Another floatplane accident/rescue?

[Widow]

That was me ...

Sorry xsbank, my bad.

You are such a smarty pants!

[xsbank]

Smarty pants, no. Insufferable, well hell yes!

[Cat Driver]

Somebody mentioned before that you could use them like boarding passes for passengers?

Yeh, that was me.

[CID]

A breakaway, waterproof, floating ELT isn't rocket science.

Just out of curiosity, what would you be willing to pay for such a device? And where would it be mounted?

That's no better than if it's strapped to the wreakage. And elt's are waterproof anyway. They are designed to send a signal even when submerged - however there are limitations to how deep they can go before the signal is to weak for anyone to hear.

ELTs aren't so much "water proof" as they are "water resistant". Besides, if the antenna goes under theres not much you can do.

A standard ELT will not work underwater. You need one like the airlines use that sends out a sonar signal.

I don't know of any "sonar" ELTs that are in use. Are you possibly referring to the ULD (underwater locator devices) that are attached to flight recorders?

[carholme]

These pingers are also available for aircraft mounting as we used them on our offshore helicopter fleets in many parts of the world.

carholme

[xsbank]

From the NOAA site:

"Different types of ELTs are currently in use. There are approximately 170,000 of the older generation 121.5 MHz ELTs in service. Unfortunately, these have proven to be highly ineffective. They have a 97% false alarm rate, activate properly in only 12% of crashes, and provide no identification data. In order to fix this problem 406 MHz ELTs were developed to work specifically with the Cospas-Sarsat system. These ELTs dramatically reduce the false alert impact on SAR resources, have a higher accident survivability success rate, and decrease the time required to reach accident victims by an average of 6 hours.

Presently, most aircraft operators are mandated to carry an ELT and have the option to choose between either a 121.5 MHz ELT or a 406 MHz ELT. The Federal Aviation Administration has studied the issue of mandating carriage of 406 MHz ELTs. The study indicates that 134 extra lives and millions of dollars in SAR resources could be saved per year. The only problem is that 406 MHz ELTs currently cost about $1,500 and 121.5 MHz ELTs cost around $500. It's easy to see one reason for the cost differential when you look at the numbers. However, no one can argue the importance of 406 MHz ELTs and the significant advantages they hold."

None of them work underwater although some of the new ones float. I am thinking of the CVR/DVR devices that emit sonar.

Now, will anyone in Canada buy them and will they work in a sunken floatplane? I.e., is there any material difference if the airframe is sunk?

[Widow]

Somebody mentioned before that you could use them like boarding passes for passengers?

Yeh, that was me.

Okay, you are the smarty pants and xsbank is insufferable!

[rfcPilot]

They have a 97% false alarm rate, activate properly in only 12% of crashes, and provide no identification data.

I'd like to know where that website pulled those stats off. Sure, ELTs can trigger on a hard landing, and other situations, and of course, the ELT isnt perfect, so in some accidents it wont trigger (such as a soft landing in a field in the middle of nowhere?). But to say a 97% false alarm rate and only a 12% trigger rate during accidents?

Thats a little far. As for identification data... what kind of ID do you want? Or more importantly... what kind of ID do you NEED? The ELT goes off, a plane has crashed. Thats all you really need to know IMO.

In the end... its not JUST the equipment that will save you. Its HOW you use it. Take the 12% trigger rate during an accident. If it is a true statistic... How many "crashes" involve a soft field-type landing in which the pilot or someone on board can easily flick on the ELT?

[CD]

For commercial float operations, it should be mandatory for the pilot to wear such a personal device, and each life jacket (which the occupants should have to wear during all phases of flight) should likewise be equipped with one.

Also discussed previously here:

Mustang PFD's

[Widow]

On June 21, 1994 the FAA recommended the use of 406Mhz ELT’s due to the fact the higher frequency ELT provides more performance and enhances the life-saving benefit of ELT’s, even more so should you need to land in one of the large ponds on the east or west coast of our USA. The FAA also noted that in the year 2009 the international COSPAS-SARSAT satellite system would no longer monitor the frequencies of 121.50 & 243 Mhz; these are of course the frequencies most aircraft ELT’s use today. So how will 121.50/243Mhz ELT be heard you ask? Well, just like they were when the ELT system first came on line, these two frequencies will only be monitored by ground based receivers and aircraft that that happen to be tuned to 121.50/243Mhz on the VHF com, as you can imagine, chances of someone hearing and finding your signal should you actually crash is pretty remote under these conditions. If you think it takes a long time for the satellites to get a fix on your ELT (normally two hours or more), one can only imagine how useless 121.50Mhz ELT will be after 2009. Due to the fact the 121.50Mhz ELT’s false alerts are so frequent, common practice of rescue teams now is to wait for confirmation of the alert by multiple satellite passes, the alert is confirmed by an overdue aircraft or folks on the ground calling the local cops about a smoking hole in the ground.

http://www.masalatalk.com/masalaboard/s ... 714&page=3

How can we be here, 13 years later, and still not have the 406 regulated for commercial ops? I get the private guys wanting to have a "choice", but the commercials???

