ELT required in the Netherlands

[Kolibear]

Can anyone clarify the requirement to carry an ELT in the Netherlands?

[Mike Cross]

AOPA UK • View topic - 406 ELT Holland (http://www.joinaopa.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=356)

If on an International flight you need an ELT
If the aircraft's first C of A was issued after 1 July 2008 it must be an automatically activated ELT.

PLB's are not acceptable

[AC-DC]

Now I am lost :confused:

Is my old 121.5 FITTED to the aircraft with automatic activation is legal in Holland or do I have to replace it with the 406?

Thanks.

[Mike Cross]

http://www.ais-netherlands.nl/aim/AICB/pdf/b07-08.pdf

What do you think?
NEW RULES APPLICABLE FEBRUARY 1ST 2009
ICAO ANNEX 6
The mandatory carriage and operation of 406 MHz
ELTs is described in the ICAO Annex 6 - Operation of
Aircraft. The technical requirements are described in
Annex 10 - Aeronautical Telecommunications Volume
III.
This ICAO Annex 6 amendment 31 requirement is
effective as of July 1st 2008, but required by Dutch law
as of February 1st 2009 and will be applicable for international
flights flying through the Amsterdam FIR.

[Aussie Andy]

You can easily and cheaply rent a 406MHz ELT from people such as SEMS (South East Marine Services).

Sadly the same is not true for a Mode S transponder which you also must have but is apparently currently NOTAM'd to be switched off in the Schiphol area...!

[Horst Schwul]

Aussie Andy,

The requirement is for it to be fitted to the aircraft - hand held ones are not acceptable (apparently) - although clarification of this is required. Can you fit the marine ones to the aircraft, and, more importantly - are they impact activated?

You know it.

Horst

[Pianorak]

[Horst Schwul quote] <<The requirement is for it to be fitted to the aircraft . . . >>

But have a look at AIC-B 07/08 page 2 of 6

Survival ELT (ELT-S):
An ELT which is removable from an aircraft, stowed so as to facilitate its ready use in an emergency, and manually activated by survivors.

[Islander2]

Unfortunately, a PLB is not an ELT-S.

The definition of and specifications for a Survival ELT (ELT-S) are set out in RTCA Document DO-204 and EUROCAE Document ED-62. These standards spell out various ELT-S requirements that are not met by PLBs, including crash survivability and operating ability in environmental extremes, 121.5MHz homer output power and transmission of the aircraft's ICAO 24-bit address.

Products that are approved as ELT-S beacons in compliance with those specifications include the Kannad 406AS, the Artex SLB-406 and the ELTA ADT406S. None of those examples are GPS-enabled; ergo, it will take some 30 to 60 minutes before the LEOSAR element of the COSPAS-SARSAT system could accurately determine your position using doppler shift.

On the other hand, whilst the GPS-enabled PLBs most of us are already using or considering purchasing are NOT approved ELT-S beacons in compliance with those specifications, they will transmit an extremely accurate position very soon after activation.

An ICAO/IMO Working Group in June 2006 concluded "there was a strong case for the allowance of PLBs as a means of compliance with requirements for non-automatic ELT carriage by GA aircraft." Regrettably, to date their findings have not been adopted by ICAO, and the Dutch and the British (unlike the French) have adopted the ICAO stance verbatim. Fortunately, at the very least until 1 May 2009, the UK CAA have granted a non-public transport exemption from the ANO requirement to carry ELTs.

[Pianorak]

Islander2, thanks for that.
How depressing. None of the three ELT-S mentioned seems to have a UK distributor.

[Duchess_Driver]

But have a look at AIC-B 07/08 page 2 of 6

Survival ELT (ELT-S):
An ELT which is removable from an aircraft, stowed so as to facilitate its ready use in an emergency, and manually activated by survivors.


Then, if a PLB works on 406 then what's the difference?

:confused:

[Blue Albatross]

So would my "F" registered Robin, which is based in Lelystad, be eligible to fly int he Amsterdam FIR with a PLB or handheld ELT because the French allow me to do so since the aicraft is French registered, or because I want to fly in teh Amsterdam FIR, the Dutch will insist on me having a proper ELT installed?

