406 mhz ELT

[beerdrinker]

French AIC 10/08 published May 01 states:

Para 2.11.12.1 From 1st January 2009, all aeroplanes and helicopters shall be equipped with at least one ELT of any type

Further in the AIC it states:

2.11.5 Frequency, coding and registration
Any emergency beacon (ELT or PLB) shall be capable of transmitting simultaneously on the following frequencies:
121.5 MHz and 406 MHz, be coded (according to ICAO Annex 10 for ELTs) and be registered from the national authority
in charge of initiating the search and rescue operations or from any designated authority.


I think I am correct in believing that 406 MHZ ELT’s will be compulsory wef 01/01/2009 for all aircraft flying in French airspace.

I posed the question on the French part of Pprune yesterday and got the following reply:

"""There’s change in the air…
As an aircraft owner, the new date you have to be aware of is January 31, 2009—yes, 2009. But itʼs never too early to start planning. On that date, all aircraft with ELTs will be required to be equipped with a digital ELT operating
on the 406 megahertz frequency.
And this means you.
Why? Because that is when the emergency 121.5 analog frequency will no longer be monitored
by the COSPAS-SARSAT search and rescue satellites"""""

More detailed infos here:
http://www.aea.net/Pilot/PG04ELT.pdf

As I understand it at the moment 406 mhz ELT's are very expensive. I do not believe there is yet a drop in replacement for the popular AmeriKing 450 ELT.

Anybody with any further info?

[Mark 1]

Thanks for the information. It prompted me to look at the AIC (http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-6A74A3CFD3F916906EC2D8278A45B6BF/SVR2UEKJIUOIC/EN/AIC/A/010-2008/LF_Circ_2008_A_010_en_2008-05-05.pdf).

It does allow the use of a PLB rather than an ELT with a built-in GNSS receiver. So, I presume that my McMurdo fastfind+ would be acceptable. In my view, a PLB is better than an ELT anyway.

The exemption for ultralights and CNRA aircraft doesn't make it clear if foreign "non-CofA" aircraft are similarly exempted.

UK regs also allow channel crossing by shorter routes without ELT or PLB, so this could potentially affect a lot of UK visitors.

[flyme273]

My maintenance organisation here in Holland (G- aircraft) have advised its mandatory to have a fixed ELB by July 2008.

They want to sell me a Kannad 406 AF for $900.

I would prefer a PLB e.g McMurdo, for the reasons already expressed in earlier threads. Although I'm put off by the quoted response time for the sat signal. However earlier threads also state this product is not approved and there is some doubt if a PLB would receive approval.

Anyone with an up-date???

(up to now I've used a portable 121.5, which (as prevoiusly mentioned) combined with a VHF Mayday giving GPS co-ords should assist with helicopter homing??? Is there a benefit in the new rule???).

flyme273

[IO540]

Arguably the best fixed ELT (121.5/406) is the Artex ME-406. This is FAA and EASA approved and is very small and light.

Planes which had the old Artex ELT-200 (121.5/243) like e.g. most TB20s which had it factory fitted on the N-reg, can take the ME-406 with very little work.

However there is some extra variable here, which has popped up very recently and perhaps somebody knows more about it. It is the requirement for a GPS position to be radiated. This can be done with more expensive ELTs which take the aircraft's GPS NMEA data all the time and store the last one when it crashed and radiate that. Some may (unusual) have their own GPS, and of course a rooftop antenna for that. OTOH if the requirement permits a portable device then you just buy a handheld ELT (an EPIRB) with integral GPS for about £300...

[Mike Cross]

http://www.aopa.co.uk/scripts/news.php?id=NjU
and
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ORS4_682.pdf

[flyme273]

IO540. Thanks for info.

This (GPE input signal) adds a further complexity. Like many others I have Garmin 296 which does not support such a requirement.

The Artex is similar price to the Kannad and appeard very simlar in specification. The Kannad was quoted in $ which seems surprising as it is a French company.

The EPIRB is half the price e,g, McMurdo or GME MT410G - the later appears an interesting Australian made product.

Of course once ditched the antenna must be kept above water level, so why not encourage preference for the EPIRB.

flyme

[IO540]

Yes, though this can be debated both ways. If ditching I would prefer a handheld (obviously!) but for a crash anywhere on land a fixed one is probably better, though a handheld as well is better still.

I used to think that a fixed ELT would be generally useless for Europe (where one can often walk to Tescos) but there have been a few accidents lately where the S&R services took many hours to find the wreckage, and IMHO looking at pics of the wreckage it was not at all definite that all onboard were killed on impact (even though all were dead when found).

I think the Americans have it right with the mandatory fixed ELT on an N-reg. Unfortunately the goalposts have been shifting lately, with 121.5 satellite monitoring never working anyway, 243MHz satellite monitoring ending soon, and everybody moving to 406MHz on which satellite monitoring still works, with a reasonable position fixing accuracy. I think the FAA will be mandating 406MHz ELTs soon.

