NTSB Safety Recommendation A-07-51 - 406 MHz ELT

CD · Post by CD » Sat Sep 15, 2007 9:00 am

************************************************************
NTSB SAFETY RECOMMENDATION
************************************************************

National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, DC 20594

September 4, 2007

************************************************************

NTSB Safety Recommendation A-07-51

************************************************************

The National Transportation Safety Board recommends that the
Federal Aviation Administration:

Seek authority from Congress to require the installation of
Technical Standard Order C126 [406 megahertz (MHz)]
emergency locator transmitters (ELTs) in all applicable
aircraft at the earliest possible opportunity. Further, the
Federal Aviation Administration should strongly consider
establishing a compliance date for upgrading to 406-MHz ELTs
on or before the date that COSPAS-SARSAT will cease
satellite processing of 121.5-MHz signals. (A-07-51)

************************************************************

http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2007/A07_51.pdf

************************************************************

CD · Post by CD » Sat Sep 15, 2007 9:01 am

NTSB Wants Pilots To Get New ELTs ASAP

AOPA Opposes Move To Require The Switch

The National Transportation Safety Board recommended last week that pilots be required to equip their aircraft with a 406-MHz emergency locator transmitter (ELT). The recommendation comes as satellites will no longer monitor 121.5-MHz ELT signals after February 1, 2009.

While upgrading to a 406-MHz ELT is probably a prudent move for many pilots, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association says it opposes any move to force pilots to make the switch.

"Pilots should be able to decide which ELT they want in their aircraft based upon their type of flying," said Melissa Rudinger, vice president of regulatory affairs for AOPA. "We've alerted the FAA and the NTSB that we will oppose any attempt to require all pilots to equip with 406-MHz ELTs."

Aircraft, ground stations, and air traffic control will continue to monitor 121.5 MHz after February 2009. AOPA also is concerned about a mandate to equip with a 406-MHz ELT because it costs between $1,000 and $1,800; a pilot can find a new 121.5-MHz ELT for around $200.

The association has been working to educate pilots about the two ELTs, personal locator beacons, and cell phones with GPS receivers that can be used in case of an emergency.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 9:52 am

This has been recommended by both the TSB and the NTSB before has it not - even before the decisions to turn off monitoring of 121.5 - since the current mandated ELT's are crap? How often do TCCA or the FAA follow through with recommendations of this nature - especially when COPA/AOPA oppose? And what does "applicable aircraft" mean?

How come they can force us to wear a seatbelt inside our own private vehicle, but we have a choice about life jackets and ELT's - even in commercial operations!? There's fewer choices in the marine industry ...

gggrrrrr....

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 10:17 am

Just a thought.....General Motors has "OnStar"....that's light years ahead of anything we have in aviation. "Hello OnStar? I've locked my keys in my Boeing...." What? Too simple?

GilletteNorth · Post by **GilletteNorth** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 5:11 pm

It amazes me that the AOPA cites cost as a factor against switching to 406 MHz ELTs. The cost doesn't seem unreasonable to me (of course I don't own a plane).

The 406 MHz ELTs are supposed to reduce the amount of false alerts compared to those 121.5 MHz ELT's generate on a regular basis. The 406 MHz ELT signals will be the only signals the satelites will be looking for... saying that ground stations will still be monitoring may be true, but the reduced coverage will be dramatic I expect.

CD · Post by CD » Sun Sep 16, 2007 3:21 am

Here is another excellent summary of the situation in US:

Equipped To Survive blog

NTSB to FAA: Require 406 MHz ELTs

In a Safety Recommendation released yesterday, the NTSB has once again recommended that the FAA require all aircraft have 406 MHz ELTs (Emergency Locator Transmitters - 121.5 MHz ELTs are currently required). They first recommended this back in 2000 and after vigorous opposition by AOPA, the FAA declined to do so. This latest recommendation comes in large part as a reaction to the upcoming cessation of 121.5 MHz satellite alerting on February 1, 2009 and is supported by an analysis in the report that looks at two recent accidents, one with a 121.5 MHz ELT and one with a 406 MHz ELT.

