I just read a few articles in the aviation consumer magazine about all of us having to switch to a satelite locating system shortly and they recommend an alternative to replacing our current units by carrying a personal locator beacon, they run about $500 but the only drawback that I see is you must turn the unit on manualy.
Another alternative that I just read about is a unit called SPOT,
this unit is being offered for free for those that attend Oshkosh and regularly sell for 169.00. The unit can with a push of a button track you via the satelite and the information can be accessed incase you end up missing,another feature it has is pushing a button called 911 and a long lat signal is sent via satelite to the authorities.
Any feature that you use on this unit also sends text messages to your chosen cell phone numbers and it sends emails too.The subscription price for the unit is approx. 150/year. I think this is a good alternative to spending many thousands of dollars on a new 406 MH in plane unit.Check out their web sight and see what you folks think.
As I understand it, you can keep your old ELT as long as it's operational and regularly inspected, etc., as it will still work, it just won't be monitored or located by satellite. Aircraft flying overhead will still be able to hear it. That's not great, but it is as good as when they were first sold. Then, you can add a personal unit for your personal safety and use.
While there's no requirement in the United States to replace the first- and second-generation 121.5-MHz ELTs, after this date, 121.5/243-MHz distress signals transmitted from ELTs operating on the lower frequency will only be detected by ground-based receivers such as local airport facilities and air traffic control facilities or by overflying aircraft. It is important to note that after 2009, existing 121.5-MHz ELTs, although still legal from the FAA's perspective, will provide extremely limited assistance if an aircraft crashes, especially in a remote location.
There is some support for a new law similar to Australia's where ELT's are not mandatory as long as you have a method of communication suitable for where you are flying.
I have been using SPOT for about 6 months and it works like a charm.
What Greg said. You can keep your ELT as long as you want, but Search-and-Rescue won't be listening for it. If that makes you uncomfortable there are several alternatives:
1.) Install a 406MHz ELT. That makes you legal in Mexico and Canada, too, if you'll be travelling there. (Cost me about $1,300 - inlcuding install - last year.)
2.) Carry a PLB. These are essentially portable ELT's you can hook on your belt or put in a large pocket. Great if you survive the crash, academic if you don't. ($500 online)
3.) SPOT. Sounds the alarm when you're overdue if you've filed an arrival time with them, also has a panic button you can push if able. Not a beacon, but leaves a trail of GPS breadcrumbs which will get rescuers to your vicinity. Several have pointed out that this feature alone would have been a huge help in the Fosset search. Has other non-emergency uses which may justify the unit in their own right. Costs $150 + $100/year so more expensive than a PLB in the long run.
We just had a crash of a Grumman Mallard on Vancouver Island. Charter flight was scheduled for 30 minutes so was not much delay in knowing the plane was down somewhere but the ELT didn't transmit and route is heavily forested and mountainous. They finally found the plane by following the directions sent by one of the two survivors by text-message from his cell phone. He would describe all planes he saw flying over looking for them along with the time and after a few hours the searchers were able to narrow down the location but apparently there was no visible wreckage. It the plane had a SpOT they likely would have found it quickly. If the passenger hadn't been able to send text messages they probably still wouldn't know where it is and it would just join a long list of missing planes in that rough country.
We in Canada are just now going through the 406 thing and the government won't listen to any kind of argument or reason on the subject. Keep in mind that in crashes fewer than half of ELT's work so the 406 system won't help much though at great cost. Feedback we get is that the installation cost can be huge.
Do we carry an ELT for regulations sake - or to provide a distress signal that can be detected and guide rescue personnel to the scene of the accident? The Type-406 ELT provides _significant_ advantages to everyone (survivors and rescue personnel) by providing near immediate detection and precision guidance to the scene of the accident. Type 121.5 ELTs in most aircraft have provided marginal signal performance at best. Is your life - and the lives of your family and friends worth $1000 (the cost of a type 406 ELT)? I submit that this is a "no brainer" decision. If you don't have the $$ now, ask Santa for a type 406 ELT.
