"Digital" 406 MHz ELTs to Be Mandatory - TC

[7ECA]

According to the Gazette Part II released yesterday (25 November 2020), TC/Garneau have now mandated "digital" 406 MHz/121.5 ELTs on all Canadian registered aircraft.

Commercial air operators, foreign aircraft and private operators have one (1) year to implement. Recreational operators have five (5) years to comply.

Gliders, balloons, airships, ultra-lights, and gyroplanes are exempt.

Laughably, this move is being touted as "reducing false alarms". Sure it will...

https://www.skiesmag.com/press-releases ... content=V1

http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2020/ ... -15424.pdf

Page 3169 is where to get start for the announcement on regulatory changes around ELTs.

[photofly]

> Laughably, this move is being touted as "reducing false alarms". Sure it will...

Why is that controversial? What am I missing?

[7ECA]

As far as I am aware, 406 MHz ELTs are still using g-switches. So there will be just as many false alarms as before; and the same goes for non-activations as well in accidents.

Actually, scrolling through the Gazette section on the (now) in force regulation(s), apparently 406 MHz ELTs have a significantly higher incidence of false alarms than 121.5 MHz ELTs. Apparently, though, this is acceptable to the Minister because they can track down the owner quickly.

[photofly]

I see. But do we agree it reduces the incidence of false call-outs, and is therefore not a bad idea?

[Redneck_pilot86]

I used a 406 ELT once, self activated after an engine failure in flight. From 7500' to surface and successful landing, and about 10 minutes, you would think they could get a pretty accurate location with this super advanced technology. They managed to narrow my location down to a 50NM radius circle - that I wasn't in.

[photofly]

Right. Let's all get rid of them then, based on your experience. Homing pigeons are the way forward. Keep one in the tail plane - if your airframe disintegrates the pigeon will be freed and can fly for help.

Plus they'll keep the spiders down.

[Found]

This isn't the first time Transport Canada has decided to mandate 406-MHz ELT's. Previously it was dropped but it included all foreign aircraft. Most if not all commercial aircraft are 406, I really don't know of any commercial customers we have with the old 121.5 MHz ELT's.
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=m ... 872541f72d
https://www.midwestflyer.com/pdfs/Transport_Canada.pdf

[JasonE]

Another 406 benefit for SAR is the signal identifies the aircraft. The owner can be contacted before sending out a search effort in the case of "false alarms". That is assuming it is registered correctly.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

I'm not entirely sure how well this applies to aircraft - but I am a somewhat experienced wilderness traveler, and I've noticed that the 406mhz ELTs are becoming more common. I carry a 121.5 in the bush. We call them PLBs, or Personal Locator Beacons, in the backcountry travel business. They (the 406's) need to be registered with Transport. Generally, the huge advantage is that they don't need to be picked up by a passing overhead aircraft (remember you're on the ground), but instead by satellite. It does take longer, say 30 minutes or so before a satellite will pick it up and relay the beacon, but they're slowly becoming recognized as more reliable than the 121.5 PLBs of yesteryear.

Long and short, I do understand the push for the 406s.

[photofly]

406 PLBs and ELTs are registered (in Canada) with the Canadian Beacon Registry, which is part of the Ministry of National Defence. And most of them have GPS receivers built in (or are connected to external GPS antennas or receivers) and can pass an exact position fix to the CMCC within about 90 seconds, because the signal is received by geostationary satellites too. I say most, because somewhere there may be a model from history that doesn’t and someone will point it out to me, but every single 406 model I have researched for carrying personally (PLB) or installing on aircraft (ELT) has GPS. This much is all in the PPL ground school syllabus, by the way. If no GPS fix is available for transmission then Doppler detection by satellite can provide a reasonable fix in an hour or two, but the distress signal is still received in Trenton within a very few minutes, and they start on the phone enquiries.

Nobody with an ounce of brain takes more than an instant to recognize them as vastly superior to 121.5MHz-only devices, especially since all models available in Canada transmit on both frequencies. What do you have to lose?

