ELT Now a legal requirment
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: An island somewhere
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My ELT is registered to me personally with no aircraft details, they have my home number and mobile. So I can and do lend it to people.
The star prize goes to the person who spots a potentially more significant and much more suprising piece in that ANO amendment. I give you one clue: "IFR"
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Islander, instead of blindly following rules in the British way, try a bit of free thought and actually contact them just like I did. You can register a dustbin with an ELT if you really want.
All they the MCA want is someone to call when the damn thing goes off.
All they the MCA want is someone to call when the damn thing goes off.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: An island somewhere
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Islander, instead of blindly following rules in the British way, try a bit of free thought and actually contact them just like I did. You can register a dustbin with an ELT if you really want.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Islander2 - The ANO amendment appears to ban DIY instrument approaches. They are trying to mimic FAR 91.175, except that the USA gets away with this because they have so many IAPs over there, whereas in Europe a lot of pilots do their own descent profiles.
That business about the McMurdo ELTs with built-in GPS being more or less useless is news which is several years old. I remember reading it c. 2002. It's probably still on google but I think they fixed them a long time ago.
A beacon won't help you in +5C water in a life jacket, because by the time they get to you (which, for much of southern UK, is at least an hour by helicopter) you will be dead. That's why a raft is essential if you want a reasonably assured escape route in a ditching.
I am puzzled as to why the CAA has mandated ELTs, unless it's an ICAO requirement and the CAA seems to be gradually getting out of the "differences" business. There aren't enough CFITs in the UK where there was the slightest chance of survival.
Sweden mandates ELTs for all own-reg planes (but Sweden mandates practically everything) and the USA does of course but the USA doesn't yet mandate 406MHz.
I am on N-reg so this doesn't affect me directly, but does anybody have a reference for the oxygen kit having to be CAA approved?
When I was looking at portable kits c. 2003 I came across a UK firm selling "CAA approved" kits which were simply the standard off the shelf Aerox kits (same as I have had since) but with some paperwork, and the price was around double of the US price. Presumably, this firm was running the standard scam (standard not just in aviation but that's where it is particularly cynical) where you obtain the authority (from the CAA or EASA) to generate certification forms, buy the items on the open market, "inspect" them, write down their serial numbers on a form, stamp the form, and sell the items for much more, with the said form.
It would be a travesty of justice if the CAA mandated "certified" oxygen kits, given the rate of new developments (e.g. demand regulators) in this field and the certainty of CAA approvals lagging years behind, while multiplying the costs.
That business about the McMurdo ELTs with built-in GPS being more or less useless is news which is several years old. I remember reading it c. 2002. It's probably still on google but I think they fixed them a long time ago.
A beacon won't help you in +5C water in a life jacket, because by the time they get to you (which, for much of southern UK, is at least an hour by helicopter) you will be dead. That's why a raft is essential if you want a reasonably assured escape route in a ditching.
I am puzzled as to why the CAA has mandated ELTs, unless it's an ICAO requirement and the CAA seems to be gradually getting out of the "differences" business. There aren't enough CFITs in the UK where there was the slightest chance of survival.
Sweden mandates ELTs for all own-reg planes (but Sweden mandates practically everything) and the USA does of course but the USA doesn't yet mandate 406MHz.
I am on N-reg so this doesn't affect me directly, but does anybody have a reference for the oxygen kit having to be CAA approved?
When I was looking at portable kits c. 2003 I came across a UK firm selling "CAA approved" kits which were simply the standard off the shelf Aerox kits (same as I have had since) but with some paperwork, and the price was around double of the US price. Presumably, this firm was running the standard scam (standard not just in aviation but that's where it is particularly cynical) where you obtain the authority (from the CAA or EASA) to generate certification forms, buy the items on the open market, "inspect" them, write down their serial numbers on a form, stamp the form, and sell the items for much more, with the said form.
