ELT Now a legal requirment
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Daventry UK
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So why should our usage be different.
Maybe the best way of using a Fastfind is to install it inside the liferaft. A rather 'eggs in one basket' solution!
Having a beacon in a life raft is a good second option if you have the money for more than a couple of beacons. What if your raft goes down with the aircraft?
Decent aircrew jackets have pockets for the beacons built in.
In other words if you get out so does the beacon.
Decent aircrew jackets have pockets for the beacons built in.
In other words if you get out so does the beacon.
Last edited by ericferret; 15th Apr 2007 at 11:52. Reason: addition
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought .....
Could the McMurdo Fastfind PLB Plus be CAA 'approved' by association?
At the last CAA Safety Evening thingy I attended (in the dark recesses of last winter) - They the CAA Safety whallahs, provided for a presentation from a McMurdo representative, during which, said McMurdo rep. extolled the virtues of said apparatus with lots of nodding of head from the CAA safety bloke. Could a simple soul such as I, take that as a type of seal of approval.
I've got an old ELT in my aeroplane but I still bought a McMurdo Fastfind Plus PLB (£340 - by shopping around) as I wanted something with me when I ditched into the oggin and the ELT sank with my pride and joy.
I drive big ships for a living and they all have EPIRB units which hydrostatically detach and float to the surface when ones boat departs from beneath ones welly boots to meet Davy Jones. My Aero ELT doesn't similarily detach and float, leaving me to go all puce and rather cross with Lycoming as hypothermia sets in and I slowly become crab fodder.
Nope! Give me a personal locator beacon that will at least give me a chance.
By the way- IIRC, Austria too, demands ELT for its territory.
Could the McMurdo Fastfind PLB Plus be CAA 'approved' by association?
At the last CAA Safety Evening thingy I attended (in the dark recesses of last winter) - They the CAA Safety whallahs, provided for a presentation from a McMurdo representative, during which, said McMurdo rep. extolled the virtues of said apparatus with lots of nodding of head from the CAA safety bloke. Could a simple soul such as I, take that as a type of seal of approval.
I've got an old ELT in my aeroplane but I still bought a McMurdo Fastfind Plus PLB (£340 - by shopping around) as I wanted something with me when I ditched into the oggin and the ELT sank with my pride and joy.
I drive big ships for a living and they all have EPIRB units which hydrostatically detach and float to the surface when ones boat departs from beneath ones welly boots to meet Davy Jones. My Aero ELT doesn't similarily detach and float, leaving me to go all puce and rather cross with Lycoming as hypothermia sets in and I slowly become crab fodder.
Nope! Give me a personal locator beacon that will at least give me a chance.
By the way- IIRC, Austria too, demands ELT for its territory.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same for us.
We went to a CAA Evening and we had a similar presentation. The McMurdo dealer took a h*ll of a lot of orders as a result. And yes, the CAA bloke was nodding wisely throughout.
Unfortunately, the lads in the Paper Generation Plant at the Belgrano don't do much flying and probably don't know what an aircraft looks like (well the one I spoke to didn't). They just enforce the ANO as it is stated.
But wouldn't it be nice to put that in front of a court if someone with a McMurdo were prosecuted.
We went to a CAA Evening and we had a similar presentation. The McMurdo dealer took a h*ll of a lot of orders as a result. And yes, the CAA bloke was nodding wisely throughout.
Unfortunately, the lads in the Paper Generation Plant at the Belgrano don't do much flying and probably don't know what an aircraft looks like (well the one I spoke to didn't). They just enforce the ANO as it is stated.
But wouldn't it be nice to put that in front of a court if someone with a McMurdo were prosecuted.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A CAA prosecution is highly unlikely, and if it was attempted it would likely fail, for the reasons given above (the CAA rep nodding through the presentation, etc). The CAA wouldn't even try it in the first place, IMHO.
The CAA read these forums daily and no doubt find all this highly amusing. They might just possibly be wondering how the hell did they create this mess.
A prosecution is also unlikely because the stuff is required only when flying too far from land or, in the case of oxygen, above 10k feet. The evidence for the former would probably have to be a radar track and they aren't kept for ever. The evidence for the latter likewise if VFR and with a Mode C transponder but again radar tapes are not kept for ever. On an IFR flight plan filed for FL150 it might be a problem...
IMHO the real issue here is airworthiness of the aircraft. If you have mandatory but non-approved kit then the CofA is invalid. Again, a CAA action on this is unlikely (reasons as above) but the insurance would quite likely be void. Insurance does cover pilot negligence (contrary to what most people on pilot forums say) but it doesn't cover flying with a void CofA. What I don't know is how this is affected by the fact that the violation occurs only if over water or above 10k ft. In effect, you have a valid CofA but it ceases to be valid over water or above 10k ft.