[AirFrame]

And most of them have GPS receivers built in (or are connected to external GPS antennas or receivers) and can pass an exact position fix to the CMCC within about 90 seconds, because the signal is received by geostationary satellites too.

This is only true if the GPS is still functioning after the crash, and also has a line-of-sight to the satellites. Getting a GPS fix in sub-optimal conditions can take way longer than 90 seconds, especially if the GPS module hasn't been activated in a while and has to download an ephemeris and self-locate before it does anything. All before being consumed by fire, sinking in water, or falling through tree cover. I'm not aware of any economical 406MHz ELT's that have a live GPS signal from aircraft start to aircraft shutdown, that could be immediately broadcast in an emergency.

Nobody with an ounce of brain takes more than an instant to recognize them as vastly superior to 121.5MHz-only devices, especially since all models available in Canada transmit on both frequencies. What do you have to lose?

Only that they suffer from the same problems 121.5MHz ELT's do. They rely on self-activation (which can fail), an external antenna (which in a crash can be broken off or covered by wreckage), and continuous undamaged exposure to the heavens (rather than burning up, sinking, or being covered by trees).

They're only better *if they work* and that's not any more guaranteed than with a 121.5.

[digits_]

Does the 406 elt only look for a gps signal once activated, or does it maintain a constant gps lock while flying?

[photofly]

And most of them have GPS receivers built in (or are connected to external GPS antennas or receivers) and can pass an exact position fix to the CMCC within about 90 seconds, because the signal is received by geostationary satellites too.

This is only true if the GPS is still functioning after the crash, and also has a line-of-sight to the satellites. Getting a GPS fix in sub-optimal conditions can take way longer than 90 seconds, especially if the GPS module hasn't been activated in a while and has to download an ephemeris and self-locate before it does anything. All before being consumed by fire, sinking in water, or falling through tree cover. I'm not aware of any economical 406MHz ELT's that have a live GPS signal from aircraft start to aircraft shutdown, that could be immediately broadcast in an emergency.

Nobody with an ounce of brain takes more than an instant to recognize them as vastly superior to 121.5MHz-only devices, especially since all models available in Canada transmit on both frequencies. What do you have to lose?

Only that they suffer from the same problems 121.5MHz ELT's do. They rely on self-activation (which can fail), an external antenna (which in a crash can be broken off or covered by wreckage), and continuous undamaged exposure to the heavens (rather than burning up, sinking, or being covered by trees).

They're only better *if they work* and that's not any more guaranteed than with a 121.5.

Someone gives you a talking dog and all you can think to do is to complain about its accent, or the quality of its mental arithmetic.

How long does an old 121.5MHz beacon take to get a GPS fix? Forever, that's how long. Because it doesn't fucking have a GPS. What are you arguing about, it might take a few minutes? Who the @#$! cares? You go crash in a forest somewhere and then tell me which ELT you'd rather have. Jesus Christ.

Does the 406 elt only look for a gps signal once activated, or does it maintain a constant gps lock while flying?

Every single ELT I've seen has a serial input for GPS data from your panel mount GPS, so if you connect that, then you have constant GPS lock. Unfortunately to connect that you have to use an avionics AMO - the exemption for AME's to quickly install an ELT doesn't extend if they are interfaced to any other system, so I imagine few people take up that option.

[AirFrame]

How long does an old 121.5MHz beacon take to get a GPS fix? Forever, that's how long. Because it doesn't fucking have a GPS. What are you arguing about, it might take a few minutes? Who the @#$! cares? You go crash in a forest somewhere and then tell me which ELT you'd rather have. Jesus Christ.

Neither. I'd rather have SPOT, ADS-B, or other equivalent live tracking system that I activated an emergency feature on before I went down. "A few minutes" is the difference between the electronics being viable, and being melted, submerged, or covered. Jesus Christ indeed.

