one for ATC and the other to monitor an assigned company frequency or SelCall. I've asked some friends that fly for other carriers and they don't monitor either.

Not sure which carriers you've polled, but when someone makes a cabin announcement on Guard, the frequency is jammed with witty (or maybe half-witty) comments, and when a light plane comes up with a MAYDAY, at least a dozen air carriers all answer at once.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Not sure which carriers you've polled, but when someone makes a cabin announcement on Guard, the frequency is jammed with witty (or maybe half-witty) comments, and when a light plane comes up with a MAYDAY, at least a dozen air carriers all answer at once.

Not saying no one does it, some guys still do. Most carriers maintain watch on a company frequency or Atlanta Radio, San Francisco Radio or AirInc which ties up the second comm.

And I've been asked by ATC numerous times when trying to contact an aircraft not listening on frequency to try "guard". I can honestly say I've never had a reply on that frequency.

 

[airdale]

That's not quite accurate. Lat/Long don't help a controller much. BRG/DIS, on the other hand, does.

Hadn't thought about it from the controller's viewpoint. From the S&R viewpoint, all we need is lat/long and that is what we are used to getting from AFRCC. For the controller to have an idea of where the hit was, possibly use of familiar waypoints or landmarks would be useful. But not to the exclusion of the lat/long (if you have it) as it is not the controller that will be going on the mission.

 

[SCCutler]

Because you like meeting the friendly boys and girls of the US Secret Service? (At least, that's the way it is around here.)

Boy-o-boy, it has been like that down here at Crawford (P49), too. Ridiculous.

 

[sba55]

Hadn't thought about it from the controller's viewpoint. From the S&R viewpoint, all we need is lat/long and that is what we are used to getting from AFRCC. For the controller to have an idea of where the hit was, possibly use of familiar waypoints or landmarks would be useful. But not to the exclusion of the lat/long (if you have it) as it is not the controller that will be going on the mission.

You're absolutely right. There is no such thing as too much information in a situation like this.

 

[Teller1900]

That's not quite accurate. Lat/Long don't help a controller much. BRG/DIS, on the other hand, does.

That's why you're not supposed to file Lat/Longs unless you're in the flight levels.

-Felix

That's true. A while back we spotted a boat on fire just off the coast of Maine. We told the controller "12:00, 10 miles, lots of smoke, 5 miles, three miles, present position," but it wasn't until we got our bearing and DME off a few VORs that he was really able to pin point the location of the fire and send a nearby Navy P-3 out to have a look.

 

[kkoran]

Keep in mind that ATC isn't going to go out and rescue someone. They can pass the Lat/Long to the Coast Guard, etc., who will almost assuredly have GPS. If all else fails, remember that Sectionals show Lat/Long.

 

[mikea]

Keep in mind that ATC isn't going to go out and rescue someone. They can pass the Lat/Long to the Coast Guard, etc., who will almost assuredly have GPS. If all else fails, remember that Sectionals show Lat/Long.

OK. Decimal degrees or degrees, minutes, seconds?

 

[dmccormack]

OK. Decimal degrees or degrees, minutes, seconds?

The format of the grid reference will help SAR assets -- they can do conversions pretty quick.

 

[catmandu]

Is there / has there been a radio that will monitor it for you automatically (pilot selectable on / off), while having your standard selectable frequency for transmit / receive?

 

[SCCutler]

Is there / has there been a radio that will monitor it for you automatically (pilot selectable on / off), while having your standard selectable frequency for transmit / receive?

The Apollo/UPSAT/Garmin SL30, the world's finest NAV/COM, will monitor one frequency while active/transmit is set to another. Iwish I had one, but not quite enough to throw out my fully-functional MK12D.

 

[jmaynard]

The Apollo/UPSAT/Garmin SL30, the world's finest NAV/COM, will monitor one frequency while active/transmit is set to another.

So will the SL40, its COM-only sibling...but you probably knew that. As for being the world's finest NAV/COM, I suspect ICOM might argue: the IC-A210 is a damned fine radio too. It will do this as well.

 

[sba55]

So will the SL40, its COM-only sibling...but you probably knew that. As for being the world's finest NAV/COM, I suspect ICOM might argue: the IC-A210 is a damned fine radio too. It will do this as well.

Sorry, but you just cannot argue against the supreme superiority of the SL30. Of course, it wasn't actually developed by Garmin, which probably explains just how good it is

 

[airdale]

supreme superiority of the SL30

Superior in the sense that no other radio design has allowed feature-itis to so completely junk up the user interface? IMHO the simplicity of the dual flip-flop presentation is far superior to the "What's it displaying now?" stop-and-think interface of the SL30.

Although I will admit that the comm monitor mode is handy and the decoded VOR identification is cute, I would trade all of the programmers' "look what I can do" features for a simpler interface. The sad thing, though, is that they could have provided both. There are plenty of display pixels. All it would have taken is a few minor changes to the buttons and knobs.

 

[SCCutler]

So will the SL40, its COM-only sibling...but you probably knew that. As for being the world's finest NAV/COM, I suspect ICOM might argue: the IC-A210 is a damned fine radio too. It will do this as well.

I love the IC-A210, and I believe it is a superior design... but it's NAV functionality leaves a little bit to be desired!