I ask because the original ELT's batteries need replacing, but since it's an old 121.50 ELT I'm debating to swap it for a cheaper handheld device, or not, as the case may be.

Can anyone clear up the legal position?

[KeesM]

One do not need an ELT to fly in the EHAA fir, only if you want to cross its boundries you need one.

[Aussie Andy]

Yes sorry for the confusion - its PLBs that you can rent from SEMS, not impact activated ELTs...

I guess we can no longer visit Holland then if this is the interpretation of the rules...

Andy :(

[S-Works]

If the aircraft's first C of A was issued after 1 July 2008 it must be an automatically activated ELT.

Not sure how many of us are flying aircraft that has a FIRST CofA issued after 1st July last year?

That would make for a very new shiny aircraft and as such should have had the ELT factory built.

[Islander2]

Not sure how many of us are flying aircraft that has a FIRST CofA issued after 1st July last year?Bose-x, it makes no practical difference.

If first CofA was issued after 1st July 2008, the aircraft must have an ELT-AF, ELT-AP or ELT-AD.

If first CofA was issued before 1st July 2008, the aircraft must have any of the above or a manually-activated ELT-S.

But, as I've noted before, ELT-S is an ICAO and EASA defined term which expressly doesn't embrace the PLBs that most of us use. The latter don't meet the ELT-S requirements for crash-worthiness, 121.5MHz homer power output or transmission of the aircraft's ICAO 24-bit address.

I've listed examples of approved ELT-S beacons in post #8 above. I believe all of them retail for more than £2,000, whereas the entirely adequate GPS-enabled PLBs we use are available typically for £300-£500.

[Pianorak]

Having splashed out on a PLB and Mode S (as well as FM Immunity) for a trip across The Netherlands into northern Germany last autumn - that now appears to have been a one-off trip. Don’t really feel like spending more on ELT stuff only to be told shortly afterwards that it’s no longer adequate/needed/wrong/etc. Off to Switzerland next month instead.

[bookworm]

Interesting one. How does the Dutch requirement stack up against the UK exemption for G-reg?

The Civil Aviation Authority, in exercise of its powers under Article 153 of the Air
Navigation Order 2005, hereby exempts any aircraft flying for purposes other than public
transport, registered in the United Kingdom, from the requirement to carry emergency
locator transmitters, referred to in Scale KK.

Since this is a Schedule 4 (equipment, Annex 6 3.6) requirement, rather than a Schedule 5 (radio equipment, Annex 6 3.7), is there a basis for the NL authorities to overrule an exemption from the state of registry? There's nothing in the NL AIP and the AIC cited is a series B (domestic).

[astir 8]

As with the Mode S around Schiphol fiasco, the Dutch authorities at least seem to be giving comfort that there is an organisation with even less logic/common sense than the CAA.

Going missing for long in the Dutch Alps seems pretty unlikely while having your ELT bolted to the airframe is chocolate teapot land when there's all that water to ditch in.

A thought. Don't we all ultimately vote for, and pay for all these rule makers? :mad::mad:

[BackPacker]

Don't we all ultimately vote for, and pay for all these rule makers?

According to the polls, 1/6th of the voting population of the Netherlands would vote for a party which basically has one agenda point - deport all muslims - if we had elections today.

And this party is so politically grown up that they will publicly run away from a debate to make a point, never mind that straight after that debate they were to be voting on a couple of motions that they themselves submitted. And which got nil votes because of that.

So the general public making an informed choice about which party is best able to run our national CAA...? Don't make me laugh.:{

[Kolibear]

Passing lightly over the rivetting world of Dutch politics & returning to the more prosaic but equally exciting world of ELTS etc....

From the AIC-B 07/08, page 3:-

INTERNATIONAL GENERAL AVIATION
– AEROPLANES
1. All aeroplanes (including TMG and MLA) shall be
equipped with at least one ELT of any type.
2. All aeroplanes (including TMG and MLA) for which
the certificate of airworthiness is first issued after
July 1st 2008.

So para 1 says that ALL GA aircraft MUST have an ELT.

Para. 2 says that GA aircraft registered after 1/7/08 must have an ELT.

What purpose does para 2 serve unless there is a mistrake in the translation?

Would any of our Dutch colleagues care to translate this for us please?

