406MHz ELTs

[viccoastdog]

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.

You're comparing apples and oranges. ELTs failure to activate is most likely due to the G switch not activating because the impact was in the wrong axis or not enough Gs. Also, sometimes the damn things are just left turned off instead of armed. Both of this scenarios have nothing to do with the transmitting characteristics of either old 121.5 ELTs or new 406 ELTs. Obviously the SPOT will have a 100% failure rate if we rely on it to automatically activate!

The new TSO for 406 ELTs has a 500G shock requirement and a 1000lb crush test requirement, as well as flame resistance requirements. Way better than the 121.5 ELTs in our planes now!

There are 406 ELTs on the market, approved by TC, for $1000.00 that can use the existing mounting brackets for many old 121.5 ELTs. Some models can also us the remote switch from old 121.5 ELTs. There is a relaxation allowing an AMO or AME to install them on private aircraft as opposed to an avionics shop (so long as no interfacing required). The lithium batteries are now approved by TC as long as they carry TSO-C142.

SPOT transmissions are 0.4 watts, old 121.5 ELTs are 0.1 watts, and new 406 ELTs are 5.0 watts. It's easy to see which one is going to get a signal through, especially if surrounded by trees and terrain.

For Widow - The SPOT's breadcrumb trail leaves quite a lot of time between updates, for a 5 minute flight you would only get the first crumb in the breadcrumb trail; that is to say where the flight started from. SPOT won't be able to get a GPS fix on or under water. A personal 406 PLB (like a ELT or EPIRB but smaller and worn on an individual, and waterproof) would be a great thing to have if stranded in the water - immediate alerting of rescue services by a strong transmission with your exact location known to them within minutes.

IFR flights, by their nature are under surveillance most of the time because they are all carried out with control from ATC. Not so with many of the VFR flights in uncontrolled airspace.

[Widow]

Thanks viccoastdog. My point was that they would have started at base and spread out, knowing that there had been no transmission after take-off ... instead of not knowing where to start and spreading the resources over such a large area.

I am aware of the personal 406 PLBs, and feel had the pilot been wearing one in "my" case, all five men would potentially have survived.

[viccoastdog]

Thanks viccoastdog. My point was that they would have started at base and spread out, knowing that there had been no transmission after take-off ... instead of not knowing where to start and spreading the resources over such a large area.

I am aware of the personal 406 PLBs, and feel had the pilot been wearing one in "my" case, all five men would potentially have survived.

That's the crux of the problem, if relying on SPOT as a sole means of flight following; the failure to get a transmission out from them on the tracking-breadcrumb trail feature is quite common, as Cessnafloatflyer pointed out from his personal experience. It may or may not have narrowed down the search radius, and may or may not have convinced someone that there was an emergency unfolding. A 406 PLB signal leaves little doubt.

Interestingly, when you look at costs of PLB vs. SPOT: Purchase of SPOT and one year service, including tracking costs about $300.00, with $150.00 for every year thereafter (assuming Globalstar stays in business). A 406 PLB can be had on eBay for about $400.00, and no yearly fees, and registration is free. For rescue in the bush or water somewhere I would rather have a 406 PLB, but as an extra tool to our current flight following procedures, SPOT is a good deal. The really are for two different purposes.

[viccoastdog]

http://cgi.ebay.com/Breitling-EMERGENCY ... dZViewItem

Hey maybe the price on these will drop hugely since they only transmit on 121.5...they're worthless now!

[_dwj_]

ELTs failure to activate is most likely due to the G switch not activating because the impact was in the wrong axis or not enough Gs.

Not true. If you look at the statistics from 1983-1987 (the only ones available that I can find) you'll see that insufficient g-force is only a factor in 18% of the failures. In 62% of cases the reason for the failure is fire damage, impact damage or broken antenna.

A 406 PLB signal leaves little doubt.

Yes, but only if you get a signal off. They only start transmitting 50 seconds after you activate them, which might be too late depending on how close to the ground you are when you hit the button.

[small penguin]

My 2 cents....

First off, yes 406 PLBs are a neat item. They're also not a legal replacement for a 406 ELT; as far as Im aware. Since again, a PLB requires crew action to activate.

The SPOT breadcrum trail works both ways. It leads you to the approximate location of the crash. But at the same time, the absence of a breadcrum trail could be interpreted as the same sign as an ELT signal if TC made a SPOT type system a requirement.

It was mentioned that the new 406 are certified flame resistant to protect the device. Thats great... is the cabling and antenna certified flame resistant also? A 406 is useless if it survives the fire but the antenna doesnt. It also makes you wonder if the occupants of the plane survive the fire.

SPOT transmissions are 0.4 watts, old 121.5 ELTs are 0.1 watts, and new 406 ELTs are 5.0 watts. It's easy to see which one is going to get a signal through, especially if surrounded by trees and terrain.

Theres a difference here. SPOT is designed to transmit from the air with a clear line of sight with the sky. An ELT is designed to transmit from a crash site on the ground, possibly obstructed by trees, hills, water, etc. Yes the 406 is superior to the 121 in terms of output strength... but again, it also takes 50 some seconds before firing off the first signal.