It would be a travesty of justice if the CAA mandated "certified" oxygen kits, given the rate of new developments (e.g. demand regulators) in this field and the certainty of CAA approvals lagging years behind, while multiplying the costs.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That was kind of my point. The forms were aimed at boat users so I called them up and asked. It was they that came up with the comment about only really wanting the information on who held the unit in case it went off.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: An island somewhere
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ANO amendment appears to ban DIY instrument approaches.
I am on N-reg so this doesn't affect me directly, but does anybody have a reference for the oxygen kit having to be CAA approved?
Last edited by Islander2; 13th Apr 2007 at 22:42.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: An island somewhere
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That was kind of my point. The forms were aimed at boat users so I called them up and asked. It was they that came up with the comment about only really wanting the information on who held the unit in case it went off.
And while we talking ridiculous rules, you have also registered the device (in accordance with those annoying UK aviation guidelines - AIC 57/2003) with the UK Mission Control Centre at RAF Kinloss? I know, blind obedience on my part ... but I was never strong on free thought!!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sch 19 says
Equipment of aircraft
19. —(1) An aircraft shall not fly unless it is so equipped as to comply with the law of the country in which it is registered, and to enable lights and markings to be displayed, and signals to be made, in accordance with this Order and any regulations made thereunder.
(2) In the case of any aircraft registered in the United Kingdom the equipment required to be provided (in addition to any other equipment required by or under this Order) shall—
(a) be that specified in such parts of Schedule 4 as are applicable in the circumstances;
(b) comply with the provisions of that Schedule;
(c) except that specified in paragraph 4 of the said Schedule, be of a type approved by EASA or the CAA either generally or in relation to a class of aircraft or in relation to that aircraft; and
................ etc
and Schedule 4 gives type approval exemptions for things like megaphones, etc.
I wonder if this is the end of it. It doesn't seem to have been the intended result. The oxygen equipment will clearly have to be portable (installing a fixed oxygen system is totally impractical) and portable items are traditionally exempt from approvals. They certainly are under FAA. In fact looking at the exemptions in Sched 4 one could debate whether a handheld GPS is permitted.
Equipment of aircraft
19. —(1) An aircraft shall not fly unless it is so equipped as to comply with the law of the country in which it is registered, and to enable lights and markings to be displayed, and signals to be made, in accordance with this Order and any regulations made thereunder.
(2) In the case of any aircraft registered in the United Kingdom the equipment required to be provided (in addition to any other equipment required by or under this Order) shall—
(a) be that specified in such parts of Schedule 4 as are applicable in the circumstances;
(b) comply with the provisions of that Schedule;
(c) except that specified in paragraph 4 of the said Schedule, be of a type approved by EASA or the CAA either generally or in relation to a class of aircraft or in relation to that aircraft; and
................ etc
and Schedule 4 gives type approval exemptions for things like megaphones, etc.
I wonder if this is the end of it. It doesn't seem to have been the intended result. The oxygen equipment will clearly have to be portable (installing a fixed oxygen system is totally impractical) and portable items are traditionally exempt from approvals. They certainly are under FAA. In fact looking at the exemptions in Sched 4 one could debate whether a handheld GPS is permitted.
Last edited by IO540; 14th Apr 2007 at 06:37.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Bath
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In fact looking at the exemptions in Sched 4 one could debate whether a handheld GPS is permitted.
Ian
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, for the avoidance of doubt, you do have a GPS/PLB code (prefixed by the letters CSTA) issued by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency? Or is that just being slavishly British?
And while we talking ridiculous rules, you have also registered the device (in accordance with those annoying UK aviation guidelines - AIC 57/2003) with the UK Mission Control Centre at RAF Kinloss? I know, blind obedience on my part ... but I was never strong on free thought!!
And while we talking ridiculous rules, you have also registered the device (in accordance with those annoying UK aviation guidelines - AIC 57/2003) with the UK Mission Control Centre at RAF Kinloss? I know, blind obedience on my part ... but I was never strong on free thought!!
