406 ELTs

[fatdumbandlazy]

Has anyone calculated what UNSARs cost the taxpayer every year? The 406 ELT is a superior piece of safety equipment that every aircraft should have on board. The argument that ELTs don't work in every crash as a good reason to not have the 406 ELT on board is total BS. In the crashes that they do work the RCC can confirm the aircraft, owner and position of the source of the signal and initiate SAR without waiting out the false hits. The RCC can contact the owner directly via phone prior to launching expensive air/ground searches. If cost is your concern because it'll cost you $1000+ for the 406 ELT, sell your airplane and find one to rent with one on board because in a couple years no one is comming for you.

[niss]

Has anyone calculated what UNSARs cost the taxpayer every year? The 406 ELT is a superior piece of safety equipment that every aircraft should have on board. The argument that ELTs don't work in every crash as a good reason to not have the 406 ELT on board is total BS. In the crashes that they do work the RCC can confirm the aircraft, owner and position of the source of the signal and initiate SAR without waiting out the false hits. The RCC can contact the owner directly via phone prior to launching expensive air/ground searches. If cost is your concern because it'll cost you $1000+ for the 406 ELT, sell your airplane and find one to rent with one on board because in a couple years no one is comming for you.

Maybe the gov't should approach this like Hybrid cars and give a refund?

Were saving the gov't $$ so they should make them easier to get.

Cost of annual + Cost of Insurance + Cost of Fuel + Cost of Tie Downs + Cost of Instructor + Cost of monthly payments (if not allready paid in full) + Cost of new ELT & Installation = A shitload of money.

When my partner and my yearly operating cost is roughly $6000.00 before fuel another $1500-$2000 is a very unwelcome thought.

Owning an a/c isnt just a richmans game, people who allready put all their disposable income into their flying as is also own them too, and arent too pleased with the thought of paying another 2 grand to replace something they allready have but never used.

I know this is a better system and that is why I can personally justify paying this, but I am sick and tired of hearing from the 'if you can afford an aircraft you most certainly can be able to afford the extra $XXXX.XX' crowd.

[Hedley]

If you think you can install a 406 ELT for $1,000
can you please put your money where your big
mouth is, and come install them on all of the
airplanes at my airport for that fire-sale price?

I've been told people have paid $10,000
to have a 406 ELT installed. There are a few
Piper Colts at my airport that can't possibly be
worth more than $20,000. Are they going to
be worth $30,000 after they have a 406 ELT
installed?

[_dwj_]

Has anyone calculated what UNSARs cost the taxpayer every year? The 406 ELT is a superior piece of safety equipment that every aircraft should have on board. The argument that ELTs don't work in every crash as a good reason to not have the 406 ELT on board is total BS. In the crashes that they do work the RCC can confirm the aircraft, owner and position of the source of the signal and initiate SAR without waiting out the false hits. The RCC can contact the owner directly via phone prior to launching expensive air/ground searches. If cost is your concern because it'll cost you $1000+ for the 406 ELT, sell your airplane and find one to rent with one on board because in a couple years no one is comming for you.

The problem is that the 406 ELTs use identical fire/g-switch/cable standards as the 121.5 ones, which means that they will have the same failure-to-activate rate of over 50%. Have a look at recent crashes (the Grumman Goose in BC, Indian students in Orangeville, Baron in Medicine Hat) - as far as I'm aware the ELT didn't activate in ANY of them, and the crash victims had to use their mobile phones to call for help.

Compare that to SPOT, which in my experience has a 90-95% success rate at sending tracking messages every 10 minutes, which means that rescuers at least have an idea of your approx location, and you have the 911 button you can use if you crash. It doesn't have a g-switch, but how often is that really necessary? Look at all the recent crashes and in the vast majority the occupants are either still conscious and able to call for help, or are squished into oblivion. According to SAR "75% of crashes result from controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) and close to 95% of the surviving victims of these crashes are unable to manually activate an emergency distress signal device", but I find that hard to believe. And even if it is true it is not an issue for me, as you can only ever have CFIT if you are grossly negligent or incompetent (please correct me if I'm wrong about this).

[niss]

Has anyone calculated what UNSARs cost the taxpayer every year? The 406 ELT is a superior piece of safety equipment that every aircraft should have on board. The argument that ELTs don't work in every crash as a good reason to not have the 406 ELT on board is total BS. In the crashes that they do work the RCC can confirm the aircraft, owner and position of the source of the signal and initiate SAR without waiting out the false hits. The RCC can contact the owner directly via phone prior to launching expensive air/ground searches. If cost is your concern because it'll cost you $1000+ for the 406 ELT, sell your airplane and find one to rent with one on board because in a couple years no one is comming for you.