SB
Arrow II
Sebastian, FL
SB, that is false comfort since in accidents over half the time the ELT fails to transmit. Also the accuracy of the location of the 406 unit that actually works is loose until the satelite has time to pass over it a few more times. If there is a fire or the plane sinks and the ELt only transmits briefly then the location is doubtful since the doppler technology that it uses creates a lot of ambiguity in location until the satelites pass over a few more times. If it transmits for much less than a minute the satelite can't even get a reading. If Fossett had carried a SPOT he would have been found as it would have created a "bread crumb" trail to his location. Your righteous position is not realistic and there are much better alterantive technologies than the 406 which would work better and cost less. Unfortunately since this is regulated by government bureaucrats the chances of any kind of intelligent review is slim to non-existant.
Leigh - My comments offered personal overtones to what are the facts. If you do not believe the Type 406 is the way to go - please take a look at documents prepared by NOAA's Mission Control Center for Satellite Search and Rescue. I agree with you that type 121.5 ELT's have a poor performance record. NOAA says the same thing. 6-months from now (Feb 2009) NOAA satellites won't be processing 121.5 ELT signals ...which means poor performance turns into 'nothing' performance. Although 121.5 ELT's are legal to keep in aircraft, pilots should expect zero emergency response from their 121.5 beacons starting in February. Satellite Search and Rescue assets will be looking for type 406 beacon signals - which is reason enough for me to invest in a type 406 ELT.
SB
Arrow II
Sebastian, FL
I beleive I read a Civil Air Patrol article that showed that 80 percent of all crashes they surveyed the ELT did not function (due to ELT battery, bad ELT transmitter, catastrophic damage to ELT/plane, etc). of course, I'm hoping that if I had an accident, I would be in the 20%. My aircraft was purchased last year with inop ELT, so I was forced to buy something. The 406 looked really enticing, but the cost was 5X greater than the 121.5 ELT. I purchased the 121.5, with plans to add a 406 when price comes down.
Maybe the FAA will let us add onstar to our aircraft so that they can remotely unlock our doors for us too!
Well I picked up my free SPOT unit at Oshkosh and activated the service.Now when I fly alone and decide to just wander around New mexico at least I can activate the bread crumb trail.
The thing about New mexico is five minutes out of the airport there is nothing but messas and desert, I also carry an extensive survival kit in the back of the plane.
It's a shame if you can afford to own, maintain and operate your own aircraft, yet grip about putting out money for simple safety equipment. Think of how much money you could save if you didn't need options such as seatbelts, or do regular maintenance inspections on your aircraft. How often have you really needed to be wearing your seatbelt? And why not only spend money to fix something that is broken, instead of having to meet those nuisance regulations that require engine inspections/overhauls, etc after a specified period of time or running hours?
Here's another option - save money on not having a reliable ELT, and have some sort of waiver or agreement that Rescue Resources will not waste time (or money, since money is a concern) looking for you if overdue or lost?
I agree that ELTs seem to be most reliable after a hard landing and some pilot has failed to check 121.5 post-flight, and do not always work after a crash. But is that a reason to not carry one? I have seen seatbelts fail to hold their occupents into their seats - is this a reason to not wear seatbelts?
If you want some simple stats, out of 7 plane crashes that I have gone into, two ELTs had broke off of their aircraft antenna (and therefore a weak transmission, only heard when ontop - but that helped locate that white plane crashed on that snowy terrain!), three worked as advertised, and two were inoperable (that Grumman Goose crash you were talking about was one of them). Sure, this is not really an accurate reflection on the real stats, but my odds are better than 20%.
If you think of the vast resources and money that goes into searching every year for overdue or missing planes, why not try to increase your odds of a quick and easy recovery (either alive, or to bring closure to your family). And if your ELT fails to work, then at least you have made a reasonable effort to be a responsible flier.
406 with embedded GPS signal and identifier code is the surest way to provide a quick resolution to any search. 121.5 is still used by us to home in on your location while searching. And something such as this SPOT, or carrying a PLB - why not? - but only as a supplement to your ELT, not a replacement! It will give you that added edge in time of need... but I feel it is naive and irresponsible to think that the best quality aircraft-fitted ELT is anything but a practical piece of aircraft equipment.
