EPIRB

R

reelfast

Active Member
two days ago out fishing for pinks. i always have the VHF on, mostly monitoring 16 sometimes scanning all the channels, if its not too busy. this morning lots of CG broadcasts, u.s. and ca as well.

about 1100, a 'pan-pan' from the uscg port angeles group: '...we are recieving a signal from an unregistered EPIRB, lat and lon given, any boaters in the vicinity are asked to keep a sharp lookout...'

mesage was repeated for the next hour!

would they have put the helo in the air if the EPIRB has been registered? what if this EPIRB was clipped on to someone's PFD and they were in the 49 degree water bobbing around?

and here i thought that because i have a device which is recognized worldwide as an emergency tool, someone would come looking if i set it off, apparently not so. i should also add that 3-4 times, daily, the helos fly over my home. training flights? looking for jihadists in inner tudes? but they won't launch a search, not even because of an EPIRB signal, totally amazing. today's uscg is a shadow of it's helpful past self, be prepared to go it alone out there.
 
Hey reelfast, Unfortunately both Canadian and US Coast Guard receive EPIRP signals on a daily basis and more than 95% are false alarms. Last year some numbnuts went through an entire marina and activated every EPIRB. The expectation that they are going to race out to every activation is unrealistic. The best defence you can have is a waterproof handheld always on you and a good lifejacket.
 
well beemer, don't count on a 'mayday' bringing any help either. when sea fair was going on in seattle, i was listening to a series of transmission from a boat taking on water and sinking. sector seattle's response was '...any boats in the area that can lend a hand...'

while that was going on, one of the 40footers was crowding me, remember 1,000 yds is the accepted seperation zone, while i was busy catching pinks. when they had closed the gap, a bunch of folks appeared on the back deck and started fishing! all the while some poor fool was sinking.

we are on our own out there so if you hear a boater in trouble, and you are in the vicinity, make sure you hop to it 'cause you may be all there is between life and death.

but i am sure they are rounding up all the jihadists floating across from canadian waters in their inner tubes, not to mention all the drug smugglers running across the strait. i call bullsh!t on all of this. time was when you could actually count on the CG to help out, even the dumbies who would run out of fuel.

and beemer, what about the 5%???
 
WOW! Why are you so down on the USCG?

Unfortunately, with all the successes attributed to beacons, about 92% of the alerts received from 406 MHz beacons are false.

quote:would they have put the helo in the air if the EPIRB has been registered? what if this EPIRB was clipped on to someone's PFD and they were in the 49 degree water bobbing around?
Click to expand...
NO! This gets us back to our previous conversation and why one should file a "float plan", with the Coastguard and not through the EPIRB site.

The first thing they will do is try to contact the registered owner of the EPIRB and boat by phone (and then VHF radio, IF you have a float plan on file) to verify the alert. The second thing, they will try to reach the emergency contacts listed, again to identify if they do have a SAR incident? After, that they will determine if there is a false alarm or a life-threatening emergency. If they determine it is a false alarm they will do exactly what they did. If a life-threatening emergency is determined, they will notify the appropriate SAR facility, who in return will notify the appropriate SAR Crews. The SAR Crews on "standby", usually have up to 30 minutes to respond and 90 minutes to be on station/location, weather provided? When it gets down to the crews, they have a "Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)" manual they have to follow based on their particularly area and mission. The SOP for Mount Rainier is different from the SOP for the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

quote:...when sea fair was going on in seattle, i was listening to a series of transmission from a boat taking on water and sinking. sector seattle's response was '...any boats in the area that can lend a hand...'
Click to expand...
Now, with all that… No branch of the military, including the USCG can interfere with civilian operations, unless it is determined to be an emergency and/or, "life threatening" situation? If you listen to the conversations between boaters "dead in the water" or "taking on water" and the Coastguard, you will realize that is the first thing the Coastguard determines! If you are not in "peril", they will actually ask you, whom you want them to contact for assistance. If you advise them you are in peril, with a life-threatening situation, they will launch the appropriate SAR Crews and you can expect to see them sometime within their response time, again weather permitting. You will also receive a bill for their services!
 
yeah charlie, i am up to snuff on SAR procedures, have had the courses and i am qualified.

the rub is a supposed first responder trying to determine via radio contact a definition for an 'emergency'. a vessel taking on water in 49 degree water with the potential for sinking might to some look like a life threatening emergency.

kind of like dialing 911 and having to describe just how big your house fire was so the dispatcher could figure out if they should point you to your garden hose.

fact is, the USCG need to be viewed as something other than first responders. their role has been changed to the point that they are virtually useless to the boating public. that's my only heads up via this post.

recognize that each of us has a responsibility to respond to any other boater in trouble. if we don't, help will not be coming.

i just emailed ACR Electronics to ask them if they had any definitive 'false' alarm numbers they might choose to share. posting percentages of false alarms without a citation for where those numbers come from is not acceptable to me.
 
thanks for the link, charlie. i have already read conflicting reports with false transmission numbers at about 17% worldwide. so something is not clicking regarding these numbers from various sources.

still waiting to hear from ACR as i am thinking that since this is a world wide safety standard overseen by Cospas-Sarsat, perhaps they have much better info than one domestic agency run by the DHC, what color is today anyway?

i have also contacted Cospas-Sarsat directly asking for the same clarification regarding false activations.

needless to say, i will post any info they choose to share.
 
i am stunned, to say the least. these numbers are direct from Cospas-Sarsat. gives me a much better understanding regarding the lack of response by the uscg.







Year / Beacon Type
406 MHz
2003
95.7%
2004
95.8 %
2005
96.0%2006
97.1%
2007
95.0%
2008
96.0%
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top