The problem is that the 406 ELTs use identical fire/g-switch/cable standards as the 121.5 ones, which means that they will have the same failure-to-activate rate of over 50%. Have a look at recent crashes (the Grumman Goose in BC, Indian students in Orangeville, Baron in Medicine Hat) - as far as I'm aware the ELT didn't activate in ANY of them, and the crash victims had to use their mobile phones to call for help.

Compare that to SPOT, which in my experience has a 90-95% success rate at sending tracking messages every 10 minutes, which means that rescuers at least have an idea of your approx location, and you have the 911 button you can use if you crash. It doesn't have a g-switch, but how often is that really necessary? Look at all the recent crashes and in the vast majority the occupants are either still conscious and able to call for help, or are squished into oblivion. According to SAR "75% of crashes result from controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) and close to 95% of the surviving victims of these crashes are unable to manually activate an emergency distress signal device", but I find that hard to believe. And even if it is true it is not an issue for me, as you can only ever have CFIT if you are grossly negligent or incompetent (please correct me if I'm wrong about this).

Human factors can contribute, like black hole effect, false climb illusion, etc.

[_dwj_]

Human factors can contribute, like black hole effect, false climb illusion, etc.

My own flying is purely day VFR so CFIT isn't really an issue unless I purposefully continue flying into below-legal visibility, but I agree that night and IMC can bring their own risks. As for the 406 ELT it should really be up to individual private pilots to decide whether they think the cost is justified. It can't be safety at any cost, otherwise we would all have to install airbags and parachutes, and we'd have to wear flame retardant suits and helmets every time we fly.

[niss]

Human factors can contribute, like black hole effect, false climb illusion, etc.

My own flying is purely day VFR so CFIT isn't really an issue unless I purposefully continue flying into below-legal visibility, but I agree that night and IMC can bring their own risks. As for the 406 ELT it should really be up to individual private pilots to decide whether they think the cost is justified. It can't be safety at any cost, otherwise we would all have to install airbags and parachutes, and we'd have to wear flame retardant suits and helmets every time we fly.

Agreed.

Maybe grandfather all the old ELTs but any new a/c, or when an aircraft changes CofR has to have a new one. Maybe offer incentives to owners to save the gov't a $.

[C23flyer]

From another thread:

Sorry k411 on two counts...I should have posted this in the old ELT thread, but I'm sure one of our esteemed moderators will cut and paste when they get a moment.

Secondly, I should have given more background information on the deficiencies in the 406 MHz regulatory changes. Here are some things you should know:

1. The ICAO made the recommendation that all aircraft be equipped with 406 MHz ELT by February 2009.
2. The FAA in the US is exempting their fleet.
3. The JAA in Europe is allowing less restrictive alternatives.
4. Canada will exempt US aircraft entering the country for up to two years.
5. The physical construction is the same. It's just the transmission/satellite tracking capability that is changed. The same issues exist regarding reliability. The impetus for the change is to address the costly false alerts of ELTs. Now, rather than scrambling a SAR unit and searching in a general area, SAR can call first to verify if the alert is real. This is about saving SAR dollars for false alerts.
6. There are other viable, and more cost-effective life-saving options to the change as proposed.
7. Renters will be affected, as the cost to re-equip a rental fleet will have to be passed on.
8. The majority of the 18 000 private operators in Canada are a fun-loving, peaceful group of people, who will probably not raise any objections about the coming draconian regulation, because they trust TC to do what is in our best interest.
9. Google COPA's response to the 406 ELT.

AuxBatOn: the remote activation switch was a primary improvement that the FAA legislated in the 1990s because there were so many issues with the old fixed unit becoming damaged (the G switch). Since they are passing currently on mandating the 406 upgrade, you have to believe, that a 406 MHz personal alert would be a dramatic improvement to the fixed unit. There is only one guarantee provided by the new technology, if it actually activates in the crash, is not destroyed by fire, or the fuselage is not obstructed, or the antenna does not break off, or the plane is not destroyed by fire...SAR and TC will find the aircraft and know who to blame for the crash. IF I survive a crash, my first instinct will be to get out of or away from the immediate crash zone, especially if it is in flames. I'm not crawling to the ass-end of my plane to unscrew the access panel with my thumbnail, so I can shove my broken and bleeding limb into the crumpled space and switch on the unit. Of course, I have the option to pay for a personal 406 MHz which I can carry on me, on top of the mandated ELT change, and just press it.

