Finding Info in CAR's / CommLaw
Thread Starter
Finding Info in CAR's / CommLaw
Have done a quick search and having trouble finding the correct up to date information for ELT's/ Portable ELT's requirements for GA aircraft in the CAR's.
Any help appreciated,
Nig
Any help appreciated,
Nig
ELB etc
up to date information
Fixed or portable, your choice, but the failure rate of fixed ELT in real accidents is better (or is that worse) than 95%.Fixed ELT are a complete waste of money, and as the record shows in several examples, a waste of lives.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fixed or portable, your choice, but the failure rate of fixed ELT in real accidents is better (or is that worse) than 95%.
To me, the ELT is most important so you can be found quickly if you have crashed and survived. I am not confident that you would always be physically able to activate a portable ELT (broken bones etc.)
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The regulation for fixed ELT mounts has been updated quite a few years ago. I cant remember the exact G loading that the base has to be but if you require easy to find out tomorrow and has to have an EO to fit it. Depends where you fly what you fly. The cost of a portable is much less but no inertia switching.
My advise have both. I carry my own elt with me in my tool kit, if im lucky enough to be able to get to it to use it I know I have it.
Also you have to register it with AMSA
My advise have both. I carry my own elt with me in my tool kit, if im lucky enough to be able to get to it to use it I know I have it.
Also you have to register it with AMSA
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is that 95% all accidents,
That is 95%+ of all accidents where the aircraft was fitted with a fixed ELT, and includes not just GA, but some airline accidents as well.
In three cases of Airbus aircraft, where the rear fuselage was substantially intact, the factory fitted ELT still didn't work/
It is actually quite hard to find examples of where a fixed ELT did work, and broadcast useable signals.
In contrast, in an accident where one or more has survived, the failure rate of portable ELT was nil.
Remember, if there are no survivors, all an ELT does is maybe save on some search costs
The CASA post implementation review, about seven years after the current rules came in, confirmed the original research, that overturned the (then) CAA proposal to mandate fixed ELT in all aircraft, with an exemption for airlines.
Remember, it is a 100% failure rate in water, on land either or both the aerial or aerial cable are disrupted or otherwise rendered useless in real world crash sequences.
If somebody wants to carry both, fine, it's your money, but the facts say you are deluding yourself. I can think of much better things to do with that amount of money that would be a better contribution to aviation safety outcomes.
Remember, the whole "mandate" came from the US (but not the FAA) when a well known politician was lost in Alaska, the mandate was a knee jerk political reaction with no technical merit, no research and certainly no cost/benefit justification.
As I said in a previous post, fixed ELT are a total waste of money, time and effort.
Tootle pip!!
yr right,
It is 95+ failure rate, not 95 %, and for the approximately 35 % of aircraft in accidents that wind up in the water in AU, it is a guaranteed 100% failure rate.
Where do the figures come from ---- ever heard of research?
The same place --- accident records, that CASA used in the post implementation review. Think NTSB and CAP, UK AAIB, BASI/ATSB, and the equivalents in Europe, NZ, Canada etc. It ain't rocket science!!
Tootle pip!!
It is 95+ failure rate, not 95 %, and for the approximately 35 % of aircraft in accidents that wind up in the water in AU, it is a guaranteed 100% failure rate.
Where do the figures come from ---- ever heard of research?
The same place --- accident records, that CASA used in the post implementation review. Think NTSB and CAP, UK AAIB, BASI/ATSB, and the equivalents in Europe, NZ, Canada etc. It ain't rocket science!!
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You thoughts echo mine to a point Leadie.
I have long thought about the benefits of both.
The thing that crosses my mind tho, is why is it possible they can build a black box that can survive pretty much everything up to a thermonuclear event, but not a fixed (automatic) ELT.
With todays technology, they'd almost be able to CAD it, Build it in china for five bucks a unit.
It beggars my understanding...maybe thats a business oppurtunity for some one to produce such a device.
Cheers
Jas
I have long thought about the benefits of both.
The thing that crosses my mind tho, is why is it possible they can build a black box that can survive pretty much everything up to a thermonuclear event, but not a fixed (automatic) ELT.
With todays technology, they'd almost be able to CAD it, Build it in china for five bucks a unit.
It beggars my understanding...maybe thats a business oppurtunity for some one to produce such a device.
Cheers
Jas
but not a fixed (automatic) ELT.
Making a box that survives is not the problem, transmitting a useable signal is!!
