406MHz ELTs

[SAR_YQQ]

Widow: ELTs are next to useless in many (most?) crashes. I would not put any more faith in the 406 model than I would in the 121.5 model.

I have homed many ELTs in my rather short SAR career.

75% of them have been to airparks, float-planes and people's house.

The other 25% have been to bonified crashed airplanes with people waiting for rescue. One forum member can attest to this - as he spent a couple of hours sitting in his plane in a mountain pass waiting for someone to come.

A 406Mhz ELT will get the rescue system moving 90% faster. We don't have to guess at who might be missing, the IDENT being sent up the data stream will tell us exactly whose it is - if there is a corresponding flight plan that matches, we go flying ASAP. With the current system, JRCC waits for at least two passes (upwards of 30-45mins) and looks to see if any aircraft were flying in that area.

When I was launched to Golden on an ELT search - we had only tentative details and a vague idea that there might be an aircraft involved. The proximity to Golden airport lead us initially to think that it might have been a parked airplane - but we went because we knew it was a heavily travelled VFR corridor.

We found Kate 2 hours later - less than 15 mins before the sun set. Had we not been in Kamloops already on the Major Search - airborne SAR would not have been possible and the GSAR would have had to slog it out on foot, looking everywhere.

My point being - time is of the essence. Many of you point out that the ELT (regardless of its cost) won't survive a flaming impact, which is absolutely true - but neither will you, so that is a moot point. It is the survivable crashes that the SAR system is dedicated, and it is those kind of scenarios where the 406 ELT will pay off in dividends (to you).

[small penguin]

SAR_YQQ, I completely agree with you. Which is why I stand ground that it is not fair (nor does it make sense) to charge the end-user (ie: the pilot or aircraft owner) the huge amount to install a 406 ELT when it is the SAR techs that will reap the reward.

Yes... IFI crash... and IFI survive that crash... and IF the ELT survives, and activates... then and only then, do I reap the reward also.

IMO, its a lot of IFs for a 3000 dollar system that probably costs less than a grand to produce and is made in Taiwan.

I say all aircraft owners install the 406s, and then owners pay 50% of the costs and TC/DND/whoever forks the other 50%. Then again, doing that might lead us to incurring new fees from various agencies out to @#$! us over

*shrugs*

[CD]

Perhaps those who choose not to utilize the new technology could opt for a DNR on their CofR or flight plans? Similar to the DNR in medicine, DNR in aviation would mean do not rescue. That, too, would save on resources...

Just a thought...

[just curious]

Pengy,

A) SARTECHS are paid by the day, not by the search, and the savings are never gonna get passed on to them.
B) They eat that search stuff up, and would search cheerfully until they drop.

[Spokes]

SAR_YQQ, I completely agree with you. Which is why I stand ground that it is not fair (nor does it make sense) to charge the end-user (ie: the pilot or aircraft owner) the huge amount to install a 406 ELT when it is the SAR techs that will reap the reward.

Yes... IFI crash... and IFI survive that crash... and IF the ELT survives, and activates... then and only then, do I reap the reward also.

This is such a stupid statement on so manny levels, its hard to know where to start.

Nobody wants to crash, but anyone can. Both new, and highly experienced pilots crash. Tomorrow it could be you...or me. The Idea that somehow SAR people benefit by a system that makes it easier to find your sorry ass somewhere in the bush is crazy. It is you that benefits by getting to live a bit longer. They get paid, regardless. I for one am glad that they are there.

Even of your ELT does not go off for some reason, If you are missing, SAR will be able to go look for you, because they will not be wasting their time chasing down a false alarm.

[small penguin]

I meant resources rather than individuals' pay. A herc on the apron doesnt cost as much as one flying for 6 hours looking for a plane happily tied down at the club.

One of the main reasons Im always hearing for the 406 is reduced costs of false alerts. Someone is going to be saving money then right?

[small penguin]

spokes, of all the pilots worldwide who have been, are, and will be, how many of them will go their entire career without crashing somewhere? How many of them will never encounter a situation where the ELT strapped to the plane is their lifeline?

Of all the pilots worldwide, how many of them will get into a fatal accident in which having an ELT doesnt matter anyways?

I dont intend on crashing, but I know full well fate isnt in my hands, and anything can happen. I also know full well I could have an entire flying career and never have a need for the ELT. I personally think Im doing just fine with a 121. Im sure many others (especially GAs) would agree.

Hmm, maybe I used the wrong words. Its not the SAR techs per se that benefit. Its the SAR team as a whole, and the government or whoever else funds them. Yea the techs get paid whether they play cards or whether they save someone. But the cost of operations is a lot lower when they're on the ground rather than chasing a false signal. Why should I pay so that SAR operations can save money?

[Pratt X 3]

Why should I pay so that SAR operations can save money?

