|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 About the change on 21:37 2005-09-27
- 2 About the change on 0420 UTC 2006-1-1
- 3 Link to EPIRB
- 4 WikiProject class rating
- 5 My Big Changes
- 6 Additional frequencies
- 7 A couple comments
- 8 Whatevershebringswesing
- 9 121.5 MHz clarification
- 10 US Centricity
- 11 Move
- 12 Brands
- 13 Doppler Location Algorithm is not Radar
- 14 Significant Overhaul
- 15 price change
- 16 Incorrect / Misleading / Requires Citation
- 17 Radiobeacon or radio beacon
- 18 Failure rate
About the change on 21:37 2005-09-27
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)
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 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Link to EPIRB
WikiProject class rating
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)
My Big Changes
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)
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. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
A couple comments
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 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)
- 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))
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)
- The International Civil Aviation Organization of the United Nations uses radio beacon, not radiobeacon. --Born2flie (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- 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 . 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)
- 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)
121.5 MHz clarification
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)
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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
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 220.127.116.11 (talk) 09:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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))
Doppler Location Algorithm is not Radar
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)
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.
- 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)
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)
- 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)
Incorrect / Misleading / Requires Citation
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 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Radiobeacon or radio beacon
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)