 

[rubber314chicken]

So yes, I always monitor, and have had to report several beacons.

How would one go about reporting those beacons if not on flight following, nearest tower?

 

[Teller1900]

How would one go about reporting those beacons if not on flight following, nearest tower?

Any control facility in the area, or you could probably tell a FSS, too. Just be ready with a descriptive position report if you tell FS.

 

[catmandu]

So will the SL40, its COM-only sibling...but you probably knew that. As for being the world's finest NAV/COM, I suspect ICOM might argue: the IC-A210 is a damned fine radio too. It will do this as well.

Actually, after surfing to the user's manuals, the SL40 is the best fit for what I would like. Plop it in the Com2 slot, power it up and press the EC button. Flip flop and change the active freq for all my Com2 type stuff. Only thing better would be to have it default to monitoring Guard on power up, at least that's my first impression.

Info filed for the eventual RV . . .

 

[timwinters]

How would one go about reporting those beacons if not on flight following, nearest tower?

if you have a garmin 2/3/496 you can hit the nearest button and scroll to the ARTCC page. Then tune 'em in and call 'em up!

 

[jmaynard]

if you have a garmin 2/3/496 you can hit the nearest button and scroll to the ARTCC page. Then tune 'em in and call 'em up!

And if you've got a 430/530, you can use the NRST ARTCC page, then just highlight the frequency, push ENTER and flip-flop on the COM radio, and you're there.

 

[sba55]

How would one go about reporting those beacons if not on flight following, nearest tower?

I'd go with Flight Service on 122.2. Good frequency to have handy....

 

[sba55]

Superior in the sense that no other radio design has allowed feature-itis to so completely junk up the user interface? IMHO the simplicity of the dual flip-flop presentation is far superior to the "What's it displaying now?" stop-and-think interface of the SL30.

Although I will admit that the comm monitor mode is handy and the decoded VOR identification is cute, I would trade all of the programmers' "look what I can do" features for a simpler interface. The sad thing, though, is that they could have provided both. There are plenty of display pixels. All it would have taken is a few minor changes to the buttons and knobs.

Well, obviously my comment was tongue-in-cheek

Personally, I like the SL30's interface a lot more than Garmin's. It's more concise and while it does have a lot of functionality given the number of buttons, it's actually very easy to use once you learn how to use it. I prefer getting to the features I want quickly rather than slowly but with a nice interface (that's the 430 for me - everything takes forever).

-Felix

 

[KennyFlys]

A UK safety poster relative to the issue...



If ya don't know the relevance of "243", think in multiples of another number under discussion. 243.0 MHz is military guard.

 

[airdale]

Personally, I like the SL30's interface a lot more than Garmin's. ...

Yes, compared to a 430 the SL30 is simple. But I think that's kind of apples/oranges. I think the better standard of comparison is the King 155. I routinely fly with both navcoms in various airplanes and while I would miss the monitor mode and the space saving design of the SL30 I would probably choose the 155 for a new installation. If I didn't it would only be because of the old technology in the 155.

OT: If you really want to see a junked-up and un-intuitive display, try a G1000 PFD with all the do-dads turned on, as you pass over the outer marker.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

*IF* I'm flying an airplane with dual flip-flop radios, then I always monitor guard.

Audio panel is set to xmit on Com1, and listen to both Com1 and Com2. Com2 is set to 121.5 in active, Com1 is for ATC communications. Then, when I need to listen to ATIS/AWOS/CTAF, I tune in Com2 and "flip" until I have the info I need, then "flop" it back to guard.

The only time I talk on Com2 is when getting my clearance. ATIS, Clearance, and Ground I do on Com2; Com1 active gets the tower freq and then I can enter in the departure frequency in the standby on Com1 while the clearance delivery controller reads it to me on Com2. Ground goes on Com2 and I tune 121.5 in the standby when taxiing. At the hold short line, I flip/flop Com2 and switch xmit on the audio panel to Com1. Contact departure, flip/flop Com1.

It's all a lot simpler than it sounds - Once you take off, no more twisting or punching buttons to monitor guard. It sounds like Ron is doing it the same way I do.

 

[Bill]

It's all a lot simpler than it sounds - Once you take off, no more twisting or punching buttons to monitor guard. It sounds like Ron is doing it the same way I do.

I do it about the same as well.

 

[SCCutler]

Same for me, Kent, except I monitor 121.5 on the 430, since the Narco 12D is designed not to ever squelch on 121.5. It's not broken, it's a "feature."

Fortunately, the 12D works well.

 

[wsuffa]

In the user manual, it is called-out as standard behavior; you know a way to change it?

Spike, I've got an NCS812 as the #2 navcom (it's a 12E w/DME). I recall that Narco had a fix, but it requires soldering or cutting a jumper inside. Easy fix, can't do from front panel.

I can't find the reference now, but I'd bet a call to Narco would yeild the answer for your unit.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Same for me, Kent, except I monitor 121.5 on the 430, since the Narco 12D is designed not to ever squelch on 121.5. It's not broken, it's a "feature."

Ah, they took a page from the old, bad Apple playbook.

How do you change a bug into a feature?

You put it in the manual.