But who pays for the SAR operations? We, the taxpayers, that's who.

And you are using the luck card to justify not having something that may benefit you in the future? So I guess, in your books, car/plane/house/life insurance is for idiots. Why spend that money on something that might not happen? Right? Who needs a safety net?

[small penguin]

No theres a slight difference. Go through the fat list of aviation accidents and give me a list of:

A) All accidents in which a 406 ELT would have saved a life when the 121.5 ELT didnt
B) All accidents in which an ELT didnt save a life because it didnt activate, was destroyed, submerged, signal was blocked

Im all for having a device that will save my bacon. The 406... isnt that device. Not anymore than the current ELT I have right now. And no, I dont think its worth at all the 3000 bucks or more I'd have to shell out for it.

Before I answer the insurance question... you ask yourself this. How many people who drive a car would skip on insurance if it were legal to do so. My plane is happily insured. I have no quarrel against it. The insurance protects my plane every day, whether I fly it or not. The ELT *might* only protect me IF I crash.

The insurance works 365 days a year, and costs me a quarter of what a 406 ELT is going to cost me. And a 406 will only work ... never? (if I dont ever crash), once? (if I crash and die), more than once? (if Im lucky enough to survive accident number 1) You cant compare an ELT to insurance..

[Chuck Ellsworth]

small penguin, for what ever it is worth you are making a very good case for your opinion.

Aviation gets raped by the regulation authorities demanding these overpriced devices when there are other alternatives that work better for far less.

[SAR_YQQ]

Just a little FYI - the tax payer is paying the exact same $$ whether the planes are sitting on the ramp or flying. Our budgets work on a fixed amount of flying hours per year. Whether we are flying those hours training or searching, it is finite and here on the West Coast we don't use them all.

Im all for having a device that will save my bacon.

Here it is...

[ettw]

To those who are resisting the installation of this ELT, you will all be more than willing to pay 10 x that if you are strapped into the seat slowly bleeding out, things getting more and more distant...and you know that you didnt file a flight plan and you dont have the ELT.

I'm sure you will die with a tear in your eye wishing you had filed and installed the 406.

Fade to black.......

ETTW

[KnownIce]

The insurance protects my plane every day, whether I fly it or not. The ELT *might* only protect me IF I crash.

1) Insurance never protects you, it protects your money. I'd rather start with protecting my life and then worry about my pocketbook.

2) The statement above is inherently flawed based on your own logic. If an ELT is useless because it can only help you if you crash, then insurance only helps you if you airplane is damaged. If you accept that your plane is "protected" 24/7 by insurance, then your ELT is "protecting" you 24/7, should you decide to fly at any point 24/7.

A SAR pilot I flew with last fall told me of a speaking tour he did of some of the local flying clubs recently. All the old guys sat with their arms crossed, with skeptical questions/statements like discussed in this thread. He said that this changed quickly when he activated a portable 406 he had with him, and then proceeded to answer his cell only seconds later to confirm the false alarm.

That being said, I agree with the other posters on this thread -- it is unfortunate the SAR standard supported internationally is so expensive. It's too bad TC couldn't sponsor a rebate program, but using money saved across multiple departments to fund a rebate paid out by one department is too far fetched an idea for anyone in Ottawa.

[KnownIce]

I'm sure you will die with a tear in your eye wishing you had filed and installed the 406.

It's hard to produce tears when you are volume deplete...

[_dwj_]

To the people advocating the 406 ELTs: please give me a single example of a situation where a 406 could save my life whereas a combination of 121.5 ELT and SPOT (or PLB) would cause me to die, as I can't think of any.

The only advantage I can see of the 406 is that it will transmit your precise location within a few minutes when you are unconscious on the ground (assuming the g-switch has activated and the antenna hasn't been ripped off), but why would I need that? If the plane is going down I'll simply push the big red 911 button or whatever before I hit the ground. This is assuming I'm not going to be low flying where I might not have time to do this.

[small penguin]

_dwj_ a few things. With the 406.. you'll only get a precise location if you match it up with a GPS. Granted though the 406 is still better than the 121.5 for accuracy.

Secondly, you can activate the 406 with a panel mounted switch. Regardless of how the 406 is activated though (panel switch or g-switch) it still takes 50 some seconds to activate.

All in all though, I think a SPOT+121 would be better and much cheaper than a 406+GPS or even just a 406 by itself.

[KnownIce]

please give me a single example of a situation where a 406 could save my life whereas a combination of 121.5 ELT and SPOT (or PLB) would cause me to die, as I can't think of any.

[_dwj_]

Perhaps I'm just dumber than the average pilot on here, KnownIce, but I just don't understand your cute little diagram. If I have the SPOT or PLB in the plane with me, then what has my house got to do with anything? My GPS location (in the plane) will be transmitted to the emergency services via satellite when I push the button.