And kudos to you Alex for carrying an extensive survival kit! Once you are down, you need to be able to take care of yourself. Remember that help is not typically right there to bail you out. However, one thought for you - the best survival kit is the one you have on you. Often, you get out of your plane crash with only what you have on you. Take a look at what you are wearing, what's in your pockets and on your belt - that may be all that you have (again, I offer this from personal experiences). That added survival gear is great, and I fully agree with having it, but it should be looked at as "comfort gear" - to make your survival experience more enjoyable. What you have on you, should be the minimum you need to get by.
Now that I am done my rant, I hope more fliers can understand the need for a quality ELT, and carry (and maintain) one. And I hope that it is just a piece of equipment that you have wasted money on, and I never end up having to come in on the signal of your downed aircraft.
SAR Tech Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's a shame if you can afford to own, maintain
> and operate your own aircraft, yet grip about
> putting out money for simple safety equipment.
Thank you.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2008 06:02PM by GM.
Just took a look at the ELT on the link you had (www.skygeek.com) - it opened up on a page for "EBC 102A Portable Rescue Beacon". This beacon says it is only 121.5 & 243.0, no 406. Unless there is another beacon on that site that you were looking at.
SAR tech, you missed the point completely. I suggest that you grab the latest COPA issue and read the article in it on this subject.
I doubt few if any really object to spending some money on something that will make our travel safer but really do object to being forced to install something that will not be very effective or reliable when much better technology is availble but is not being considered due to bureaucratic obstinance.
I don't know how long you have been flying out of Comox but I do recall the first generation of ELT that us Canadians were forced to buy that met "Canadian" standards since the garden variety of ELTs used in the USA were not good enough to meet the exotic unrealistic specs created in some meeting room in Ottawa. We got an ELT with special batteries that a few months later leaked and corroded planes, wouldn't have worked anyhow but cost 7 times what the USA ones did. After all the failures and damage to planes we were told to remove them and fly without anything, eventually the US standard was quietly approved.
SAR in Canada is only provided from very few poorly equipped bases as I suspect you know. What percentage of your aircraft are normally ready to fly and how far apart are the bases providing SAR? If one goes down in Canada they should be prepared to take care of themselves for quite a while if they need to be rescued by SAR.
SAR Tech Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just took a look at the ELT on the link you had
> (www.skygeek.com) - it opened up on a page for
> "EBC 102A Portable Rescue Beacon". This beacon
> says it is only 121.5 & 243.0, no 406. Unless
> there is another beacon on that site that you were
> looking at.
You are correct. My mistake. Looks like
[www.aircraftspruce.com] is the most reasonable.
Maybe I did miss your point – I simply read the above threads debating the issue of installing 406 ELTs. I am not disputing any history of politics or bureaucracy over implementing of ELTs, just the fact that ELTs do help. That is: help with speedy rescue or recovery, and minimize needless waste of tax dollars spent when many aircraft need to spend a protracted period of time searching. Not all ELTs work as advertise, but in recent years in BC I can attest to the fact that many, if not most calls for SAR on aircraft originate with an ELT signal – not a simple report of an overdue.
I am interested in your last paragraph. Cannot say that I agree with your comment about “SAR in Canada is only provided from very few poorly equipped bases”… How the base is or is not equipped has little to do with the Squadrons’ capabilities. Canada’s SAR Squadrons are quite reasonably equipped (sure, there is always something shinier, and nicer to want; but overall, the tools provided are adequate for the job). Each SAR Squadron maintains a 24/7 SAR posture, with one aircraft cocked & loaded, ready for Ops. Units that have both rotary and fixed wing aircraft, have one of each ready to go. That is all that is mandated, but not all that is capable. There are been many cases where a second crew was brought in and put into the air in a second aircraft (and even a third crew in a third aircraft!), to assist in the mission at hand.
Are you speaking from personal experience on your last sentence? I am curious what you are basing that upon? I am quite aware of response times, and how long a person can expect to be on the ground; what do you base your comment on? You are absolutely right that if one goes down in Canada, they should be prepared to take care of themselves for quite a while if they need to be rescued by SAR (or anyone else!). I am assuming you are Canadian and realize how vast this country is? As I am sure you are aware, it is a very large chunk of land, water and ice. Not sure how much active searching you have done, but Canada has some very inhospitable terrain – it is very easy for a plane to disappear from view. Take something the size of a Grumman Goose that crashes – a tree that is burnt and looks like a little bit of pine beetle infestation is the only indication that it hides beneath the thick forest canopy.
