605.38 (1) Subject to subsection (3), no person shall operate an aircraft unless it is equipped with one or more ELTs in accordance with subsection (2).
Subsection 3 is as follows:
(3) An aircraft may be operated without an ELT on board if the aircraft
(a) is a glider, balloon, airship, ultra-light aeroplane or gyroplane;
(b) is registered under the laws of a contracting state or a state that is a party to an agreement entered into with Canada relating to interstate flying, is equipped with a serviceable emergency beacon that transmits on the 406 MHz frequency with a tested life of at least 24 hours and
(i) has a Class 1 or Class 2 Type Approval Certificate issued by the international search and rescue Cospas-Sarsat Council, and
(ii) is registered with the appropriate authority of the country identified in the coded message transmitted by the emergency beacon;
(c) is operated by the holder of a flight training unit operating certificate, engaged in flight training and operated within 25 nautical miles of the aerodrome of departure;
(d) is engaged in a flight test;
(e) is a new aircraft engaged in flight operations related to manufacture, preparation or delivery of the aircraft;
(f) is operated for the purpose of permitting a person to conduct a parachute descent within 25 nautical miles of the aerodrome of departure; or
(g) is operated in accordance with section 605.39.
The arguments for (and against) carrying an ELT are myriad and have been debated to death on this forum and others. Ultimately it comes down to relying on what is simply antiquated technology with a wholly unreliable activating device - a G-switch, that more often than not will not trigger an ELT in an accident. Often times in an accident sequence the deceleration forces are severe enough to break the retaining/restraining system holding the ELT in place, which if the ELT were to activate tends to render them unable to broadcast as the external antenna will be severed. You'd be lucky if an ELT was reliable in an accident 50% of the time, but the odds tend to be worse than that. It's still not worth leaving home without one, in addition to other trackers if available...
The article, as written, leads one to believe that one or more of the pilots, may have survived the accident. But succumbed with the delay in being located.
It should be mandatory that all commercial air raft have on board sat tracking.
The cost alone of this search would have paid for all Canadian aircraft to have them installed.
A sad outcome- maybe some good will come from this accident.
karmutzen wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 3:34 pm
WTF is Maj. Emmanuelle Gratton, an Air Task Force Commander, talking about "not all aircraft have transmitters". Irresponsibly ambiguous for a SAR Commander.
Why is tracking so discouraged by the aviation authority in Canada? FWIW, all operators I fly for insist on it. Anyway, you doubters can see the result of trusting the TC mantra of an ELT and flight plan.
Bear in mind that the Major’s words are coming to us through a reporter who likely knows next to nothing about aviation and a newspaper editor who knows even less. The Major may have been referring to the fact that a cargo aircraft can operate without an emergency locator transmitter and somewhere along the line the ‘emergency locator’ bit got dropped and we end up with what got printed.
From the regs:
605.39 (1) An aircraft that is required to be equipped with one or more ELTs under section 605.38 may be operated without a serviceable ELT if the operator
(a) repairs the ELT or removes it from the aircraft at the first aerodrome at which repairs or removal can be accomplished;
(b) on removal of the ELT, sends the ELT to a maintenance facility; and
(c) displays on a readily visible placard within the aircraft cockpit, until the ELT is replaced, a notice stating that the ELT has been removed and setting out the date of its removal.
(2) If an aircraft is required to have one ELT under section 605.38, the operator shall re-equip the aircraft with a serviceable ELT within
(a) 10 days after the date of removal, if the aircraft is operated under Subpart 4 or 5 of Part VII; or
(b) 30 days after the date of removal in the case of any other aircraft.
605.38 (1) Subject to subsection (3), no person shall operate an aircraft unless it is equipped with one or more ELTs in accordance with subsection (2).
Subsection 3 is as follows:
(3) An aircraft may be operated without an ELT on board if the aircraft
(a) is a glider, balloon, airship, ultra-light aeroplane or gyroplane;
(b) is registered under the laws of a contracting state or a state that is a party to an agreement entered into with Canada relating to interstate flying, is equipped with a serviceable emergency beacon that transmits on the 406 MHz frequency with a tested life of at least 24 hours and
(i) has a Class 1 or Class 2 Type Approval Certificate issued by the international search and rescue Cospas-Sarsat Council, and
(ii) is registered with the appropriate authority of the country identified in the coded message transmitted by the emergency beacon;
(c) is operated by the holder of a flight training unit operating certificate, engaged in flight training and operated within 25 nautical miles of the aerodrome of departure;
(d) is engaged in a flight test;
(e) is a new aircraft engaged in flight operations related to manufacture, preparation or delivery of the aircraft;
(f) is operated for the purpose of permitting a person to conduct a parachute descent within 25 nautical miles of the aerodrome of departure; or
(g) is operated in accordance with section 605.39.
The arguments for (and against) carrying an ELT are myriad and have been debated to death on this forum and others. Ultimately it comes down to relying on what is simply antiquated technology with a wholly unreliable activating device - a G-switch, that more often than not will not trigger an ELT in an accident. Often times in an accident sequence the deceleration forces are severe enough to break the retaining/restraining system holding the ELT in place, which if the ELT were to activate tends to render them unable to broadcast as the external antenna will be severed. You'd be lucky if an ELT was reliable in an accident 50% of the time, but the odds tend to be worse than that. It's still not worth leaving home without one, in addition to other trackers if available...
In one of the news articles it said that the aircraft was located by burn marks on the ground, if the aircraft burned it would explain why the ELT was not transmitting. The other possibility is that the transponder was removed for service which is also legal, The pilot's flight plan would have indicated the latter.
---------- ADS -----------
Don't let your wife talk you out of buying an airplane,
redlaser wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 9:39 am
In one of the news articles it said that the aircraft was located by burn marks on the ground, if the aircraft burned it would explain why the ELT was not transmitting. The other possibility is that the transponder was removed for service which is also legal, The pilot's flight plan would have indicated the latter.
Rumor mill is the ELT had been removed for maintenance.
Every cars station shou!d have an ads-b repeater. Vast swaths of Canada are not covered including some in the South FFS flightaware was giving them away. Just had to plug into your router. Saved my bacon from possible midairs once or twice.