SPOT won't be able to get a GPS fix on or under water.

Thats a weak point. A 406 wont transmit any better I'd imagine under water. Yes, as you mentioned a PLB on floating survivor will. But thats not the issue. The issue is of the overpriced 406 ELTs which are mandatory. PLBs are not legal alternatives to an ELT.

If i have time i will press the button but i will surely click on the ELT first.

Thats cause the 406 takes 50 some seconds to sound the alarm

Man -- some people are so resistant to change.

If you're referencing me.... You're wrong. Being in the computer and networking industry, change is a daily thing. Im not opposed to it at all. But... wasting money on technology that should be cheap... yea Im opposed to that. Especially when it wont directly improve my survival in an accident. (Read it again I said DIRECTLY, so dont go giving me some "oh they'll know exactly where you are, and sooner" crap) If not, forgiveness.

*shrugs*

[SAR_YQQ]

What is the fascination with 50 seconds?

I perused multiple manufacturer websites for 406 ELTs and none of them specifically state that the unit will wait 50 seconds before sending a burst.

The closest I have found was:

The 406 MHz transmitters send out a 5 watt signal every 50 seconds for 520 milliseconds.

I understand from that quote that there is a 50 second gap between bursts - nothing says that the first burst isn't upon activation.

Regardless - JRCC won't even look at an ELT signal until it has been going off for minutes - never mind 50 seconds.

If your current antiquated analog ELT - designed in the 1950s goes off immediately upon crash and only lasts 49 seconds - it has not done its job. JRCC won't even process your signal - we get those kinds of signals hourly. HOWEVER - if your 406 ELT activates upon impact and sends it first burst - the powerful signal will allow for an accurate doppler fix and Rescue will be launched. The unit could be burnt and destroyed 1 minute later, but we are still coming and looking. Not so much for your poor crappy analog ELT.

Do some research online - the Canadian government knows that current 406's are expensive - they are actively researching more economic means for the GA fleet to be able to convert.

[GilletteNorth]

Funny thing...

When computers first came out they cost $4-5 thousand and were obsolete within a year. People would buy the upgrades for hundreds or thousands of dollars and/or bought new computers ever 2-3 years. Even today Bill Gates has us paying hundreds of dollars every few years for 'new' operating systems. No one worries about it. But no matter what Bill says, computers are NOT something most people actually need.

However, ask a person to upgrade a device that actually needs updating, that could save their life, that will reduce costs for everyone (with reduced false searches) and all you hear is "I can't afford it".

Makes me laugh.

[Expat]

Well said SAR,

If we could have a device that sends out one powerful burst, giving ID and location, may be even before impact, in the case of a crash landing. That would be great. I think that 1000 dollars is a reasonnable price to pay for it.

[small penguin]

If you find a 406 for a thousand dollars (including installation) please let us know where you found that hehehe.

The 50 second ish thing I keep bringing up is simply something that COPA keeps mentioning. Its also in the specifications that TC? released saying 406s are allowed to take up to a minute before sending out the first signal. Why does a 406 take that long? Im not a signals guy I dont know.

As for the computer example....

Yea computers did cost thousands of dollars some 10-15 years ago. Now you can get a powerful dual core computer for less than 500 bucks. And that includes Microsoft Windows Vista. In fact, Dell right now is selling their cheapest desktop (Inspiron 530 - no monitor) for 379 dollars CAD. Computer prices have drastically gone down since they first came out, and their functionality has drastically gone up. That 500 megabyte hard drive we had installed into our upgraded 486 cost (I believe) around 150 dollars. A few years ago, when SATA came out, I bought an 80 gigabyte hard drive for 120 dollars. Today, I can buy a 500 gigabyte! hard drive for 100 dollars. Notice a trend?

The Windows operating system example is also flawed. I use Linux, which is free

However, ask a person to upgrade a device that actually needs updating, that could save their life, that will reduce costs for everyone (with reduced false searches) and all you hear is "I can't afford it".

The 121 could save my life. SPOT could save my life. A satellite phone could save my life. An airframe parachute could save my life. Why is TC fixated on a device (an ELT) which has proven itself not to be completely reliable?

[viccoastdog]

SP wrote: If you find a 406 for a thousand dollars (including installation) please let us know where you found that hehehe.

Take a look here:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/a ... xme406.php

It isn't installed for that US dollar price, but it can be a direct fit to an existing mounting so it won't take more than an hour, and there's still a year to go to see a price drop....It's a far cry from the $3000.00 being bandied about earlier on this 5 page thread.

[small penguin]

As far as I was hearing, current 121 mounts werent legal for 406 installations in Canada. They werent up to par or something.

Also, those ELTs are all coded for USA :S

Those ELTs also seem to use the LiSO2 battery which isnt legal in Canada thanks for TC..

[_dwj_]

Re the 50 second thing: I've read on a number of websites that there is a 50-second grace period which ensures the device will not transmit anything to the satellites for the first 50 seconds. Is this correct?