24hr Tel +44 01326 317573
Hex ID 1D160355BF81xxx
GPS 500-22445 S/N 17XX
Proof of Reg 25/09/06
Kinloss
01895 426150
Quote Ref No XXXX
Yes I have registered, I was not saying don't register, I was pointing out that it does not have to be registered to a craft.
Still spoiling for a fight because I said use a bit of free though?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's very true Ian, about the GPS.
AIUI, the way this works is that non-required equipment has no approval requirements **
Any equipment whose carriage (or use) is mandated, has to be CAA/EASA type approved - unless it's one of the exemptions in schedule 4:
(a) the equipment referred to in Scale A (2); [Maps, charts, codes and other documents and navigational equipment ]
(b) first aid equipment and handbook, referred to in Scale A;
(c) time-pieces, referred to in Scale F;
(d) torches, referred to in Scales G, H, K and Z;
(e) whistles, referred to in Scale H;
(f) sea anchors, referred to in Scales J and K;
(g) rocket signals, referred to in Scale J;
(h) equipment for mooring, anchoring or manoeuvring aircraft on the water, referred to in Scale J;
(i) paddles, referred to in Scale K;
(j) food and water, referred to in Scales K, U and V;
(k) first aid equipment, referred to in Scales K, U and V;
(l) stoves, cooking utensils, snow shovels, ice saws, sleeping bags and arctic suits, referred to in Scale V;
(m) megaphones, referred to in Scale Y.
If I have this right, and it's the full picture, then this has been widely misrepresented by e.g. certain GPS manufacturers who have claimed that CAA approval is mandatory.
What the CAA has done, on say the oxygen front, is they published a proposal (still on their website here) which few people would have objected to. OK, it takes the FAA limits and in normal Euro-superior practice it gold plates them despite a total lack of evidence for doing so, but I doubt many people knew that the moment anything becomes required equipment it becomes subject to type approval - unless it is in the above exemption list.
People would have objected much more strongly if they had realised that the proposal will create a nice ripoff gravy train for suppliers of off the shelf gear but with the "right" paperwork included and sold at a much higher price.
** this is where the FAA regime is superior because they don't have this requirement. You can use any off the shelf oxygen kit in an N-reg, that meets the FAA specified o2 flow rate.
AIUI, the way this works is that non-required equipment has no approval requirements **
Any equipment whose carriage (or use) is mandated, has to be CAA/EASA type approved - unless it's one of the exemptions in schedule 4:
(a) the equipment referred to in Scale A (2); [Maps, charts, codes and other documents and navigational equipment ]
(b) first aid equipment and handbook, referred to in Scale A;
(c) time-pieces, referred to in Scale F;
(d) torches, referred to in Scales G, H, K and Z;
(e) whistles, referred to in Scale H;
(f) sea anchors, referred to in Scales J and K;
(g) rocket signals, referred to in Scale J;
(h) equipment for mooring, anchoring or manoeuvring aircraft on the water, referred to in Scale J;
(i) paddles, referred to in Scale K;
(j) food and water, referred to in Scales K, U and V;
(k) first aid equipment, referred to in Scales K, U and V;
(l) stoves, cooking utensils, snow shovels, ice saws, sleeping bags and arctic suits, referred to in Scale V;
(m) megaphones, referred to in Scale Y.
If I have this right, and it's the full picture, then this has been widely misrepresented by e.g. certain GPS manufacturers who have claimed that CAA approval is mandatory.
What the CAA has done, on say the oxygen front, is they published a proposal (still on their website here) which few people would have objected to. OK, it takes the FAA limits and in normal Euro-superior practice it gold plates them despite a total lack of evidence for doing so, but I doubt many people knew that the moment anything becomes required equipment it becomes subject to type approval - unless it is in the above exemption list.
People would have objected much more strongly if they had realised that the proposal will create a nice ripoff gravy train for suppliers of off the shelf gear but with the "right" paperwork included and sold at a much higher price.
** this is where the FAA regime is superior because they don't have this requirement. You can use any off the shelf oxygen kit in an N-reg, that meets the FAA specified o2 flow rate.