In the FAA case (which the ANO doesn't apply to) I am sure that with say no oxygen on board the CofA remains valid but not using o2 as prescribed is a violation on the pilot. Not having an ELT is a CofA violation however, because on an N-reg it has to be carried continuously.
The CAA read these forums daily and no doubt find all this highly amusing. They might just possibly be wondering how the hell did they create this mess.
A prosecution is also unlikely because the stuff is required only when flying too far from land or, in the case of oxygen, above 10k feet. The evidence for the former would probably have to be a radar track and they aren't kept for ever. The evidence for the latter likewise if VFR and with a Mode C transponder but again radar tapes are not kept for ever. On an IFR flight plan filed for FL150 it might be a problem...
IMHO the real issue here is airworthiness of the aircraft. If you have mandatory but non-approved kit then the CofA is invalid. Again, a CAA action on this is unlikely (reasons as above) but the insurance would quite likely be void. Insurance does cover pilot negligence (contrary to what most people on pilot forums say) but it doesn't cover flying with a void CofA. What I don't know is how this is affected by the fact that the violation occurs only if over water or above 10k ft. In effect, you have a valid CofA but it ceases to be valid over water or above 10k ft.
In the FAA case (which the ANO doesn't apply to) I am sure that with say no oxygen on board the CofA remains valid but not using o2 as prescribed is a violation on the pilot. Not having an ELT is a CofA violation however, because on an N-reg it has to be carried continuously.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: strete
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actions vs Words & Nodding
I don't think an alleged nodding man means much. He could have been suffering from Tourettes or Parkinsons - or maybe just struggling to stay awake.
The "CAA Regulatory Review of GA in the UK" dated June 2006 (see http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1/reg%20review.pdf) proposed 19 recommendations which, if implemented, were supposed to "improve the regulatory environment". Preventing most of the UK GA fleet from travelling legally more than 15-20 miles off the coast was not among them - but they've done it.
The "CAA Regulatory Review of GA in the UK" dated June 2006 (see http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1/reg%20review.pdf) proposed 19 recommendations which, if implemented, were supposed to "improve the regulatory environment". Preventing most of the UK GA fleet from travelling legally more than 15-20 miles off the coast was not among them - but they've done it.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.artex.net/products/onepro...3&productid=40
Portable unit with the right bit of paper.
Rod1
Portable unit with the right bit of paper.
Rod1
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Daventry UK
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This situation is much more serious in the case of flights to Ireland. Even the 'short crossing' from Stranraer (itself a colossal diversion for most people) is frequently blocked by danger area activity.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that maybe a letter (or several letters) to EASA outlining in a vey objective manner the practicalities and benefits of using hand-held PLBs within the aircraft as opposed to fixed installations may be in order, together with a request for an EASA approval to carry said PLB in aircraft.
This may then have the effect of obtaining an EASA approval that will overrule any CAA 'non-approval'.
Any views?
This may then have the effect of obtaining an EASA approval that will overrule any CAA 'non-approval'.
Any views?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: An island somewhere
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2close
You and one or two others are missing the point. The new legislation does NOT require the ELT to be a fixed installation. A hand-held 'Survival ELT' per ICAO definition IS explicitly stated in the ANO (as amended) to be an acceptable means of compliance.
The real problem is that many of us already have COSPAS-SARSAT 406MHz hand-held beacons (a significant proportion of which have been purchased in view of the impending legislation with the tacit approval of the CAA), and now find that despite them being amongst the most popular PLBs in use (McMurdo, ACR, etc) they are an unacceptable means of compliance ... not because they don't meet the ICAO specifications, merely because they don't have either CAA or EASA approval!
And exactly the same situation exists with lifejackets, now they are mandated - few, if any, of the popular GA lifejackets are CAA or EASA approved.
And exactly the same situation exists with portable oxygen systems, now oxygen is mandated - few, if any, of the popular GA portable O2 systems are CAA or EASA approved.
Overnight, a large number of conscientious pilots have been put into a position where either they curtail their flying activities or they fly illegally. Transitional arrangements could have been provided, but haven't.
And that is p*ss poor regulation!!
You and one or two others are missing the point. The new legislation does NOT require the ELT to be a fixed installation. A hand-held 'Survival ELT' per ICAO definition IS explicitly stated in the ANO (as amended) to be an acceptable means of compliance.
