1 / 24

406 MHz EPIRB False Alerts Study

406 MHz EPIRB False Alerts Study. EPIRB False Alerts Study. Study was research project by: Larry Yarbrough, USCG District 7 (dpi) Newton Anderson, USCG Auxiliary. Why does US Coast Guard care about EPIRB False Alerts?. 96% 406 MHz EPIRB Alerts are false

salome
Download Presentation

406 MHz EPIRB False Alerts Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 406 MHz EPIRB False Alerts Study

  2. EPIRB False Alerts Study Study was research project by: Larry Yarbrough, USCG District 7 (dpi) Newton Anderson, USCG Auxiliary

  3. Why does US Coast Guard care about EPIRB False Alerts? • 96% 406 MHz EPIRB Alerts are false • 85% Resolved by RCCs with registration and good detective work • Projected increase in EPIRB population will bring increase in number of false alerts

  4. Why does US Coast Guard care about EPIRB False Alerts? • $3.6 million in A/C time and fuel on 406 MHz EPIRB false alerts in 2007 • SAR crews put at risk • SAR assets less available for actual distress • Fatigues and dulls the SAR system

  5. EPIRB False Alerts Study • Study data limited to: • US Registered 406 MHz EPIRBs • transmitting a 406 MHz False Alert • where secondary data collection was accomplished, through RCC telephone interview of vessels owner or operator at the time of the alert • Study Population came from all USMCC alerts passed to US Coast Guard RCCs

  6. EPIRB False Alerts • 1 May - 31 Dec 2007 • USMCC received 1577 406 MHz EPIRB alerts • 5% (83) were Distress Alerts • 1494 False Alerts (non-distress and ceased/undetermined alerts)

  7. EPIRB False Alerts • 1494 False Alerts (non-distress and ceased/undetermined alerts) • 15% - (232) Were False Alerts with enough data collected to develop evidence of circumstances causing alert transmission

  8. How Long does a False Alerts Last?

  9. EPIRB False Alerts • 232 - False Alerts with enough data collected to develop evidence of circumstances causing alert transmission

  10. Operator Induced False Alerts • 10% (24) were attributed to Testing without following manufactures instructions, or other deliberate non-emergency activations • 6% (13) were EPIRBs deliberately taken out of bracket and naked of any control of the wet sensor

  11. Bracket Water Testing L. Yarbrough/D7CFVS

  12. False Alert and EPIRB in Bracket

  13. EPIRB False Alerts 69% (161) Caused by Failure of “The bracket decoupling function” to control the EPIRB • Observed with Category I and II • Manufactures, makes and models in the US registration data base were proportionally represented by False Alerts

  14. EPIRB False Alerts 69% (161) Activated when bracket should have prevented activation Failure of “The bracket decoupling function” to control the EPIRB

  15. Bracket problems observed in field by Coast Guard personnel • Loose straps or mechanical holding device • Missing pads or guides to hold beacons in place • Missing or corroded magnets

  16. Bracket problems observed in field by Coast Guard personal (continued) • Beacons being placed improperly in brackets by users • Brackets not mounted in accordance with manufactures recommendations

  17. EPIRB Operational Requirements Not be activated or deactivated by conditions encountered in maritime environment 69% Of False Alerts Bracket Interface Failure

  18. False Alerts False Alerts are a drain on the health of the EPIRB Distress Alerting System There is no one cause of EPIRB False Alerts, and there is no one fix for the problem However … Several small corrective steps will make a positive difference in this problem

  19. Scrambled HexID Codes • USMCC alerts with invalid HexID code starting with 21, 22, or 23. • Older models of ACR EPIRBs will repeat 406 MHz transmissions if switch is left in Test Position.

  20. Scrambled example • UNREG HEX CODE RECEIVED: 23DE1 42C01 8DC01 ADD : ADCD0 23DE1 42C01 XXXXX Look up new code in RGDB, if there happens to be a vessel with this beacon, and it’s an ACR beacon, there is a possibility it’s a test signal that could be an EPIRB held in the test mode, and a real SAR case. This could save you a lot of time.

  21. Scrambled HexID Codes • Code received by USMCC = 23DE1 42C01 89645 • Add ADCD0 as first 5 digits of HexID. • Drop last five (89645). • Check new code (ADCD0 23DE1 42C01) against NOAA registration data base. • Use results from Registration Data base with great care.

  22. Scrambled HexID Codes • Use results with Great Care. • Until you have confirmed the beacon you identified in the RGDB: • is going off is in a location that correlates with the A or B solution, • and there is no distress, you must treat with the same care and concern as all other unregistered Alerts.

  23. Questions? Larry.T.Yarbrough@uscg.mil (305) 415 6868 L. Yarbrough/D7CFVS

More Related