Islander2 - The ANO amendment appears to ban DIY instrument approaches.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bit of a shocker this ELT business. I am with the masses who regard a handheld device as sufficient. To have a built in one, it requires (in my mind) the following to be worthwhile: Automatic deployment and activation on immersion in water (it needs to be floating upright on the surface to work), automatic activation in the event of a crash (for CFIT if you are lucky enough to survive the impact but otherwise incapacitated). That means a really sophisticated and heavy bit of kit which is pretty much inappropriate for private type flying.
A Macmurdo Fast Find Plus seems on paper ideal. Relatively quick response time and gives an accurate position so must give as good a chance of being found quickly as is available. BUT, DOES IT FLOAT? (a genuine question, because it doesn't make it clear in the literature I have read for it). If it doesn't, you are going to get a sore arm holding it up to the sky and if you drop it in the oggin......
So now ELTs are mandatory, when are they going to mandate lifejackets and survival suits so that when the helicopter arrives at the ELT it is looking for survivors instead of bodies? Or indeed ejector seats to ensure you are going to get out in the first place. There I go giving them more ideas.
A Macmurdo Fast Find Plus seems on paper ideal. Relatively quick response time and gives an accurate position so must give as good a chance of being found quickly as is available. BUT, DOES IT FLOAT? (a genuine question, because it doesn't make it clear in the literature I have read for it). If it doesn't, you are going to get a sore arm holding it up to the sky and if you drop it in the oggin......
So now ELTs are mandatory, when are they going to mandate lifejackets and survival suits so that when the helicopter arrives at the ELT it is looking for survivors instead of bodies? Or indeed ejector seats to ensure you are going to get out in the first place. There I go giving them more ideas.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are the views, with references if necessary, on the usability of handheld ELTs for compliance with this particular requirement?
The FAA (for N-reg) mandates a fixed ELT which is activated either by the pilot or by a forward deceleration of something like 3G. They don't yet mandate 406MHz however.
The FAA (for N-reg) mandates a fixed ELT which is activated either by the pilot or by a forward deceleration of something like 3G. They don't yet mandate 406MHz however.
Tabs please !
A built-in ELT will assist in finding the wreckage at the bottom of the Irish Sea whereas a handheld EPRB / ELT will help find the shark that ate you.
IMHO, 5 point harnesses with a central buckle will make the ditching more survivable. A central buckle will be more easily reached by the arm that wasn't broken in the crash. How you get past your dead pals as you scramble from the rear seat of a PA-28 towards the single door is another question. What next, mandatory axes, explosive panels in the roof or as Droopystop has already mentioned, Martin-Baker armchairs ?
IMHO, 5 point harnesses with a central buckle will make the ditching more survivable. A central buckle will be more easily reached by the arm that wasn't broken in the crash. How you get past your dead pals as you scramble from the rear seat of a PA-28 towards the single door is another question. What next, mandatory axes, explosive panels in the roof or as Droopystop has already mentioned, Martin-Baker armchairs ?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A built-in ELT will assist in finding the wreckage at the bottom of the Irish Sea
It won't; it's a radio transmitter only. There is no emission that will work underwater. Flight data recorders etc have acoustic emissions so the submersed wreckage can be located.
It won't; it's a radio transmitter only. There is no emission that will work underwater. Flight data recorders etc have acoustic emissions so the submersed wreckage can be located.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Daventry UK
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
McMurdo Fastfind
In December, I thought it was ideal as well.
Doubts set in as soon as I opened the supplied instruction booklet ('manual' would be too strong a word) which says "Although the PLB is buoyant when fitted with the -20 C battery pack, it is not designed for use while floating in water". It does have a photo of the thing free floating with the antenna extended, but unfortunately this illustration is labelled 'AVOID'. It further states that the Fastfind "is not designed for operation in water".
There seems to be a design problem with water becoming pooled around the antenna base. According to the booklet, the preferred position is clipped to your lifejacket and clear of the water. However there is no way to do this with the supplied equipment. Apparently an optional carrying pouch with belt clip is available.