As for response times, you are right that it can take a number of hours for SAR resources to get to you (if ‘hours’ is what you mean by “quite a while”). A helicopter down in the Arctic or a hunter trapped on an icepan also above the Arctic Circle – both had crews onscene within hours (not days). Both of these had SAR Techs parachute in with survival gear to keep the victims safe and alive until able to be extracted (the helicopter took three days – but I challenge you to do better to get at them when they are caught in a blizzard; the fellow on the icepan took about 20 hours after the boys jumped in). A plane crash in Golden was about 4 hours; another plane crash near Kamloops was about three hours. If you crash further north, in BC’s region, it could be 6 hours – or more – but not days or weeks, that your comment gives the impression that you must be ready to survive for. I do like the attitude that you should be prepared to survive for quite a while – because you can never know how long it will take anybody to reach you!
Overall, considering size of this country, terrain and other factors, SAR isn’t too far away (but when down, I am sure hours seems likes an infinity!).
Back to the topic of ELTs, I have not read COPA, but I did read through this thread and the debate over whether to carry an ELT or what is required. All I know is that ELTs have made the job of searching a whole lot easier. Not foolproof, as there are the aircraft that went down either without an ELT, or have it not function properly – and those are the guys that either take a while (potentially days or weeks now, not hours) to find, or not be found at all.
I do agree that it would be nice to have some better quality designed ELTs. Commercial ‘blackboxes’ are shock and fire retardant to some reasonable degree. ELTs should also be designed to be more fireproof, and either mounted on some sort of re-enforced, shock-rated mounting, or have a better connection between ELT and external antenna (or forego the external antenna). Failures with ELTs, that I have seen, are either due to burning; or from breaking off their mounting, and snapping the flimsy wire connecting ELT to external antenna. Then again, a more robust designed ELT would cost more, and if the government was to mandate use of these, over a lesser quality one, this would surely be cause for more complaints.
SAR tech, thanks for your well reasoned response. I have no issue personally or otherwise with the crews who have the responsibility to look for any of us pilots that get into trouble while flying as from all that I have heard they are very well trained professionals though I do have doubts about the equipement that they have to work with but that is another issue completely. If you can find the latest issue of COPA Flight go to page 4 and read Kevin Psutka'a article on the ELT issue and you will see what many of us are concerned about. It is not the cost of replacing our current ones, it is that the bureaucracy that decides these things has obstinantly refused to consider what seem to me to be much better alternatives to ELTs in general. Since the first generation of ELT there have been incredible technical developments that could be used but are not being considered due to the wilful blindness of various parties, your bosses being one. Please do read the article and you will clearly see what the issue is.
Interesting the particular cases you mention since I think I know personally some of the persons rescued including one of the fellows in the helicopter in the high arctic. I also have a family member who perhaps has flown you in some of the searches and even might have met you in Comox at one of the Christmas parties. Small world alright.
It was good to hear how well the search and rescue operations are in Canada as we enjoy flying up to Miminiska Lodge in Northern Ontario (200 nm north of Thunder Bay) to go fishing. Once we are above TB, the road ends and we are wilderness flying for approx. 150 miles and always think how beautiful, but desolate the area is.
Wanted to get your opinion on whether getting a personal 406 unit is better or to get the aircraft based 406 in the tail. In your experience, which unit survives the crash best...assuming is it
survivable.
Thanks for all that you do, as it's good to know help is on the way.
Rich, my opinion is that the personal one would be best to help survivors but the fixed one would be best to find dead bodies. If you survive and watch the plane burn or sink with a fixed ELT you better hope that it worked and got picked up by the satelites but if you have one in your jacket with you this is not a concern. For this reason also a portable GPS would help you give an accurate position to within feet of where you are when a plane overflies if you also have a handheld radio. If you are already dead none of this matters except for providing closure to others.
I'd think that the portable unit would find bodies most of the time. Only in a fairly catastrophic failure (something a lot worse than the prop stopping) would events unfold prohibiting someone from activating the beacon on descent, especially if it was a descent into nothing but trees as far as you could see. Then, so long as the unit wasn't destroyed on impact, it should continue to transmit.