Regarding the cost: in February COPA's article said that they had received various quotes for installation ranging from $2500 to $10000. So assuming the cheapest unit costs $1000 this is at least $1500 for installation - hardly one hour's work! Perhaps things have changed since February - I've seen a few people here claiming that now an AME can install it, but nothing official. Assuming this is correct, it probably means we can get a 406 ELT installed for $1000 in total including installation, which would certainly make me much more likely to get one. That is assuming that the manufacturers can supply enough of the units.

[viccoastdog]

Regarding the cost: in February COPA's article said that they had received various quotes for installation ranging from $2500 to $10000. So assuming the cheapest unit costs $1000 this is at least $1500 for installation - hardly one hour's work! Perhaps things have changed since February - I've seen a few people here claiming that now an AME can install it, but nothing official. Assuming this is correct, it probably means we can get a 406 ELT installed for $1000 in total including installation, which would certainly make me much more likely to get one. That is assuming that the manufacturers can supply enough of the units.

Yes, sorry, one hour installation was a silly exaggeration, unless the 406 ELT's mounting hole pattern is the same as the old 121.5's, and the remote switch is compatible (assuming the 121.5 had a remote switch).

I found the lithium battery approval here: http://www.tc.gc.ca/AviationCivile/cert ... 960618.pdf

I discovered the AME installation option here: http://www.discountavionics.com/406%20installations.htm

[_dwj_]

From http://www.nss.gc.ca/site/Emergency_Beacons/FAQ_e.asp:

Question: Is it true that Cospas-Sarsat requires that 406 MHz emergency beacons do not send a signal in the first 50 seconds following activation, to minimize false alerts?

Answer: Yes. The 50 second delay is there to allow people who have accidentally turned on their emergency beacon the time to turn it off. If this happens, notify the Canadian Mission Control Centre by calling 1-800-211-8107.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Answer: Yes. The 50 second delay is there to allow people who have accidentally turned on their emergency beacon the time to turn it off. If this happens, notify the Canadian Mission Control Centre by calling 1-800-211-8107.

And if you are not in range of phone service?

[small penguin]

Thanks for the link on the LiSO2 batteries! Nice to see TC finally decided to join the rest of the world in the new millennium!

dwj - that FAQ about the 50 seconds is interesting, I didnt know that was the reason. I figured it may have been something to do with capacitors charging to fire off the first signal.

Though, its again just another black mark (from a safety perspective) on the 406, IMO, which is that the 406 replacement is not for aviation safety, but to reduce costs to SAR operations, and reduce false alerts (which in turn allow resources for real emergencies)

Within that battery memo was this link (http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/certification/elt.htm) which lists what seems to be all current approved 406 ELTs. I'll be emailing the avionics shop tomorrow to see if maybe third time is a charm in getting a quote for a 406.

[edit]
. - I'd imagine that if you can get 126.7 on the radio they could call it in for you. If you're out of radio contact and phone contact... *shrugs* Enjoy the air show?

[Cat Driver]

. - I'd imagine that if you can get 126.7 on the radio they could call it in for you. If you're out of radio contact and phone contact... *shrugs* Enjoy the air show?

126.7 would not be my first choice if I were down way up north or anywhere else in a remote area.

121.5 is monitored by airliners who would be a far better choice for line of sight reception.

But the reason ELT's are useful is they have a better chance of working if you are injured or the radios are U/S.

[conehead]

I perused multiple manufacturer websites for 406 ELTs and none of them specifically state that the unit will wait 50 seconds before sending a burst.

I installed one on a Boeing 777 last week, and it will not transmit on 406 mhz for the first 50 seconds. However, it does transmit on 121.5 immeadiately upon activation. Believe me, I tested it.

[SAR_YQQ]

Thank you to those who have provided the good gen on the 50 second wait - interesting facts.

While 121.5MHz is always being monitored by the high flyers in the arctic - I have also found that they monitor 126.7 while in uncontrolled airspace so they can call in position reports to Arctic Radio. I attempted to do the same when penetrating the ADIZ north of Cambridge Bay, at 1000' AGL I wasn't too successful. Luckily a United Airlines heavy was overhead enroute to Shanghai and he passed on our position report and intent to cross the ADIZ for us.

[ragbagflyer]

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

There is a way. http://www.skytrac.ca/pg_HardwareDVI.php

With this you are tracked, and can make and receive calls.

[Cat Driver]

SAR-YQQ:

If you want to have the best chance for talking to the guys above you in the flight levels the best way to do that is use the frequencies they are on for the area of the world you are flying in.

When delivering the stuff that is unpressurized with no oxygen we just use the IFR high level frequencies and it is no problem finding someone to relay for us.....from the middle of the Sahara to the center of the South Atlantic to the North Atlantic route...never ever had any real problems finding someone to relay.....and I have been doing it for decades.

[just curious]

SAR's right about the Arctic these days CAT.
The high flyers, and us low flyers are on 121.5 and 126.7

[Cat Driver]

SAR's right about the Arctic these days CAT.
The high flyers, and us low flyers are on 121.5 and 126.7

Thanks J.C. no big deal things change over time.

It's really weird that I can remember how to do a Radio Range orientation as clear as if it was yesterday but I can't remember where I put my car keys an hour ago.

[just curious]

My key finder works by Aurals, and Nulls if that rings any bells.