Does the 406 elt only look for a gps signal once activated, or does it maintain a constant gps lock while flying?

Every single ELT I've seen has a serial input for GPS data from your panel mount GPS, so if you connect that, then you have constant GPS lock.[/quote]
The 406 isn't live and logging that location all the time so it has it handy in the event of an activation. When you crash, the ELT wakes up as your panel-mount GPS dies... The antenna is gone, the plane is on fire or sinking, you've shut off all the electrics before the impact, etc. Your 406 won't get a location in that situation. The only way to ensure GPS location availability is for the GPS to be integrated with the 406.

Unfortunately to connect that you have to use an avionics AMO - the exemption for AME's to quickly install an ELT doesn't extend if they are interfaced to any other system, so I imagine few people take up that option.

Exactly. So it's no better than a 121.5 in that respect.

A device that has to wake up, locate itself, and send a signal, *after* a potentially catastrophic accident, is a fail from the get-go when you look at the technology that's available today. We have live free, global, live tracking now (ADS-B). All it needs is a G-switch that turns the last ping into an emergency alert rather than just a position. I'll bet that within 5 years we have that option.

[photofly]

There's nothing stopping you activating your ELT before you "go down", either. As far as live tracking is concerned, you can volunteer to be tracked everywhere you go by your government, but it's not something I'm keen to mandate.

Exactly. So it's no better than a 121.5 in that respect.

It's a million times better than a 121.5, in that respect, because it has a GPS receiver, it immediately sends a coded signal identifying the aircraft, and it's monitored by satellite. And you don't have to wait five years - you can, and should, have one, now.

If you want to have a discussion somewhere else about the potential weaknesses of 406 ELTs, then be my guest. This is not that thread. This is the thread for why a 406 ELT is superior to a 121.5MHz-only ELT. Nothing you've said is any reason NOT to replace one with the other.

[AirFrame]

There's nothing stopping you activating your ELT before you "go down", either.

If that were an acceptable solution, everything from a PLB on up would be an acceptable solution then. It's not.

As far as live tracking is concerned, you can volunteer to be tracked everywhere you go by your government, but it's not something I'm keen to mandate.

You're kidding yourself if you think every flight you make today isn't traceable back to your aircraft if the need arises.

Unfortunately to connect that you have to use an avionics AMO - the exemption for AME's to quickly install an ELT doesn't extend if they are interfaced to any other system, so I imagine few people take up that option.

Exactly. So it's no better than a 121.5 in that respect.

It's a million times better than a 121.5, in that respect, because it has a GPS receiver, it immediately sends a coded signal identifying the aircraft, and it's monitored by satellite. And you don't have to wait five years - you can, and should, have one, now.

Read what you wrote that I replied to, rather than clipping it off so your reply sounds high-and-mighty. If few people take up that option because it requires a more expensive install, then you DON'T have a GPS signal. You ONLY have a coded identifier being sent. IF it survives the crash functional.

If you want to have a discussion somewhere else about the potential weaknesses of 406 ELTs, then be my guest. This is not that thread. This is the thread for why a 406 ELT is superior to a 121.5MHz only ELT.

No. This thread is about 406 ELT's becoming mandatory. Anything associated with that is fair game. If you only want to talk about why 406 ELT's are superior to 121.5 ELT's on paper, and ignore the weaknesses in each "superior" aspect, that's your call.

Someone gives you a talking dog and all you can think to do is to complain about its accent, or the quality of its mental arithmetic.

If someone was giving me a 406 ELT, I wouldn't be complaining. I'm being mandated to install obsolete technology at my own not insignificant cost, with questionable benefit.

[AirFrame]

Most interesting is this table from the Gazette:

Cost-Benefit.png (47.24 KiB) Viewed 1735 times

The net benefit to the Government is $41M between now and 2034, if Industry pays $1M and private owners pay $25M to have all of our ELT's upgraded. The government could pay for all of us to have ELT's installed, and still be ahead $15M over the same period. There is no reason for private owners to have to foot this bill.