I have to agree with Leigh on this one. A personal ELT/PLB would be best, once you get out of the aircraft. Nice thing about PLBs are that you can take it anywhere (that canoe trip, hunting, etc) and can use when you really need help in a remote area.
However, I am also a fan of the fixed ELT on the aircraft. As Leigh mentions it, the fixed one is designed to work when you cannot activate it (although many fixed ones are removable and have a separate antenna, so if you are able to access it post-crash, you can remove it and use it separately - but this goes back to my original post, that the best survival kit is the one you have on your person...)
My attachment to the fixed ELT is that should you not survive the crash, it will hopefully do many things. As Leigh said, it can provide closure to your family. Along with the closure, isn't there something with insurance companies that if there is not a body, it can take nine years to be declared dead, and for your family to be able to claim on any life insurance? It can also alert of the fact that things have gone wrong (handy when there is not a flight plan, or reliable flight note). From a taxpayer's point of view, it can also save huge amounts of money that is spent on major searches that can last a week or more. And most importantly from my point of view, it can minimize the search effort, which keeps SAR crews out of harms way. I have been on searches where I have had concerns about the weather and conditions we have been flying in.
Leigh,
I will have to look up a copy of the COPA Flight and check that out. I did discuss this with a buddy of mine who is into ultralights and up on these civilian flight issues, and he also mentioned the battery thing with the new 406 ELTs. Although I can understand regulation to ensure some sort of standard in quality, it is really too bad that politics and bureaucracy do not always have the best, sensible solution at hand.
As for your family member, is he/she still at Comox? If so, then we will have flown together, as it is a small unit. Would this person be a helo pilot?
In my opinion, the portable unit is not good for the reasons you indicated. Most of the plane crashes I have had experience with, there has likely not been enough time, or things are too busy in a short period of time, that activating a personal ELT or PLB is not a factor.
The cases where there has been time, the pilot was able to get out a radio call and notify help of all the details of the emergency that have helped us respond to the distress quickly.
Also, without any knowledge on this point, I would have to wonder how effective any PLB would be that does not have its antenna with clear sight to the sky?
Maybe a dumb question, but the SPOT will pick up your signal in the air? In other words there will be breadcrumbs along your flight path too? Will it work if you're flying commercial (i.e. at 30K+ feet?)
>>The cases where there has been time, the pilot was able to get out a radio call and notify help of all the details of the emergency that have helped us respond to the distress quickly.<<
I guess you're right. I don't have a radio in my airplane, and I don't ususally carry a handheld (I own one, but its old, and weak). But I am not the typical pilot. Ninety-nine percent of my time is within 30 miles of home and at less than 500ft agl, all VFR, usually with the wind less than 10. You prolly don't have to hunt for folks like me very much.
That said, even a cheapskate like me with a wood and cloth plane that's twice my age and doesn't have a radio doesn't see the big deal with a $1000 ELT. I have a VERY affordable plane to operate, and I can't spit at it for $1000. For something you're life may depend on, that seems like chickenfeed.
Late Spring or Summer 2005, small plane with 2 people onboard is overdue (no ELT signal - cannot remember if it failed to work, or he did not have one on him). A week or more was spent by many resources searching a rather extensive search area in BC. He was not found by the time the search area was thoroughly covered by the air, and the search was called off. Short time after that he was found by people on the ground. I believe he was within 3 miles of the airport.
There are other cases within the flying parameters that you fly in.
Guess the question is, is within 30 miles of home all rather inhabited area, where a plane running into difficulties will certainly be noticed?
SAR, I don't know if you are thinking of the same one as me but there was a plane that was missed by family of the pilot who had gone for a flight from a small airport south of Edmonton, not exactly an uninhabited area. The plane was eventually discovered in a patch of dense bush less than 1/2 mile from the airport but this was several days later and the guy was dead though he had apparently survived the crash for a while. FWWIIW, I carry a survival kit including warm clothes, tent, sleeping bad, mosquito spray, lots of water, some energy bars, handheld radio etc. with me year round though in winter I add another very warm sleeping bag and winter boots. If I was down there are probably lots more things I would want but one can only carry so much in a small plane.