[MUSICMAAN]

All this talk about life inflatable jackests, I thought I would mention this.. The company I fly for wanted to get us uniform jackets, and seeing as we are allways over the straights, one of the pilots mentioned getting inflatables. They came with and automatic inflating system but have an optional manual pull system as well. I think the company that makes them is called Stormforce. We're happy with them. Comfortable to wear and not too heavy. Gives a little peace of mind anyway's.

And too the original subject of this post... From what I understand, the Beaver was on a set of amphibs that hadn't been on the plane for a few years, and unknown to the pilot were leaking in the front compartments. Anyway's, I guess when he poured on the coals to take off it just nosed over.

MM

[Widow]

Were the amphibs not checked for leaks, etc, before being sent flying?

[twotter]

Widow, don't take this wrong but VIA's machine was a twin beech, not a twin otter.. Not criticizing, just correcting.. Keep up the good work!!

That will do a lot of good. Why would you want an elt floating in the wreakage under the water?

That's why it's called a break away system.. It doesn't stay with the airplane..

[twotter]

A breakaway, waterproof, floating ELT isn't rocket science.

Just out of curiosity, what would you be willing to pay for such a device? And where would it be mounted?

That's no better than if it's strapped to the wreakage. And elt's are waterproof anyway. They are designed to send a signal even when submerged - however there are limitations to how deep they can go before the signal is to weak for anyone to hear.

ELTs aren't so much "water proof" as they are "water resistant". Besides, if the antenna goes under theres not much you can do.

A standard ELT will not work underwater. You need one like the airlines use that sends out a sonar signal.

I don't know of any "sonar" ELTs that are in use. Are you possibly referring to the ULD (underwater locator devices) that are attached to flight recorders?

For your first question, who cares if it works!

#2 I agree with.. After they hit the water, they are useless..

For your 3rd comment, well, I've never heard of them called ULD, we have always called them ULB's.. Underwater Locator Beacon.. They are not only attached to the FDR, but the CVR as well..

[SAR_YQQ]

On DHC products - the correct term is: "Underwater Acoustic Locator Beacon"

It is installed on the airframe and is primarily used to help searchers locate the submerged wreckage.

It self activates upon contact with salt or fresh water and last for up to 30 days.

On the Buffalo - our FDR and CPI (ELT) are both located on a deployable airfoil that automatically detaches itself from the aircraft upon impact or submergence. This airfoil will float and continue to transmit on 243MHz for up to 48 hours. We can also manually deploy the airfield in case of impending crash.

[twotter]

On DHC products - the correct term is: "Underwater Acoustic Locator Beacon"

It is installed on the airframe and is primarily used to help searchers locate the submerged wreckage.

It self activates upon contact with salt or fresh water and last for up to 30 days.

On the Buffalo - our FDR and CPI (ELT) are both located on a deployable airfoil that automatically detaches itself from the aircraft upon impact or submergence. This airfoil will float and continue to transmit on 243MHz for up to 48 hours. We can also manually deploy the airfield in case of impending crash.

Gee, that's kinda funny cause DHC doesn't build airplanes anymore..

Anyhow, I'm endorsed on a couple types of airplanes that used to be built by DHC and are now supported by Viking. None of them had a UALB when I took their course. It was just a ULB.. Same terminoligy but maybe in the military's infinite wisdom they have added the extra term..

[PT6-114A]

removed

[V1CUT]

Hello all

glad everyone is ok!

here is a couple of links

I wear this everytime i go flying floats, you cant tell your wearing it and will be there when you need it.

http://www.lakeandair.com/mustang_manua ... acket.html

is this what you are refering to?

http://www.lakeandair.com/aerofix_406_g ... eacon.html

would be very nice to have but expensive, i guess life doesn't have a price and i'm looking into getting one for this season.

cheers V

[xsbank]

I would be cautious with the automatic-type life jackets - if you are inside the plane and you get wet it will inflate, making it much harder or impossible to get out.

