406MHz ELTs

[_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.

[viccoastdog]

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.

Yes the latest razor blade cut is the $10.00 per plane per day to land on the river at YVR that NavCanada is charging! Sorry, I know I'm drifting off topic.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Yes the latest razor blade cut is the $10.00 per plane per day to land on the river at YVR that NavCanada is charging! Sorry, I know I'm drifting off topic.

So they are even charging for that now are they?

When I get the Amphib. Husky to fly can I still land on the water and taxi up the ramp and park on the South side ramp, then take off on the runway and not pay a landing fee on the runway?

It has been quite some time since I flew in Canada so I'm sort of out of the loop.

[viccoastdog]

When I get the Amphib. Husky to fly can I still land on the water and taxi up the ramp and park on the South side ramp, then take off on the runway and not pay a landing fee on the runway?

I understand that as of 1 April NavCanada will send you a bill for $10.00 to take off and/or land at YVR, including the floatbase, AM9. They will send the invoice to the registered owner of the aircraft based on the ident used. I don't know about fees charged by YVR Airport Authority to take off or land from the runways. I guess it's still cheaper to water land as opposed to landing on the runway at YVR, assuming the YVR landing fee was more than $10.00. At least you get to come and go as much as you like for $10.00...small consolation.

Could always mix up the ident I suppose...a foxtrot instead of a golf!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Could always mix up the ident I suppose...a foxtrot instead of a golf!

I see no real problem with that.

In normal society dishonesty is not an accepted trait, however when dealing with TC dishonesty is a prerequisite to succeed in their world, Nav Can is sort of an extension of TC so they could be fair game.

[viccoastdog]

Could always mix up the ident I suppose...a foxtrot instead of a golf!

I see no real problem with that.

In normal society dishonesty is not an accepted trait, however when dealing with TC dishonesty is a prerequisite to succeed in their world, Nav Can is sort of an extension of TC so they could be fair game.

Well it happens on a grander scale - I got an invoice last December from IATA in Switzerland on behalf of the Airports Authority of India for an overflight of India by our float-equipped Beaver at about flight level 350. It appears someone gave out our Beavers ident to Indian ATC to avoid a bill!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

How much was it?

[viccoastdog]

How much was it?

For about $500.00 of something.

I replied to IATA with this email:
"I’m afraid someone is trying to pull a fast one on you…we are a Canadian floatplane charter airline who flies single-engine floatplane capable of 100 knots and a range of perhaps 350 miles; unlikely we’d ever get to India!"

and they replied with this gem:
"The flight in question was on August 8th, 2007. Could you please advise if this aircraft belonged to another owner previously. Perhaps this would explain the error?" still not quite getting the concept that it's a single engine flloatplane.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Classic....bureaucracy is the same around the world.

What I would like to know is WTF do you have for an engine in that Beaver to allow it to cruise at FL350?

[small penguin]

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.

One of the main reasons for the move to the 406 ELT is to reduce false alarms. Not to (directly) improve safety.

Seems to me that if the government (or whoever else funds SAR operations) is going to save a couple thousand bucks a year the least they could do is refund part of the purchase price to the end user. After all, if we stuck to the 121.5 there'd be a fair amount of false alarms.

Generally if someone forces you to upgrade something mostly for their benefit rather than yours, there's usually some kind of discount provided.

At the very least, I'd say sell the technology at a reasonable price. g-switches have been around for ages, as far as I know, the g-switch in the 406 is the same as the 121. Same for the antenna. So, an old and somewhat unreliable g-switch, plus a 10 dollar Radio Shack toggle switch for the panel, a hundred dollar whip antenna, maybe 30 dollars of wires, a fancy plastic casing, a ROM chip of sorts, an (older?) model lithium battery, and a satellite transmitter (not even transceiver AFAIK). I dont see how all of that adds up to 1000+ dollars. And I dont think there are going to be many 406 models available in the 1000 dollar price range either. Of course, installation cost isnt factored in.

*shrugs*

TC doesnt like SPOT for two reasons. The "emergency" button is something that must be crew activated, and because the breadcrumb trail isnt as accurate as they'd want. I think the mentioned something like 2.3nm or whatever. If that 406 fails to activate, or a signal is not received, I'd rather a SPOT with an accuracy less than 2.3 than no ELT signal when doing that 300nm cross-country

*shrugs again*

Finally.. Someone mentioned that when SPOT sends it's "SOS" signal that you dont know if the signal was received by anyone... well, the same is true of current 121.5 ELTs and the same is true of the new 406 ELTs. Unless the new ELTs have built-in satellite phones that Im not aware of

[viccoastdog]

Classic....bureaucracy is the same around the world.