As you might expect, in the accident involving the 121.5 MHz ELT rescue was delayed. It took 16 hours to locate the crash and the pilot died as a result of hypothermia (3 died in the crash, 3 others survived). Mind you, part of the delay was due to adverse weather conditions. In the contrasting example, the aircraft with a 406 MHz ELTwas located in less than an hour despite the aircraft being destroyed in a post crash fire (all aboard died in the crash).

Beyond recommending that all aircraft be retrofitted with a 406 MHz ELT, the NTSB also recommends that this be required to be done by the February 1, 2009 end of 121.5 MHz satellite alerting.

Don’t hold your breath. It would be virtually impossible to retrofit the entire General Aviation (GA) fleet of NTSB estimated 180,000 aircraft by that date, even if the FAA jumped on it immediately and by some magic issued such a requirement tomorrow. That isn’t going to happen.

So, the question becomes, is this a good idea? Would replacing all 121.5 MHz ELTs with 406 MHZ save enough lives to justify the considerable expense?

Click here to see a table that compares 121.5 to 406 MHz beacons.

Good question, and I’m not aware of any well founded study that’s really looked at this question. My gut inclination would be that it would save more lives, but not a large number. Let me explain and also consider the alternatives.

In th first place, ELTs are not some magic bullet. They often don’t work in a crash. How often they don’t is subject to considerable debate, but by some estimates it is as high a 70%. Even if it is as low as 30%, the point is, in many cases it is useless. The disappearance of Steve Fossett this week on a flight with no ELT signal is more typical than not.

Right now the typical 406 MHz ELT designed for GA cost about $900 to $1000 and installation can run nearly as much in many cases. In some cases, installation is simple and almost a direct replacement, but this is only for a very small minority of generally later model GA aircraft. Mind you, should the FAA mandate installation of 406 MHz ELTs on a more reasonable timetable, it is possible that the cost would drop due to competition, eventually. But as was seen when the EU required that airlines and others install 406 MHz ELTs, the shortage due to the requirement compared to production capacity actually drove the cost up in the short run. Ramping up production would take a while and require a significant investment and developing new ELTs would take a couple years with all the testing an approvals required. So, lowered cost isn’t a slam dunk, but I feel it would eventually come down.

One alternative that’s been the subject of considerable discussion in the SAR world and among those involved in 406 MHz beacon industry, standards development and regulation has been to require, or at least strongly encourage, use of a 406 MHz Personal Locator Beacon (PLB). Some would like to see it approved as a legal alternative to the required 121.5 MHz ELT.

In 2006 I participated in a meeting convened during COSPAS-SARSAT Joint Committee Meeting in Montreal at the request of ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) that looked at these issues. A paper summarizing that meeting was presented at the next ICAO/IMO Joint Working Group on Harmonization of Aeronautical and Maritime Search And Rescue and this report covers most of the issues.

Aviation has already developed into a prime market for PLBs as GA pilots become knowledgeable about the benefits of 406 MHz alerting. PLBs are much less expensive than ELTs to begin with and prices are trending down in an increasingly competitive market. You can get a perfectly adequate PLB today for around $450 and top of the line PLBs are about $650.

By and large, as long as the pilot survives the crash, and the PLB is at hand, they would likely be able to activate it. However, mandating PLB carriage is itself fraught with issues since it is a portable device and can and will be also used for other activities, one reason it is appealing to many. OTOH, there are those aircraft owners who fly around without mandated or at least, functional ELTs. There will always be those too cheap or too anti-authority.

However, in the long run, I think it would likely save as many or more pilots as requiring 406 MHz ELTs, and being less expensive, would be an easier pill for AOPA to swallow. Mind you, I won’t hold my breath for that either.

So, at least in the short term, I don’t expect much to happen. I have been and will continue to encourage pilots to get a PLB. It’s the simple and reasonably affordable solution and it could well save your life. From my point of view, an unreliable ELT is backup to a PLB, not the other way around. If you’re unconscious or immobile and the ELT works, that’s great.

