" Hi all " me again from the land downunder. I am posing a question, and I hope that somebody out there might be able to explain to me why the government authorities in your country and mine are stuffing around with 406 Mhz beacon technology use. Firstly as my post title ask's, who of you out there regularly carry a 406 Mhz beacon, be it an EPIRB, ELT, or a PLB, when the go flying, boating, or fourwheel driving / hiking etc .... I will state outright that I and my friends etc.. ( at my insistence ) always carry a unit on their trips. The main problem that I have is that having been involved in a large number of SAR missions, on land, at sea, and as a result of a flying accident. These SAR missions can cover many days in duration, cost many hundreds of thousands of dollars ( US & Australian ), in many cases are either unsuccessful in outcome, or the survivors are found in a tragic state, both emotionally, and medically,iIf as we all know the 406 Mhz survival beacon, in it's many guises is probably the most important peice of survival equipment that has ever been developed . The advantages of the 406 Mhz survival beacon, over it's antiquated predacessor the 121.5 / 243 Mh unit in alerting, and positioning ( those with a GPS interface / Inbuilt chip ) of a location of distress is something that we would not have dreamed of when I started my flying career. Having said all that, as the 406 MHZ beacon is of such a valuable survival resource, and could save much waste of emergency services resources being deployed ( in sometmes hazardous climatic conditions ) and a larger cost saving to those emergency responders, in equipment and personal cost, why don't the government authorities over there, and here, (and now I will use a "dirty word " here ) subsidise the purchase of units for those involved in the various areas of use that could lead to possible emergency activation. I know some people will always be willing to say " why should the tax payer have to subsidise little " rich boy's and their toys. The fact is those very same taxpayers are the very same one's that have to foot the bill, when the emergency responders have to expend many thousands, in some cases hundreds of thousands, and many days in SAR missions. There I have said it, I expect that there will be some that will disagree with my position, but thats life. sorry I could not keep it shorter.