INTERNATIONAL GENERAL AVIATION
– VLIEGTUIGEN
1. Alle vliegtuigen (incl. TMG en MLA) die internationale
vluchten uitvoeren als general aviation, moeten
zijn uitgerust met ten minste één ELT ongeacht
welk type.
2. Alle vliegtuigen (incl. TMG en MLA) die internationale
vluchten uitvoeren als general aviation, voor
welk het bewijs van luchtwaardigheid is afgegeven
na 1 juli 2008, moeten zijn uitgerust met ten minste
één ELT die automatisch wordt geactiveerd.

[S-Works]

I don't know about anyone else but all I do is put the Hex ID of my PLB into Field 18 on the FPL and that's it.

If for some reason I need it, I will pull the cord, wait for the rescue and explain later.

Beyond that I passed worrying about the fine grain of the wording some time ago.

Oh and before those who go off on the legendary insurance tangent, my insurance company says it makes no difference to them at all.

[BackPacker]

Would any of our Dutch colleagues care to translate this for us please?

Glad to oblige.

Para 1 talks about an ELT of any type.

Para 2 talks about an ELT which needs to be activated automatically.

[dirkdj]

Bose,

the problem might be if you are rampchecked in the Netherlands and 'they' decide you have to leave the aircraft there until it is equipped with a 'proper' ELT. A year ago a friend of mine was rampchecked in Germany at a very small airfield. The man insisted to see his written flight preparation papers (plog) even after arriving on an IFR flight plan (it was all in the GNS430). I think the 406 PLB with GPS is the most intelligent alternative.

[S-Works]

Ramp checked for an ELT by who Dirk?

I have also had the little German man in the tower try and check me for a PLOG at Essen. A few choice words were my response along the lines of I am pilot in Command and I will choose the level of preparation and type of PLOG that I use. Which is an airways chart and a GNS430 for IFR and everything I need written on the map for VFR.

It is a 406 PLB with GPS that I use and is the Hex ID I put on the flight plan.

[Pianorak]

all I do is put the Hex ID of my PLB into Field 18 on the FPL and that's it.

Isn't there a danger the flight plan might get rejected?

[S-Works]

Not had one rejected yet! There is always a risk that it may be rejected. If that happens I will cross the bridge then.

[jez d]

I think Bose-X has got it right.

Self-activating ELT's with integral GPS cost a fortune currently - something in the region of £1,500-£2,000.

By purchasing a PLB with GPS (£250), you are effectively equipping yourself with the most technically advanced piece of safety equipment affordable to the average GA pilot. Insurance companies wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in court of refusing payouts on the grounds of not being 'legally' equipped for flight in the Netherlands.

As Bose says, file your flight plans with the Hex code of your PLBs included in field 18. As to rampchecking, it's a gamble, but the odds are greatly stacked in your favour.

All this will be mute by 2012 (or maybe sooner) anyway, as EASA will ultimately decide on whether ELTs, PLBs, or either, will be mandated for carriage within Europe. And given the quantity of PLBs already sold and in use across Europe, plus the fact that they offer better rescue chances - your aircraft could sink with the ELT on board before SAR locates you, and a PLB directs SAR to the individual not the aircraft - I would be very surprised if ELTs are the only locator beacons mandated by EASA. Mind you, EASA don't appear to have the best reputation for throwing logic at new regulatory proposals...

jez

[Steve N]

"Insurance companies wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in court of refusing payouts on the grounds of not being 'legally' equipped for flight in the Netherlands"

I guess the issue is whether the part of the flight over Netherlands was rendered 'illegal' by carrying a PLB. If it was illegal then I'm not so sure that an insurance company would pay out.

Steve

[Mike Cross]

I guess the issue is whether the part of the flight over Netherlands was rendered 'illegal' by carrying a PLB.

Nothing whatosever illegal in carrying a PLB Steve.:} [/pedant]

I believe the general rule with insurance is to question whether the alleged failing contributed to the claim.

If an uninsured driver crossed the central reservation and hit the front of your car your claim would not be invalidated by the fact that your rear number-plate light was not working and your car was therefore technically not roadworthy.

[AC-DC]

There is a new ELT that costs ~ $600, They start to deliver in a month time.

Ack Technology (http://www.ackavionics.com/)