If I had a plane of my own, there’s no question I would install a 406 MHz ELT. I also think that the FAA should require all new aircraft to come with a 406 MHz ELT (many if not most do, but it isn’t required).

So, the bottom line is that the FAA is unlikely to follow the NTSB recommendation, but that doesn’t stop any aircraft owner from doing so. It couldn’t hurt. But, at the least, please get a 406 MHz PLB and carry it within reach on every flight.

snaproll20 · Post by **snaproll20** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:28 am

same old crap eh?

Make it mandatory. Make it mandatory today. We have decided that smokers should be stopped because it costs the system too much to nurse them. How about the cost of searching for someone without a rescue beacon?
AOPA is a smoker. If these people do not want to have rescue beacons, then let them sign a waiver saying "do not search"....something like "do no resuscitate".

Oh, and make the beacon pump out a GPS coordinate for the impact site.

goldeneagle · Post by **goldeneagle** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 2:17 pm

GilletteNorth wrote:It amazes me that the AOPA cites cost as a factor against switching to 406 MHz ELTs. The cost doesn't seem unreasonable to me (of course I don't own a plane).

Learn from history. A long time ago, the use of an elt with lithium batteries was mandated in canada. Then winter came, and it got cold. Lithium batteries all over the country started leaking highly corrosive crap all over the inside of perfectly good airplanes, and turned them into scrap aluminum.

There is more cost to new manadated equipment than just the purchase and install price. There is the risk that the beaurocrats didn't actually do thier homework, and the new equipment will turn good airplanes into scrap. Dont say it cant happen, it did. I was one of the folks on the bitter end of that pill. 400 dollars for an elt in my shiny new airplane didn't sound so bad when I was 16 years old, and starting to build time toward a commercial license. Replacing a bunch of stringers, and recovering the airplane was a financial catastrophe for a 17 year old still in high school, and learning the hard way what it means to have your airplane grounded because corrosive crap from the elt batteries has done serious damage to the structural integrity of the airframe.

I never would have bought and installed an elt if it wasn't made mandatory. If I had known at the time what a risk it was to my beloved flying machine, I would have carried on flying without it. Would have been FAR less expensive to pay the fine if caught than it was to rebuild the plane after the batteries leaked.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 2:24 pm

Should have been a Class Action suit against Transport for failing to do the appropriate tests. There's jumping the gun and then there's losing sight altogether.

CD · Post by CD » Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:16 pm

Widow wrote:Should have been a Class Action suit against Transport for failing to do the appropriate tests. There's jumping the gun and then there's losing sight altogether.

[sigh] It's not always all about TC ya know... and I hope that you're not connected using a laptop computer with a [gasp] Li-Ion battery that just might burst into flames...

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA ), within the Department of Transportation, was one of the first government organization to be confronted with lithium battery safety issues. In the early 70’s, some battery manufacturers courted the aircraft Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELT) market, because the lithium-sulfur dioxide battery was able to handle the new FAA low temperature operating specification for ELTs. This specification was in response to the tragic loss of Congressmen Hale Boggs (D-LA) and Nick Begich (D-AK) in the Alaskan wilderness on October 16, 1972. A massive search effort failed to locate them. The result was a U.S. law mandating that all aircraft carry an emergency locator transmitterx. Unfortunately, this occurred before most of the US army’s safety work on electrochemical balanced designs. The FAA at one time recorded about 500 safety related incidents in US civil aircraft. The Commercial Airlines also experienced some fire and venting of gases. Fortunately none occurred in flight. As a result of these safety incidents, FAA convened a study group and later issued the Technical Standard Order C97 (which evolved into TSO-C142 in 2000). The TSO (order) established battery design standards, and safety testing qualification requirements.

The Commercialization of Lithium Battery Technology

Development of a low-cost 406 MHz emergency locator transmitter (ELT)

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:56 pm

Sorry CD. I was being facetious. Just change Transport to FAA. I'm surprised the lawyers DIDN'T jump all over it ... or all over the lack of batteries in a number of ELT's after the lithiums had to be removed and before new ones were put in.