What I would like to know is WTF do you have for an engine in that Beaver to allow it to cruise at FL350?

Why a Wright 3350 Turbocompound of course, the usual Beaver mod for Himalayan operations. Oh sure it's a bit nose heavy...burn from the fuel from front to back instead of back to front

[viccoastdog]

Finally.. Someone mentioned that when SPOT sends it's "SOS" signal that you dont know if the signal was received by anyone... well, the same is true of current 121.5 ELTs and the same is true of the new 406 ELTs. Unless the new ELTs have built-in satellite phones that Im not aware of

If an EPIRB is transmitting it will make a tone and flash a light. If the antenna is attached the signal will be received. The transmission is continuous until the battery(ies) are depleted, not momentary as in a SPOT. I can see no reason a 406 ELT wouldn't function the same way, the technology has been well proven in marine EPRIB for well over a decade now; it works with incredible reliability (the concern about G switches relating to aviation use notwithstanding).

One of the main reasons for the move to the 406 ELT is to reduce false alarms. Not to (directly) improve safety.

I think it's because the COSPAT/SARSAT system is no longer going to monitor for 121.5 signals, and therefore well beyond the realm of TC.

At the very least, I'd say sell the technology at a reasonable price.

I'm a big believer in the free market - if there's going to be a whole bunch of aircraft that are going to need 406 ELTs very soon then there's going to be quite a demand.

Generally if someone forces you to upgrade something mostly for their benefit rather than yours, there's usually some kind of discount provided.

You better provide some relevant examples with that statement! You also seem to be firm in your conclusion that you will receive no benefit from 406 ELTs as evidenced by this,

mostly for their benefit rather than yours

, previous SARTECH's posts to the contrary!

[small penguin]

Im not completely up to par on the COSPAT-SARSAT thing, but I have to wonder why TC thinks the only viable replacement for an old ELT is a "new and improved" ELT. The technology is flawed IMO.

The only semi-viable example I can think of for my statement (which in retrospect might have been exaggerated) is in computers. Which can still be vaguely relevant to the 406. Granted you have to "trade-in" your old hardware for newer in-compliance hardware, though, but once the 406s are in... its pretty much the same situation. I wouldnt be surprised to get charged a fee for proper disposal of the old ELTs too

You are right though, especially for the amount they cost, I remain unconvinced that a 406 ELT will save my life any more than a current 121.5. The 406 still relies on the unit activating via the g-switch (after all, if SPOT isnt legal because [amongst other things] it needs crew action, then why should I activate my 406 via the panel switch!), still relies on the antenna and ELT being undamaged, and in unobstructed view of the sky.

I'd think one of the main reasons that the 406 would help over the 121 is surviving the elements after the crash. I'd like to know the average rescue time from a 121 distress versus the estimated rescue time from a 406 (ballpark figures). If a pilot cannot survive the elements for some time, then perhaps he or she is ill equipped or trained? Maybe they'll learn next time.

*shrugs* Im tired and might be a little more pessimistic than usual

g'night.

[viccoastdog]

I'd think one of the main reasons that the 406 would help over the 121 is surviving the elements after the crash. I'd like to know the average rescue time from a 121 distress versus the estimated rescue time from a 406 (ballpark figures). If a pilot cannot survive the elements for some time, then perhaps he or she is ill equipped or trained? Maybe they'll learn next time.

And this is where 406 EPIRBs and ELTs trump the old 121.5 versions (there used to be old marine 121.5 EPIRBs too, they also had a history of false alarms). The 406 ELTs will enable a position to be determined to within about NM within minutes of the transmission being received. The coded info of which aircraft the ELT belongs to is also part of the transmitted message - JRCC will get all of this info before you even get a chance to start collecting firewood. And they will have a markedly smaller search radius to cover than with the older equipment (about NM radius for 121.5 ELT/EPIRBs). The technology has been proven in the marine environment for years; it's not flawed - there's no reason it can't translate, with required modifications, to an aviation environment.

The new 406 ELTs will transmit a 121.5 signal as well so searchers can home in with portable receivers when they get close, if necessary, as is also the case with marine 406 EPIRBs. It's also interesting to note that the 406 EPIRBs transmit at 5 watts whereas the older 121.5/243 EPIRBS transmitted at well under 1 watt, so there is a lot stronger signal being broadcast (I confess I don't know what strength the current 121.5 aviation ELTs transmit at).

