Talk:Emergency position-indicating radiobeacon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

About the change on 21:37 2005-09-27[edit]

The previous version of the article incorrectly stated that the GPS capability of some 406MHz beacons removes the need for position based on the doppler shift detected by LEO satellites. This is incorrect, however, as the COSPAS-SARSAT specifications state that a beacon location is not considered "resolved" unless there is a doppler-doppler match or a doppler-encoded (GPS) match; 1 or more GPS positions are not sufficient. See COSPAS-SARSAT document A.001 calhoun 01:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About the change on 0420 UTC 2006-1-1[edit]

The EPIRB stands for EMERGENCY POSITION INDICATING RADIO BEACON (NOT RESCUE, EVEN THEY ARE USED FOR RESCUE PRUPOSE).

see IMO SOLAS CONVENTION: Chapter IV - Radiocommunications —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.88.161.14 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Link to EPIRB[edit]

It redirected back to the article, what was it doing there? I have removed it. -Not Diablo 21:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 10:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Big Changes[edit]

Hey Wiki people

I work for a SAR agency, in case you are wondering! I think this page is probably going to be have to be split again into the various kinds of beacons, but not just yet. I'm still going to work at getting everything making a consistent statement first.

Thanks for your patience.

Cheers & God bless. Tntdj 09:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional frequencies[edit]

The article mentions 406.025 MHz. But I've read that this system is now also starting to use other adjacent channels such as 406.027 MHz (and others). If confirmed, then this tidbit should be included. 216.208.69.242 (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple comments[edit]

While trying to read the article, I noticed a couple things.

  • The article is repetetive
  • It reads like propaganda for the fancy new system
  • It is USA centered, while the topic is clearly global
  • Therefore, a more international perspective is needed
  • Did I mention it is repetetive? It's repetetive.
  • It is so repetetive, in fact, that cutting out the crap will halve its size

I'm a bit at a loss what tags I need to properly mark this, but some editing clearly would be beneficial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.115.220 (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to remove the repetition. I myself don't see the application of NPOV to the improved engineering specifications of the 2nd generation beacons. Sometimes machinery gets better, right? No manufacturers are mentioned, so there's no commercial advertisements. I'd love to see a reference (for the other side, of course) explaining who wants a rescue beacon that endangers more lives and costs more for the SAR services. I think I will remove the NPOV warning for that section until then. Ray Van De Walker (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also agreed. I've added a "Significant Overhaul" section below to start outlining what I think needs to be done. Will wait a bit before going ahead, in case anyone has other ideas, but otherwise, a whole lot of stuff is going to get deleted and/or pushed to related pages (Cook.gj (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Whatevershebringswesing[edit]

Should the article be called Distress radiobeacon or Distress radio beacon? The article seems to use radio beacon more often than radiobeacon, and it looks a bit odd and Euro-english to have radiobeacon as one word. But perhaps radiobeacon is an international standard. I would be grateful if you could tell me so that I can sort it out. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The International Civil Aviation Organization of the United Nations uses radio beacon, not radiobeacon. --Born2flie (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search shows a propensity for radio beacon: 156,000 to 62,400. However, the compound word radiobeacon can be found in papers from many U.S. academic institutions, and also in Cambridge's The Journal of Navigation. The COSPAS-SARSAT program website uses the term radiobeacon in its description of the system concept, which precipitated this article's move to its current title. The United States Code contains both terms, radiobeacon and radio beacon, although radiobeacon is the more common. It is unclear from my cursory search as to whether one is a more recent occurrence than the other. --Born2flie (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean British English? I've never heard of "Euro-English"; or maybe you refer to typical concatenations of words in (non-English) European languages (Dutch, German, etc.). :-p Anyway, radiobeacon is especially "wrong" in British English. I certainly prefer the 3-word title. Shall we vote? (Wow, I revive a topic 4 years later.) ctxppc (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

121.5 MHz clarification[edit]

I see several references to 121.5 MHz being phased out and TSO-C91a as being obsolete, but neither is quite accurate. Satellite monitoring of 121.5 MHz has been phased out, but 121.5 MHz is still used to home in on an activated beacon. TSO-C91a is still the applicable FAA approval for 121.5/243 MHz transmitters even when combined with a 406 MHz transmitter. TSO-C126 is the applicable FAA approval for 406 MHz transmitters even when combined with a 121.5/243 MHz transmitter.