[photofly]

You're kidding yourself if you think every flight you make today isn't traceable back to your aircraft if the need arises.

Well it plainly isn’t, or we wouldn’t need to install ELTs at all.

...questionable benefit.

Finally, I understand why 406 ELTs need to be made compulsory. The sooner the better.

[digits_]

You're kidding yourself if you think every flight you make today isn't traceable back to your aircraft if the need arises.

Well it plainly isn’t, or we wouldn’t need to install ELTs at all.

You need ELTs so they can track your flight within minutes -ideally- if you crash.

Give someone a few days, and I'm sure they can figure out the majority of your flights if they really want to.

[photofly]

You're kidding yourself if you think every flight you make today isn't traceable back to your aircraft if the need arises.

Well it plainly isn’t, or we wouldn’t need to install ELTs at all.

You need ELTs so they can track your flight within minutes -ideally- if you crash.

Give someone a few days, and I'm sure they can figure out the majority of your flights if they really want to.

I disagree; and even if that were true for individual flights “if they really want to”, there’s no need to hand “them” tracking data for every single flight of every aircraft in real time, to be stored forever in a government data centre, is there?

[digits_]

That's true.

[Cessna 180]

I can't see the benefit for most small aircraft. With sat based ADS-B becoming a reality, constant tracking unless the pilot turns it off will provide an accurate way to locate a missing aircraft, likely faster than a 406 ELT. ADS-B should provide adequate coverage essentially worldwide.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

I would agree with PF - realtime location tracking is not something that should be mandated for private citizens.

I would also agree that 406s are superior to 121.5s. Where I disagree though, is in mandating them. I think Airframe is right on that point - 406s are already obsolete. They should not be mandated solely because they are less obsolete than the status quo.

I don't carry a 406 PLB for the simple reason that my Garmin InReach is superior, in every aspect. I'll probably stop carrying my 121.5 next year. The satellite network is no less reliable, the cavalry comes just as quick if I push the Big Red Button, and it has never failed to locate me with less than 200m accuracy. The rescue flowchart is essentially the same: distress beacon is picked up by satellite, relayed to a search and rescue coordination centre, and from there local authorities are contacted and dispatched, who now have location and owner information. It allows me to send a message saying "oops, we dropped all our food down to the lake bottom. plz send food", for example, without requiring a full-on SAR effort. Or even just "We're 3 days behind schedule but we're doing fine".

And on top of all that, it has two-way communication capability. The thing can even give me a weather forecast. Its only drawback is that it requires a paid subscription. They would be far superior to the 406s if installed in aircraft on a G switch. So I would submit that if 406s should be mandated because they are superior, then so too should satellite messengers/trackers.

The 406s are obsolete - I already carry something just as small, just as light, and more capable than a 406 PLB/ELT. I read the pertinent sections of the Gazette - and they fully acknowledge that there is no proof whatsoever that the adoption of 406s will save more lives than the status quo. It is entirely a cost savings measure. I really got the impression that someone in authority somewhere is shoehorning this, critics be damned.

[photofly]

It’s only “obsolete” if you wait until it’s obsolete before installing it. Some of us have been flying behind the benefit of a 406 ELT for a decade or longer, by now, and the cost has long been written off. I really don’t have any issue with making the laggards cough up. It’s been long enough.

Regardless of the merits of the other systems, something with its own primary battery, that doesn’t rely on subscriptions and on being recently charged (or resupplied) is a Good Idea.

And certainly if I’m paying to fly in your airplane I think I have a right to that, and not to rely on the pilot bringing his own personal inReach or Spot tracker or whatever.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

Agreed, mostly. But I still think that instead of mandating 406s, we should be mandating something superior to them. We have the technology.

To be completely fair, if satellite messengers existed that could also function as a 406/121.5 PLB, I would use that. But to my knowledge they do not exist.