If anyone would like a copy of my letter to TC, pm me with an email to which I can send an attachment in MSWord.

In fact, the limited provisions around the approved equipment do not warrant the term "superior". For a copy of the letter I have submitted to TC, send me a pm.

[fatdumbandlazy]

I agree that the SPOT system is a great idea for personal use but it will set you back $170 USD to purchase and up to $150 per year to maintain. How much of the sky does it need to see to be reliable? What is it's activation success rate in collisions? We can shoot as many holes in that system as the others. All 406 ELTs come with a dash activation switch so in the event of an immenent crash the pilot can activate the ELT from their seat prior to impact.

A typical installation of a 406 ELT with ELT purchase included should be between $1600 and $2000 depending on the size of aircraft and location of the install possibly slightly more. But in all cases the purchase of the ELT itself should be $1100 depending on where the USD is for the day. Any more and I would certainly be shopping around.

The part that maybe rubs me the wrong way about this particular subject is that I've seen how well the 406 system works in an accidental activation vs. the old 121.5 and spending all night tracking down a false signal. I understand that there is a cost of installation issue and that it is a legislated requirement but if we can look past those issues what would be stopping you from installing the equipment? Knowing that the aircraft that I fly and work in have the system on board provides me with more peace of mind than the 121.5 system ever did.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I understand that there is a cost of installation issue and that it is a legislated requirement but if we can look past those issues what would be stopping you from installing the equipment?

Funny you should mention this, we were discussing this very subject this morning when one of the airport tenants was wondering what he could do with his big hangar that is sitting empty because fewer and fewer airplanes are flying. Not only is it empty but a new land management company has a contract with the airport commission to look after the rental property on the airport and of course the rates are going up 20 or 30%.

The good part is these airports will be perfect places to come and admire the wildlife as they will be great areas with no activity except the local birds and deer etc.

Yup aviation is getting safer and safer as more people quit flying.

[C23flyer]

Yup aviation is getting safer and safer as more people quit flying.

Maybe that's the whole motivation behind this.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

We could look at this in another light c23flyer by trying to list all the positive things that TC does to support private aviation.

Let me see .......................................................................................I will get back to you when I think of some.

[_dwj_]

Just yesterday I was talking to someone here who is going to sell his newly restored plane, as the costs and bureaucracy are just getting too much. The 406 is one factor, but by no means the only one.

But to bring another perspective, at least we're still better off than in most European countries. In the UK avgas is twice the price, there are landing fees at virtually all airports, and I believe they've had to install radios with more frequencies and mode-S transponders. And in places like Italy and Greece I believe it's a lot worse.

[_dwj_]

I agree that the SPOT system is a great idea for personal use but it will set you back $170 USD to purchase and up to $150 per year to maintain. How much of the sky does it need to see to be reliable? What is it's activation success rate in collisions? We can shoot as many holes in that system as the others. All 406 ELTs come with a dash activation switch so in the event of an immenent crash the pilot can activate the ELT from their seat prior to impact.

Your 406 ELT will most likely cost as much to recertify each year as you will pay for the SPOT subscription. I have the SPOT velcroed to the front of the dashboard with a view of just over half the sky, and that's fine for it. Existing 121.5 ELTs also have a dash activation, but for some reason in many recent accidents it hasn't been used. Perhaps the pilot is too busy shitting his pants and trying to get the plane onto the ground to remember to flip the switch. With SPOT you have the breadcrumb trail giving you approx location, and you can grab it and take it with you when you exit after the crash. In recent crashes where poeple have used their cellphones, if a cellphone can survive the crash I imagine SPOT would also survive. I'm not saying a 406 ELT isn't useful, but I believe it isn't worth the cost. Perhaps when prices some down and installation gets cheaper, this might change.

[C23flyer]

Did anyone notice in the latest Aviation Safety Letter that 4 of the TSB Final Reports remarked that the ELT did not activate or give a signal due to damage during or following the crash?

Included with the post was the "Important Notice" about the upcoming amendments regarding the requirement to equip with a 406 MHz or other device which can alert immediately, give location within 2.7NM, and self-arming.

[CD]

Important Notice

Recently Released TSB Reports

[niss]

So I dont have to do it until my annual right before Feb 2010?

Suhhhhweeet!

[_dwj_]

So I dont have to do it until my annual right before Feb 2010?

Suhhhhweeet!

No, your first annual after 1 Feb 2010 (but before 1 Feb 2011), so if your annual is in Jan you have until 2011 to get it. But they still could see sense and forget about the whole thing.