The automatic is good if you just fall in - in very cold water there is a gasp reflex that could result in you ingesting water into your lungs ergo bingo you drown. With the auto-inflater you would avoid part B.

Good on you to be wearing it all the time!

[V1CUT]

The type I use is the manual not the automatic, i'm a private owner as well as commercial pilot, i have one for every seat in my personal craft and make my passengers wear them for the duratin of the flight.

V

[CD]

The type I use is the manual not the automatic, i'm a private owner as well as commercial pilot, i have one for every seat in my personal craft and make my passengers wear them for the duratin of the flight.

V

[Cat Driver]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

V1CUT wrote:
The type I use is the manual not the automatic, i'm a private owner as well as commercial pilot, i have one for every seat in my personal craft and make my passengers wear them for the duratin of the flight.

[SAR_YQQ]

Gee, that's kinda funny cause DHC doesn't build airplanes anymore..

Thanks for that - I must have missed the memo.

It was just a ULB.. Same terminoligy<sic> but maybe in the military's infinite wisdom they have added the extra term..

Or maybe they dropped the "A" on your course to prevent any confusion.

Thanks for post dripping in sarcasm - very useful for this discussion.

[CID]

twotter

For your first question, who cares if it works!

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I asked what people would pay for an "breakaway floating waterproof ELT". Can you clarify?

twotter

For your 3rd comment, well, I've never heard of them called ULD, we have always called them ULB's.. Underwater Locator Beacon.. They are not only attached to the FDR, but the CVR as well..

Twotter, they are generally referred to as Underwater Locator Devices or ULDs. You might have seen the term used if you ever read CAR 571 standards which contain aircraft maintenance standards.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/RegSe ... a571si.htm

(2) Underwater Locating Devices

The maintenance of ULDs shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of the ULD manufacturers. In part, the manufacturer recommends that the case of the device and water switch be cleaned at a regular interval to prevent premature discharge of the ULD battery. The location of the ULD should be considered when establishing the periodic cleaning schedule of the case and water switch as it will help to choose the most appropriate frequency.

As for the term "flight recorders", generally people undertand that both CVRs and FDRs are "flight recorders" or "aviation recorders" Different manufacturers use different terms. This has become more prevalent recently as there is very little difference technically between either recorder. Some of the new offerings record both voice and flight data. This is especially true for the "dumber" ARINC 573 standard recorder that don't have built in Flight Data Aquisition Units (FDAU).

twotter

Gee, that's kinda funny cause DHC doesn't build airplanes anymore.

I don't think anyone implied DHC made airplanes anymore. You see twotter, DHC was purchased by Boeing and then Bombardier years ago and for the most part the brand name was retired for new designs. However, the airplanes that were originally manufactured by deHavilland Canada still retain the "DHC" model prefix. You may be familiar with some of the models like the DHC-1 Chipmunk, the DHC-2 Beaver, the DHC-3 Otter, the DHC-4 Caribou, the DHC-5 Buffalo, the DHC-6 Twin Otter (often affectionately known as the "twotter"), the DHC-7 (known simply as the "Dash 7") and the DHC-8 (know simply as the "Dash 8")

There are currently 4 variants of the Dash-8 featuring an array of performance and seating capacity.

Military and SAR organizations have used many of the DHC aircraft because of their various performance and durability advantages. It's not uncommon for a SAR tech who is describing various systems to stick to what he knows. If a SAR tech tells me that the "DHC products" are equipped in some way I don't think it's much of a stretch to figure out that MAYBE he's referring specifically to SAR airplanes.

None of them had a UALB when I took their course. It was just a ULB.

On your course did they teach about the GPS? How about the FLIR? Or the Synthetic Aperture Radar? These are all add-ons that were never installed at production. Twin Otters are often used as special mission aircraft. Many have little more than VHF COM/NAV equipment installed. Others are packed with all kinds of electronic magic. They are quite incredible platforms for special missions.

If you want to learn more about the DHC-6 Twin Otter (sometimes affectionatly called the "twotter") and some of the special missions they are employed in, you can check out these links;

http://www.aoc.noaa.gov/aircraft_otter.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilla ... Twin_Otter

http://www.skydivecsc.com/dropzone/skyd ... rcraft.php

http://www.spyflight.co.uk/CIA.htm

http://www.sandia.gov/RADAR/datacoll.html

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/17wing ... twin_e.asp


Cheers!

[zero]

The Beaver was flown out yesterday and is now sitting at Sealand in Campbell River. Doesn't look any worse for wear.