Per ICAO Annex 10 "Emergency locator transmitters carried in compliance with Standards of Annex 6, Parts I, II and III shall operate either on both 406 MHz and 121.5 MHz or on 121.5 MHz" Interested Observer 16:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

US Centricity[edit]

Please could someone point out the US centric parts of the article so they can be rectified/expanded into a global context —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.79.25 (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved Vegaswikian (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Distress radiobeacon → Emergency locator transmitter — I propose to move this article to emergency locator transmitter (or alternatively emergency beacon) so that beacons that do not use radio can be included. These include eg Search and Rescue Transponders KVDP (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose ELTs are a specific type of radiobeacon, this article is not solely on that topic. ELT function is codified by law and international treaty. Also, this article is specifically about radiobeacons. I do not see purpose in expanding the scope, since it's a sizable article already. Infact some people might even say it might be split into subarticles. I think if you want coverage of other whatever beacons you should start a new article. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed.  Radar is a form of radio. Per 76.66.197.30, ELTs operate on a specific set of frequencies and are a very limited subset of distress radiobeacon. --Born2flie (talk) 08:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just write the article you want under the appropriate title, rather than shuffling this article between titles. Knepflerle (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Brands[edit]

I'm researching buying a PLB, but I'm not familiar with the brands that sell these devices. It would be nice if there were a list of brands that make such devices to have some place to start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.148.181 (talk) 09:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A google search "buy EPIRB" got me "ACR Electronics"; "buy ELT" got me Ameri-King, Kannad, ACK and Artex, "Buy PLB" added McMurdo Pains Wessex.Ray Van De Walker (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We would either need to include a list of EVERY brand, or list none. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. (Cook.gj (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Doppler Location Algorithm is not Radar[edit]

The doppler location algorithm seems to be nothing at all like the doppler pulse tagging used to eliminate ground clutter in look-down shoot-down radar, or even like the doppler wind speed measurement used in weather radar, so I removed the reference and text. I substituted the text from the COSPAS/SARSAT page Ray Van De Walker (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Significant Overhaul[edit]

This page needs a significant overhaul for several reasons.

  • Disagree that distress radiobeacons are "Strictly ... radiobeacons that interface with worldwide offered service of Cospas-Sarsat". There is no reference supporting this claim, so I would argue that any radio transmitter to be used in a distress situation should fall under the "distress radiobeacon" title. Also, the article talks about AIS-SARTs (which have nothing to do with Cospas-Sarsat) which further supports this change. If this is agreeable this page should cover traditional Radar SARTs and Maritime Survivor Locating Devices/Systems (such as those described in RTCM 11901.0 and AS/NZS 4869.2). That said, the page is already VERY large for a wikipedia page, so I would also support pushing a lot of details out into other pages, such as COSPAS-SARSAT, EPIRB, ELT, PLB, MSLD etc...
  • It doesn't flow properly. e.g. wouldn't it make sense to define beacon types before defining beacon modes? Also, there is a beacon "Types" section (5) and then a "Detailed type descriptions" section.
  • There's a lot of unsupported detail like the entire History section, beacon prices, details of operation, time to detection, location precision... The list goes on and on. Some of it is unnecessary in its detail, while the rest is worthless without supporting references.

(Cook.gj (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I agree. This page title is too generic and is confusing in many ways. It should either become a disambiguation page or, else, should clearly and succinctly differentiate between the different types of distress radio-beacon used on land, water and in the air.
Enquire (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

price change[edit]

i changed the price to reflect the more recent prices listed on westmarine.com i did not use that as a ref, as i don't think a link to a sales page would be appropriate. acr electronics has a cat 1 and a cat 2 within $50 of each other, 579, and 529 respectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overseer19XX (talk • contribs) 00:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sorry did not mean to undue your edit, i thought i forgot it. feel free to format however you see fit.Overseer19XX (talk)

No problem, I just thought that having the price stated twice was unnecessary, glad you see what I'm doing. Free Bear (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps a general statement in the beginning of the section would be sufficient stating prices have fallen much and all category's of units can be had for less then US$600Overseer19XX (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect / Misleading / Requires Citation[edit]

Heading "Alternate Technologies" has a statement underneath: "Rather than relying on an emergency locator transmitter to transmit upon impact (which fails to activate in 75% of crashes)..."