[robin]

I used to think that a fixed ELT would be generally useless for Europe (where one can often walk to Tescos) but there have been a few accidents lately where the S&R services took many hours to find the wreckage, and IMHO looking at pics of the wreckage it was not at all definite that all onboard were killed on impact (even though all were dead when found).


Given that the boys at the Belgrano have spent years insisting that fixed ELTs were removed because of the risk of alarms being set off by heavy landings, its a bit rich for them to start insisting on a fixed installation now.

Personally if I go down in the oggin, I want the alert fixed to me (sod the passengers and aircraft)

[flyme273]

Mike Cross,

Thanks for posting those links, absolutely first class. And Kudos to the CAA for giving a brief and unequivocal statement. (not required until 1st May 2009).

Robin and IO540,

I believe there is general opinion that for ditching, portable beacons are the only sensible solution. As we have seen the marine market has developed some excellent products - largely directed at boat users – though of course once having taken to the dingy we are in the same position and dependent on the same rescue services. I do hope we shall not encounter “an approval” issue for aircraft carriage.

Concerning the GPS signal, I understand these beacons are limited to 16 channels for acquisition speed and are therefore not the same as a full aircraft positioning system; however they provide a sufficiently accurate position for the SAR services (100 metres). Thereafter the 121.5 is available and some models include a strobe light to assist in final location.

-----------

Turning to the aircraft installed fixed beacon (which as you comment has until now required removal) – this is clearly inappropriate for ditching accidents. For mountain accidents, I view this as two issues. One the occupants have survived the impact, whereby they can manually operate the beacon and would want to carry it with them should they leave the aircraft (the marine portable beacon could do this job). The second case is if the occupants are unable to move or do not survive the impact. Here some kind of auto operation is required.

Normally these beacons are fitted in the tail of the aircraft so manual operation from the cockpit is impossible.

One may re-call a glider accident some two years ago near Deeside. The pilot landed in the mountains but was trapped in the aircraft. In this case manual operation from the cockpit would be required as it was doubtful if he had landed with a sufficiently strong “g” to trigger a unit. (Fortunately he was found by Tonka’s using heat seeking technology – at some cost).

At my local flying club, heavy landings continue to cause spurious operation.

The possible requirement for aircraft fixed beacons seems a heavy investment for marginal return. What if your aircraft never crosses the mountains? Or maybe one trip per year on your hols - renting a portable unit is more acceptable.

Maybe we could have a marine type portable beacon with an additional input for a “g” sensor?

flyme

[IO540]

Given that the boys at the Belgrano have spent years insisting that fixed ELTs were removed because of the risk of alarms being set off by heavy landings, its a bit rich for them to start insisting on a fixed installation now.

Couldn't agree more. They insisted on a removal when I bought the plane (G-reg), and then I had to put it back in when I went N-reg. Now they want them in G-reg planes too. This stupid change of direction has caused many people (who imported planes from the USA) to waste a pile of money.

Normally these beacons are fitted in the tail of the aircraft so manual operation from the cockpit is impossible.

Not so; the fixed installations all have a switch in the instrument panel, from which you can activate the ELT manually - even when still airborne.

At my local flying club, heavy landings continue to cause spurious operation.

Must be very heavy landings! Do you inspect the landing gear afterwards. You ought to - this is not a problem in the USA where ELTs are mandatory.

The possible requirement for aircraft fixed beacons seems a heavy investment for marginal return. What if your aircraft never crosses the mountains? Or maybe one trip per year on your hols - renting a portable unit is more acceptable.

Well, yes but TBF you are looking at things from the POV of the average UK PPL bimbler, whose adventure limit is a burger run to Popham :) If that is all people ever did, this wouldn't be an issue; upon an engine failure you would walk along to the nearest pub and have a large beer.

It is a separate debate whether ELTs should be mandated at all. It's a bit like mandatory car seat belts. One should be entitled to kill oneself, and same goes for the passengers who could not have possibly expected the same level of safety as in a 747 (in fact they have a vastly greater chance of survival of a forced landing in a GA spamcan than in a 747 which is almost invariably going to be totally wrecked). This can be argued both ways I suppose.

[beerdrinker]

I have had the following from AmeriKing:

"The new ELT 406.0 MHz P/N AK-451 with G-swich to be installed inside aircraft will be the same footprint, same sizes, same accessories as our ELT AK-450 for easy retrofit direct replacement and will be available in about 1 month from today."

This is good news for those people who have the old AK-450.

Although the UK CAA has filed a difference, our European neighbours have not done so and it appears that they are going to insist on the 406 mnz PLB or ELT from early next year.

I am going to order the AK-451 to replace the AK-450 in my N registered aircraft.

[Fright Level]

they have a vastly greater chance of survival of a forced landing in a GA spamcan than in a 747 which is almost invariably going to be totally wrecked

Not necessarily ;)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44364000/jpg/_44364451_heathrow_2_pa_416.jpg

http://hawaii.hawaii.edu/math/Courses/Math100/Chapter1/Extra/CanFlt143.jpg