Only VLF/ULF (at huge power outputs) propagates through water, that's why flight recorders and voice recorders have acoustic pingers.
In a land accident, it is the aerial cable or the aerial itself that gets damaged or shielded.
The record is quite clear and unambiguous.
So the failure rate of an ELT in water is 100%, 95%+ on land.
There is no easy (or even hard) answer to the fundamental shortcoming of a fixed ELT.
By contrast, where there are survivors to operate a portable, the technical failure rate of portables to broadcast a signal successfully is near to zero as makes no difference.
Don't forget that, unlike auto accidents, GA accidents generally produce relatively light injuries, of fatalities.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is 95%+ of all accidents where the aircraft was fitted with a fixed ELT, and includes not just GA, but some airline accidents as well.
So of GA accidents in Australia on land with survivors, what is the activation rate?
I'll give you one where it didn't activate - VH-POJ near Horsham. It's unclear from the report whether the survivor could have activated a portable beacon if they had one - I suspect not, either due to injuries or unfamiliarity.
A quick read of some reports of ELT effectiveness suggests that a major factor is that the crash G is not in the right direction to activate it (aircraft slews sideways etc?), so maybe a helicopter style multi-axis g switch is what's required?
So the failure rate of an ELT ... is ... 95%+ on land.
...
By contrast, where there are survivors to operate a portable, the technical failure rate of portables to broadcast a signal successfully is near to zero as makes no difference.
...
By contrast, where there are survivors to operate a portable, the technical failure rate of portables to broadcast a signal successfully is near to zero as makes no difference.
This is a difficult issue. Partly because we don't really have enough information to make a proper decision and partly because we don't know if its the right decision until its too late!
There is, however a significant body of data that says ELT's are very unreliable in their activation. There is no definitive piece of work, but a LOT of smaller pieces of information. It might have been a piece by the US AOPA that convinced me, I forget. Try this
ELT, Phone Home - AOPA
You'd think that a proper analysis of ELT function might be a worthwhile use of time by CASA or the ATSB.
The reasons fixed ELT's don't work include accident damage of the fixed antennae, damage to wiring, the ELT breaking free from its mount and plain old just didn't work (off topic, but there was no ELT activation for MH370).
But we like the idea that there is a guardian angel in the tail that will bring help magically.
The advantage of an EPIRB is that a) it will work and b) it can be initiated in the aircraft on the way down before you crash land.
One of its weaknesses is that they frequently reside in our pilot bags and we tend to forget to brief passengers on them. I'm beginning to like the idea of a second EPIRB velcro'd in the back for the club seated passengers.
Its a well worn soapbox of mine, but we should all be monitoring 121.5 in cruise when the second radio is not doing much. Australia is nearly the only country in the world where the international distress frequency is not monitored. Boyd Munro wrote a piece 10 years ago that is still relevant
CAN IT EVER BE APPROPRIATE TO MONITOR 121.5 EN ROUTE?
The sad truth is that more and more we are on our own because the safety bodies are deserting us. Now satellite phones and satellite trackers like spot and spidertracks need to be part of this conversation also.
There is, however a significant body of data that says ELT's are very unreliable in their activation. There is no definitive piece of work, but a LOT of smaller pieces of information. It might have been a piece by the US AOPA that convinced me, I forget. Try this
ELT, Phone Home - AOPA
You'd think that a proper analysis of ELT function might be a worthwhile use of time by CASA or the ATSB.
The reasons fixed ELT's don't work include accident damage of the fixed antennae, damage to wiring, the ELT breaking free from its mount and plain old just didn't work (off topic, but there was no ELT activation for MH370).
But we like the idea that there is a guardian angel in the tail that will bring help magically.
The advantage of an EPIRB is that a) it will work and b) it can be initiated in the aircraft on the way down before you crash land.
One of its weaknesses is that they frequently reside in our pilot bags and we tend to forget to brief passengers on them. I'm beginning to like the idea of a second EPIRB velcro'd in the back for the club seated passengers.
Its a well worn soapbox of mine, but we should all be monitoring 121.5 in cruise when the second radio is not doing much. Australia is nearly the only country in the world where the international distress frequency is not monitored. Boyd Munro wrote a piece 10 years ago that is still relevant
CAN IT EVER BE APPROPRIATE TO MONITOR 121.5 EN ROUTE?
The sad truth is that more and more we are on our own because the safety bodies are deserting us. Now satellite phones and satellite trackers like spot and spidertracks need to be part of this conversation also.