BTW, of course I don't have a laptop. I live on a widow's pension, remember?

CD · Post by CD » Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:20 pm

Ya, I was being a bit facetious as well. Besides, even desktop PC's have button cell Li-Ion batteries in them...

With regards to Li-Ion laptop batteries, check out this spectacular video demonstration of just how explosive these batteries can be:

PC Pitstop

GilletteNorth · Post by **GilletteNorth** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:54 pm

GoldenEagle:

A long time ago, the use of an elt with lithium batteries was mandated in canada. Then winter came, and it got cold. Lithium batteries all over the country started leaking highly corrosive crap all over the inside of perfectly good airplanes, and turned them into scrap aluminum.
There is more cost to new manadated equipment than just the purchase and install price.

You're talking about an issue with battery quality that caused an unfortunate problem. Do you expect the 406's to experience the same battery problem? The underlying issue is... why stint on safety?

CID · Post by **CID** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:34 am

since the current mandated ELT's are crap?

The current ELTs were designed to work with the available technology. The 406 ELTs use recovery technology that hasn't been available very long.

Besides that widow, 406 ELTs exhibit some of the same shortcomings (according to you) as every ELT. For example, they don't work underwater. So I guess the new ones are "crap" too? Do you realize that one good solar flare can take out the satellites that interact with the 406 ELTs?

Sorry CD. I was being facetious. Just change Transport to FAA. I'm surprised the lawyers DIDN'T jump all over it ... or all over the lack of batteries in a number of ELT's after the lithiums had to be removed and before new ones were put in.

I don't understand your logic here widow. How does changing TC to FAA make your statement less facetious?

That statement and the preceding one really illustrates your mindset, namely "blame everything, including shortcomings of the manufacturers and operators on the regulator".

It's up to the regulators to set the standards. It's up to the manufacturers to provide technology that meets the standards. If there's a design flaw in the technology, it's a design/manufacturing problem and not the regulator's.

Should TC be held responsible for every AD out there?

Make it mandatory. Make it mandatory today. We have decided that smokers should be stopped because it costs the system too much to nurse them. How about the cost of searching for someone without a rescue beacon?

AOPA has some reasonable concerns. ELTs are not safety devices. They are recovery devices. They don't make your airplane any safer. If pilots and operators spent money on training they would be far better off.

Installing a 406 ELT will cost between $1500 and $5000 (roughly) depending on features and your aircraft type. Anual up-keep will include a new battery and periodic checks that will will run up to a few hundred. If pilots (commercial and non-commercial) spent that money on training, many more lives would be saved in my opinion.

Personally, I would certainly "recommend" equipping your airplane with the latest recovery gizmos like ELTs or recovery chutes, but don't mandate it.

How come they can force us to wear a seatbelt inside our own private vehicle, but we have a choice about life jackets and ELT's - even in commercial operations!?

Actually they can't "force" us. They can make the law but they can't force you to obey the law. Much like aviation. If a slimy operator choses to ignore the regulations there's not much that can be done. Much like drivers who don't wear their seatbelts.

With respect to the Lithium batteries, at the time those were the only batteries availalble that would be small enough to offer the required 50 hours of beacon life at the prescribed temperature range. Like any new technology, the long term issues just weren't known or even expected. Batteries started corroding the insides of the ELT (I don't recall any stories of them "leaking" and causing corrosion in the airplane) and others actually exploded under certain conditions. Certainly a design fiasco.

The manufacturers quickly came up with a fix and had to replace many ELTs. In most cases they went back to the alkaline batteries and were only able to meet 20 hours of operation.

Some like the Pointer Sentry use another organic battery but still only go for 20 hours.

conehead · Post by **conehead** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:19 am

snaproll20 wrote:Oh, and make the beacon pump out a GPS coordinate for the impact site.