If you're saying that I might forget the PLB/SPOT and leave it in the house, well I'm quite happy to trust my life to my memory than to a 406 ELT that fails to activate most of the time.

[_dwj_]

Here is a list of reasons identified by the FAA as to why ELTs fail to operate:

-- Insufficient impact deceleration to cause the crash sensor (G-switch) to activate the ELT;
-- Improper installation;
-- Battery problems;
-- Fire damage;
-- Impact damage;
-- Antenna broke/disconnected;
-- Water submersion;
-- Unit not armed;
-- Internal failure;
-- Packing device still installed;
-- Remote switch in off position; and
-- ELT shielded by wreckage or terrain

Some of these failures may be addressed by the new 406 ELTs, but I suspect most won't (or can't) be.

So you REALLY want your emergency device to activate before you hit the ground. With a SPOT or PLB you just hit a button and your exact position will be immediately relayed to SAR via satellite, with pretty good certainty.

If you have a 406 ELT, however, even if you switch it to the "on" position, it won't transmit anything to the satellite for a full 50 seconds -- by which time you might have hit the ground. Even with an old 121.5 ELT you can switch it to ON using the panel-mounted switch and it will immediately start broadcasting a signal to the satellite. So in this situation even the old crappy 121.5 ELT is more likely to save your life than a 406 one.

[Splatm]

Arguing that the 121.5 may or may not work better than the 406 is academic. The system is no longer going to be equipped to handle 121.5 signals except for close range homing. The satellites required to keep that capability are wearing out, getting old, and are not going to be replaced. The ability of Canada to influence that decision passed almost ten years ago. Aviation is a secondary user of the COSPAS-SARSAT system with only 68 ELT/EPIRB saves in 2004 compared to 1,505 marine saves worldwide. 406 is here to stay, the important questions for us are:

-How is SAR implemented in Canada, using COSPAS-SARSAT or alternatives?
-Should ELTs be required?
-How can TC adjust the regulations to mitigate supply and cost issues?

There will be no difference to SAR costs in Canada since the crews fly the same number of hours either training, chasing false alarms, or real searching, I would rather my tax money is spent on training and the real thing.

[viccoastdog]

One-two-one-decimal-five ELTs have been obselete, antiquated devices for some time now. I welcome the change to 406 ELTs, however much it will hurt the bottom line of our company to install them.

As a sailor I have followed the stories of rescues in the Southern Ocean and other areas when marine 406 EPIRBs were activited, both manually and automatically after immersion in water. The precision of even a normal EBIRB is amazing; adding GPS to create the GPIRB is even better. The EPIRB devices are rugged and well built and there should be no reason an aviation 406 ELT can't be as durable.

I like the SPOT system, and I think we'll put it on our floatplanes as an adjunct to our normal flight following. However it can't truly be relied upon as the only source for flight following as sometimes a transmission from the SPOT transmitter just doesn't get through because of line of site issues etc. When pressing the emergency button on the SPOT you again have no way of knowing if the signal has gotten through, and it has to be manually activated.

Someone on a previous post naively stated that it's unfair to pass along this cost of new 406 ELTs to the end user - gee I don't know who else should pay for it! If an AD comes out on your aircraft that costs you money to comply with do you ask your neighbour to pay for some of it or look for a government grant of some kind? No, of course not. It's just one of those (unfortunately) costly aspects of owning or operating and aircraft.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

No, of course not. It's just one of those (unfortunately) costly aspects of owning or operating and aircraft.

And as the cost goes up ownership goes down.

[viccoastdog]

No, of course not. It's just one of those (unfortunately) costly aspects of owning or operating and aircraft.

And as the cost goes up ownership goes down.

Unfortunately true, isn't it. The costs of owning a plane just seem to keep getting higher and higher, especially as the of the GA fleet ages.

If we crash somewhere and expect a full-out rescue attempt from our country's SAR capabilities and assets it doesn't seem unreasonable for us to enable them to use the full capabilities of the COSPAS/SARSAT system by having a 406 ELT. Personally, when we finally get to take our boat offshore I'll be investing in an EPIRB for this very reason.

The costs of the new 406 ELT sure ain't cheap, but it is a one-time cost, not a recurring yearly cost.

[_dwj_]

Nobody is arguing that 121.5 is better than 406, although the 50 second delay is one area where 406 is inferior. This seems to be an area where the priority seems to be reducing false alerts at the expense of saving lives (see a recurring theme here?)

[Chuck Ellsworth]

The costs of the new 406 ELT sure ain't cheap, but it is a one-time cost, not a recurring yearly cost.

True, but when you add up all the costs that are creeping into aviation especially these extra taxes called fees it becomes death by a thousand cuts.