There's no citation for the statistic listed anywhere, additionally it's completely incorrect. Should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.204.201 (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radiobeacon or radio beacon[edit]

I noticed that the article goes back and forth between calling them "radiobeacons" and "radio beacons". Which version is preferred, and shouldn't the article be changed to be consistent? -- Jdfoote (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Failure rate[edit]

Need someone to include failure rate. --72.128.40.138 (talk) 08:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Distress radiobeacon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


EPIRB[edit]

I am puzzled by the change of name. I haven ever heard the terminology Emergency position-indicating radiobeacon station. Is it a non-English language term? I have never seen EPIRBs for marine use advertised as anything but EPIRBs, our regulatory authority (OFCOM), the Coast Guard and the RYA all call them EPIRBS. Is it an attempt to find a generic term for EPIRBs, PLBs and ELBs?Billlion (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Emergency position-indicating radiobeacon station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Emergency position-indicating radiobeacon station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Emergency position-indicating radiobeacon station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to History section 0347 UTC 04 October 2017[edit]

Greetings. I removed the one line which stated the original impetus for ELTs in the US was the Hale Boggs search, which had been here since 2005 without a citation. That search was in 1972 and as my edit shows (with citations), the original bill for ELTs passed in 1970.

I also split the history section by country/program because as others have hinted, the page is a bit convoluted, and this section ran together. There still needs to be a lot of work here. Thank you. Kotaqua (talk) 04:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bold deletion of TracMe section[edit]

The company no longer exists, I can find no mention of their technology newer than 2007, not even the Wayback machine has any pages from their website archived, and it doesn't really belong with this article. On top of that, the device was highly dubious at the time of its launch, and even though the paragraph makes an attempt to be neutral, it doesn't even begin to hint at the many problems this device would have faced in the real world. If anyone objects to this deletion, please don't put the content back in this article, create a historical/obsolete SAR technology article if you think this tidbit deserves to see the light of day. (P.S. you can even put the Mountain Locator Unit article I created many years ago in the same bucket.)PetesGuide (talk) (K6WEB) 22:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding old move from Distress radiobeacon[edit]

Back in 2015, this article was moved from Distress radiobeacon to Emergency position-indicating radiobeacon station without vote or comment. When I started looking at this article this week, I found it to be a disjointed mess, and thought I might be moving it back. However, after reorganizing the article today and integrating content I has been developing in user space, I now realize it was a brilliant rename, because it allows the current article to focus exclusively on the COSPAS-SARSAT distress beacons.

The first several times I had read this article many years ago, I came away more confused than when I arrived, and didn't understand the differences between ELTs, PLBs, and EPIRBs. Partway through the reorg, I realized they had to be contained in one article because they are all interrelated versions of the same system.PetesGuide (talk) (K6WEB) 23:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two suggested corrections[edit]

By way of background, I'm an aircraft owner and have been flying for forty years. I have two suggestions for corrections.

First, ADF (automatic direction finder) equipment operates in the LW band between 190 and 535 kHz, which makes them incapable of detecting signals at 121.5. There are airborne detectors that can home in on a 121.5 signal but they are typically not found in civil aircraft.

Second, the TSO 126 ELTs sold for most small general aviation aircraft weigh less than 1kg (two pounds) and are far smaller than 12 inches on a side. Units with built-in GPS run upwards of $1500 for the ELT exclusive of installation costs, but ELTs that use the aircraft's panel-mounted GPS receiver as the position source are also available for under $1000 and their installation costs are relatively low. JackEllisTahoe (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emergency_position-indicating_radiobeacon&oldid=1213614636"