Just think of all of those crashes in mountainous terrain where an ELT was heard ever so briefly by satellites and overflying aircraft, but the transmission was too brief and weak to pinpoint its location - with the new MHz ELTs a brief transmission is usually good enough to give your ident and a coordinates of where you are, and if there's a built in GPS it gets even better. For flying in remote areas and mountainous terrain this just seems like a no-brainer to me.

g'night.

Yep, good night

[Spokes]

Well sp, it seems you are now just arguing for the sake of keeping an argument going. Most people here who have been involved with SAR have answered your concerns, yet you still seem to cling to your silly ideas in spite of this. I see there is no longer any point carrying on with you.

The sad thing of course is that if one day you do find yourself trapped in a wreck slowly dying of exposure, you seem to me to be the type to blame everyone else for your not being found by SAR people. I do know that the guy who climbed in an air dropped life raft after being in the north Atlantic for 12 hours, who was found by my crew because they had an ELT was extremely happy.

You keep going with your "I don't need a helmet on my motorcyle" mentality. Hopefully it will serve you well.

[Pratt X 3]

One of the main reasons for the move to the 406 ELT is to reduce false alarms. Not to (directly) improve safety.

You don't think reducing false alarms will help improve safety? How about the SAR crew that is chasing a false alarm when you have crashed. Wouldn't it improve safety if that crew had determined that the first ELT was false before they launched so that they could get to you quicker?

[Splatm]

Finally.. Someone mentioned that when SPOT sends it's "SOS" signal that you dont know if the signal was received by anyone... well, the same is true of current 121.5 ELTs and the same is true of the new 406 ELTs. Unless the new ELTs have built-in satellite phones that Im not aware of

Actually although not used yet by the aviation units the 406 specification includes a download data stream via the nextgen GPS constellation and has the ability in future units to receive information from the DASMEOSAR system.

[_dwj_]

Both SPOT and 406 ELTs have their problems, but I would prefer to have a SPOT rather a 406 ELT, and the price difference makes it a no brainer. Ideally a 406 ELT and SPOT would be good, or failing that a 121.5 and SPOT. A 406 ELT on it's own is much less likely to save your life than a 121.5 plus SPOT, again in my opinion.

Remember that the aviation environment is much different from boating. You don't have trees and mountains obscuring the view of the sky. You don't have the problem of the antenna getting sheared off during a crash. You don't have as much risk of fire damaging the unit. You don't have a g-switch.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

You don't have a g-switch.

That depends on what gender you are.

[cessnafloatflyer]

I wonder how much experience you folks who push the SPOT idea actually have with it.

We have it in our seaplane and although it is useful it would NOT be what i would risk my life on or more importantly my passengers lives on. The SPOT misses about 5% of the time. That is its signal is not received even though it is on the dash, up front in the window. Even if it were activated by the pilot it would have to survive the crash and be placed in an open space placed on its belly to send its very weak signal.

Man -- some people are so resistant to change. These are unfortuantely the costs of doing business, like any other. Building codes and permits are expensive - inspectors can be hard to deal with etc...

I too have to pay for this as an operator and it is too bad that it is so expensive but if it can save the lives of the people who pay me to transport them, then i have to do it.

If you have a motorbike and you are going to take a member of the paying public for a ride to you give them the cheapest, oldest helmet you can get, or do you get the top of the line?

If the 406 is not the top of the line it is the best that we have. SPOT is not. I use it everyday and it has its uses. Life saving is not it. If i have time i will press the button but i will surely click on the ELT first.

[_dwj_]

SPOT might miss 5% of the time, but ELTs fail to activate 40% of the time (at least in 1997). Perhaps 406 is better, but I very much doubt it will be over 95% effective. And at least with SPOT you'll still have your breadcrumb trail.

[Widow]

Why is it that no way has been found to track all aircraft movements at all times?

[cessnafloatflyer]

Widow --

When IFR you are covered almost 100% of the time.

Other than that there are many systems to follow your trail however you have to buy them.

SPOT is one inexpensive one, that we have, however there are more. It is up to the operator to buy or not. If it were mandated think of how this group would react!

[Widow]

Yeah, clearly not very well. Why are aircraft and their occupants that fly IFR given this protection when aircraft that fly VFR are not?

The SPOT system would have enormously reduced the 6,400 square km search area for the aircraft my husband was on, and since it would have stopped transmitting barely five minutes after taxiing away from the spit ... well, you can see why I believe it could have saved my husband, who we know survived and waited so long.