Actually, the 406 beacon does have that ability...
Here's a good comparison between the old & the new...

http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/406vs121.pdf

GilletteNorth · Post by **GilletteNorth** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:21 pm

CID:

ELTs are not safety devices. They are recovery devices. They don't make your airplane any safer. If pilots and operators spent money on training they would be far better off.

I'll agree to disagree with you on the above statement.

Scenario: 2 aircraft flying along, one with a better trained pilot but no ELT, second with a less trained pilot but equipped with an ELT. Both experience an engine failure and crash in the remote bush. The less trained pilot gets the aircraft down in one piece just like the better trained guy but is picked up in 4 hours while the pilot without the ELT lasts 4 days before wolves eat him for breakfast. Better ability to fly the aircraft won't help once you are sitting in the bush after an accident. The pilot flying with an ELT on board is flying in a safer aircraft.

CID · Post by **CID** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:58 pm

GilletteNorth,

That's a wonderful story. But the guy without the ELT had a flight plan and proper flight following so he was actually picked up first. Plus he knew enough not to make any steep turns to line himself up with some field. Instead he flew the airplane and maintained control and put it down in some trees.

The guy with the ELT put it down in the water and the airplane sank so the ELT didn't work. Plus he tried to make the water, turned steeply and stalled killing everyone.

We can twist this story in all sorts of ways but it will still work out with the same results. The well trained crew will be in fewer accidents than the poorly trained crew. Regardless if the crashes are survivable or not. That means that better training will result in less fatalities.

By the way, since a single engine failure caused a forced landing in your scenario, I assume you're talking about single engine VFR or commerical IFR in a PC-12 or Cessna 208.

Single engine VFR flights are the lowest risk commercial ops we have. As for the PC-12 and 208, I always thought single engine commercial IFR is just dumb. Engine failures automatically become recovery.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:11 pm

An ELT that works can make the difference between an incident being doomed to become a fatal accident just as pilot training can make the difference.

Since we must accept that accidents will always happen (for a variety of reasons), improving the chances of survival are just as important as improving the chances that it won't happen at all. Otherwise, the clear indication is that it is the equipment, and not the people, that are valuable.

CID wrote:Single engine VFR flights are the lowest risk commercial ops we have.

I'm curious if this is true. I'd do a mini-CADORs search, but the site seems to be down.

I did find this:

UNDERWRITING IN THE 21ST CENTURY:
UNDERSTANDING THE RISKS OF PRIVATE AVIATION

Single-engine aircraft account for the highest crash totals, and although multi-engine aircraft have far fewer accidents, they are far more likely to be fatal when they do occur. Statistics show that the more complex the aircraft, the greater the chances of fatalities in an accident. In fact, the “lethality index” (percentage of accidents that result in death) in a single-engine aircraft is about 10%, compared to multi-engine aircraft at about 50%.

And this:

Fatal Accident Statistics (2005)
Source: General Aviation Joint Steering Committee

Percentage of Accidents by Time of Day & Flight Rule

Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) Visual Flight Rules (VFR)
Day 19%--------------------------------48%
Night 12%--------------------------------21%

Both US sources.

CID · Post by **CID** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:28 pm

widow, single engine VFR commercial ops ARE the lowest risk. Unfortunately this sector also has the largest number of slimy operators and the employees who enable them.

If operators followed the rules, the statistics would reflect the actual risk associated with this sort of operation.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:58 pm

Lowest risk for what? Accidents or fatalities? Both? Or neither? I'd like to see the numbers ... the stats I pulled would indicate you are wrong, plus, you know I don't trust you

Edited to add: If what you are saying is that the only reason VFR single-engine APPEARS more dangerous than IFR is because of the shady operators and jellyfish pilots, and we will clearly never be 100% rid of shady ops and jellyfish, then I'd have to say it clearly MUST become doubly important to mitigate the post-accident risks.

moocow · Post by **moocow** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:49 am