Even if you did contrive to wear it as illustrated in the booklet, the device is quite bulky and heavy and must represent a potentially injurious object during a crash if placed next to your face as illustrated by McMurdo. You also have to wonder if it would survive the crash after being smashed against the instrument panel.
As supplied with a coily lanyard, you can almost guarantee that it will vanish and become trapped beyond reach in a crash, the Lanyard becoming yet another obstacle to escaping the aircraft. And the sheer bulk of the device would be an incumbrance if you did manage to hold onto it. Some people think of stowing it for retrieval after crashing and they may have more experience of these situations than me.
I am convinced that if you are not securely wearing it, it's unlikely you will have the use of it after ditching. (I have a wearable, water activated 121.5 beacon with a secure neckstrap antenna that would probably escape the aircraft with me and might help a helicopter locate my position based on the information that I would have given ATC prior to ditching.)
Like others, I am now considering which boat owning relatives would benefit from the gift of a Fastfind. As far as the aircraft is concerned, there seems no be no avoiding the prodigious expense of a fixed ELT since I don't want no invest in another bulky and impractical PLB. (That fixed ELT would be a replacement for the serviceable though not 406Mhz ELT previously removed from the aircraft at the CAA's whim).
A Macmurdo Fast Find Plus seems on paper ideal. Relatively quick response time and gives an accurate position so must give as good a chance of being found quickly as is available. BUT, DOES IT FLOAT?
Doubts set in as soon as I opened the supplied instruction booklet ('manual' would be too strong a word) which says "Although the PLB is buoyant when fitted with the -20 C battery pack, it is not designed for use while floating in water". It does have a photo of the thing free floating with the antenna extended, but unfortunately this illustration is labelled 'AVOID'. It further states that the Fastfind "is not designed for operation in water".
There seems to be a design problem with water becoming pooled around the antenna base. According to the booklet, the preferred position is clipped to your lifejacket and clear of the water. However there is no way to do this with the supplied equipment. Apparently an optional carrying pouch with belt clip is available.
Even if you did contrive to wear it as illustrated in the booklet, the device is quite bulky and heavy and must represent a potentially injurious object during a crash if placed next to your face as illustrated by McMurdo. You also have to wonder if it would survive the crash after being smashed against the instrument panel.
As supplied with a coily lanyard, you can almost guarantee that it will vanish and become trapped beyond reach in a crash, the Lanyard becoming yet another obstacle to escaping the aircraft. And the sheer bulk of the device would be an incumbrance if you did manage to hold onto it. Some people think of stowing it for retrieval after crashing and they may have more experience of these situations than me.
I am convinced that if you are not securely wearing it, it's unlikely you will have the use of it after ditching. (I have a wearable, water activated 121.5 beacon with a secure neckstrap antenna that would probably escape the aircraft with me and might help a helicopter locate my position based on the information that I would have given ATC prior to ditching.)
Like others, I am now considering which boat owning relatives would benefit from the gift of a Fastfind. As far as the aircraft is concerned, there seems no be no avoiding the prodigious expense of a fixed ELT since I don't want no invest in another bulky and impractical PLB. (That fixed ELT would be a replacement for the serviceable though not 406Mhz ELT previously removed from the aircraft at the CAA's whim).
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Like others, I am now considering which boat owning relatives would benefit from the gift of a Fastfind............"
This is what I fail to undersatnd. The FastFind and equivalents seem to be a popular choice for yotties and they spend 100% of their time on the oggin.
So why should our usage be different. What is fundamentally different about us aviators that we have to carry "prodigiously expensive fixed ELTs" for the rare occasions when we have to ditch.
This is what I fail to undersatnd. The FastFind and equivalents seem to be a popular choice for yotties and they spend 100% of their time on the oggin.
So why should our usage be different. What is fundamentally different about us aviators that we have to carry "prodigiously expensive fixed ELTs" for the rare occasions when we have to ditch.