Is it me or is the argument against installing 406 ELT is along the line of "oh I don't need to wear seat beats since I got better training and I won't be in an accident"? Shit happens, and when it does, anything that helps me and/or passengers to be found faster is definitely a plus. Unless you can prove beyond a doubt that a crash is zero percent, I rather upgrade to a new ELT. I find it funny that AOPA would argue base on cost. I bet my fat Asian ass that everyone of those member would demand every single possible equipment that would safeguard their lives to be installed. In addition, the argument that the ELT is purely a recovery equipment is a bit odd. So do you only consider a safety equipment should only prevent injury and not death or do you assume you will just die when you hit the ground in a unplanned manner? It seems to me that your argument states that the difference in SAR time is moot. I'm sorry but even if the new ELT provides another 1% margin of survival, I will gladdy pay for the $5,000 price tag. Who said aviation is a cheap hobby?

CID · Post by **CID** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:55 am

Lowest risk for what? Accidents or fatalities? Both? Or neither? I'd like to see the numbers ... the stats I pulled would indicate you are wrong, plus, you know I don't trust you.

So are you telling me that flying VFR is inherently more risky that flying IFR widow? If that’s what you’re telling me then you most certainly don’t know what you’re talking about.

VFR flight in ANY airplane presents less risk than IFR flight in ANY airplane. The stats you “pulled” are indicative of the bozos we have masquerading as operators and pilots in those airplanes. Stats are wonderful things but they are useless unless you can interpret them properly.

VFR flight accident statistics are poor comparatively for many reasons including they typically include the least experienced pilots. So ask me if I feel safer flying VFR in a single engine airplane in the prairies with a 10 hour wonder or commercially in a transoceanic 777 and I’ll pick the 777.

Ask me again but swap the pilots and my answer will change. Again, VFR is the lowest risk.

You should try “pulling” statistics that show how many VFR flights run in to trouble when they encounter IMC conditions. That’s not a risk that is inherent in VFR operations. It’s a risk inherent of pilots who take unwise chances.

I find it funny that AOPA would argue base on cost.

The regulators normally understand that they need to get the most bang for the buck. Using your logic moocow, why not mandate TAWS, TCAS and recovery chutes for every airplane? Because the cost/benefit just doesn’t make it practical.

Yes, flying isn’t a cheap hobby but I would find it tough to justify telling some farmer he needs to put a $5000 ELT in his J3.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:58 am

CID wrote:So are you telling me that flying VFR is inherently more risky that flying IFR widow? If that’s what you’re telling me then you most certainly don’t know what you’re talking about.

When did I try to "tell" you anything? I was asking a question. I don't understand WHY VFR would be less risky than IFR - if all other things are equal (adequate training, operator support, etc).

mikegtzg · Post by **mikegtzg** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:54 pm

I would like to weigh in on the 406 ELT issue. There is no reason that this needs to be mandated for private VFR aircraft.
The combination of a flight plan or itinerary. And the old 121.5 ELT in proper service is certainly acceptable for most operations. Remember CASARA and other SAR will still use 121.5 for homeing.
Many private aircraft rarely fly in the remote and mostly uninhabited areas. There are many aircraft here on the prairies that really only go to from one flyin breakfast to the next. Perhaps its could be considered reasonable for that aircraft to have any ELT at all.
Both COPA and AOPA have proposed alternatives. If the aircraft is to be flown into remote areas...an additional alternative means of communication. Like Cell Phone, Sat.Phone, PLB, the New SPOT unit, etc.
It has happened in the past that an ELT has failed to turn on. So a mandate to install a 406 ELT isn't going to be full proof either. The new 406 unit will still have a G switch like the old one. It still can have a weak battery, or can be sunmerged.
I say leave the rules alone. The 121.5 ELT will still offer a level of protection even w/o the satellites listening. And let the aircraft owner and pilot make the decision to provide a back up method of emergency communication based on the type of flying they are doing.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 6:04 pm

Unless I'm mistaken, TCCA (and the FAA) are only mandating the 406 for international ops, and not for domestics ... IMHO, it should be for all commercial ops ... the currently mandated/approved ELTs simply do not work effectively.