The real problem is that many of us already have COSPAS-SARSAT 406MHz hand-held beacons (a significant proportion of which have been purchased in view of the impending legislation with the tacit approval of the CAA), and now find that despite them being amongst the most popular PLBs in use (McMurdo, ACR, etc) they are an unacceptable means of compliance ... not because they don't meet the ICAO specifications, merely because they don't have either CAA or EASA approval!
And exactly the same situation exists with lifejackets, now they are mandated - few, if any, of the popular GA lifejackets are CAA or EASA approved.
And exactly the same situation exists with portable oxygen systems, now oxygen is mandated - few, if any, of the popular GA portable O2 systems are CAA or EASA approved.
Overnight, a large number of conscientious pilots have been put into a position where either they curtail their flying activities or they fly illegally. Transitional arrangements could have been provided, but haven't.
And that is p*ss poor regulation!!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've written to McMurdo to ask whether or not they are seeking CAA/EASA approval for the product, given that on their website they have a section devoted to aviation use of the equipment.
I wonder what the cost would be for this?
It is the classic example of the CAA's approach for kit. ie they will mandate the requirement and leave it to the market to deliver the product to the specification.
They forget that there is a lead time so, for a period, we are either flying illegally or not flying at all while the market get themselves organised. We also have to junk perfectly serviceable equipment and pay over the odds for replacements.
This is turning into a trial run for the Mode S implementation.......
I wonder what the cost would be for this?
It is the classic example of the CAA's approach for kit. ie they will mandate the requirement and leave it to the market to deliver the product to the specification.
They forget that there is a lead time so, for a period, we are either flying illegally or not flying at all while the market get themselves organised. We also have to junk perfectly serviceable equipment and pay over the odds for replacements.
This is turning into a trial run for the Mode S implementation.......
Last edited by robin; 15th Apr 2007 at 22:11. Reason: Minor change
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A hand-held 'Survival ELT' per ICAO definition IS explicitly stated in the ANO (as amended) to be an acceptable means of compliance
I realise that a handheld unit isn't banned as such and is thus permitted but where is the ICAO bit? All I see is CAA/EASA type approval which is nothing to do with ICAO.
This is a totally stupid regulation especially w.r.t oxygen systems.
I am on N-reg so it doesn't affect me but if I was on G-reg I would be seriously cheesed off about getting shafted in this way.
I realise that a handheld unit isn't banned as such and is thus permitted but where is the ICAO bit? All I see is CAA/EASA type approval which is nothing to do with ICAO.
This is a totally stupid regulation especially w.r.t oxygen systems.
I am on N-reg so it doesn't affect me but if I was on G-reg I would be seriously cheesed off about getting shafted in this way.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: An island somewhere
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I realise that a handheld unit isn't banned as such and is thus permitted but where is the ICAO bit? All I see is CAA/EASA type approval which is nothing to do with ICAO.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: An island somewhere
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can someone please provide a reference to the ANO change requiring the carriage of APPROVED life vests?
Article 19 of the ANO requires all ANO-mandated equipment to be CAA or EASA approved, unless exempted by paragraph 4 of Schedule 4. No such exemption is listed for lifejackets!!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Islander2
It appears I have made an invalid assumption. I had assumed that the 10 min flying time at cruse power applied to the life jacket requirement as well as the ELT issue. You have just mentioned “within gliding distance” which is a completely different can of worms. Is there a list of approved life jackets? Can we throw the guy who came up with this crap into the north sea to “test the system”.
My aircraft is out of gliding range for about 90 sec on the short crossing…
What is the penalty for using a non approved vest? I assume almost all the pilots who have visited France this year will have broken this rule, and if the penalty is a letter asking politely for me not to do it again…
Rod1
It appears I have made an invalid assumption. I had assumed that the 10 min flying time at cruse power applied to the life jacket requirement as well as the ELT issue. You have just mentioned “within gliding distance” which is a completely different can of worms. Is there a list of approved life jackets? Can we throw the guy who came up with this crap into the north sea to “test the system”.
My aircraft is out of gliding range for about 90 sec on the short crossing…
What is the penalty for using a non approved vest? I assume almost all the pilots who have visited France this year will have broken this rule, and if the penalty is a letter asking politely for me not to do it again…
Rod1
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Weston-super-Mare & Jersey CI
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dunno if this document is relevant
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CASPEC05.PDF
I use ex-MOD Mk25 life preservers (if they are good enough for the MOD.....) which are serviced by SEMS annually. I also have an (oldish) Satfind 406MHz PLB (registered with MCA).
Re. 406MHz PLB's - don't ever be tempted to buy one cheap from the USA (or anywhere abroad) as MCA will ONLY register PLB's that have been programmed with a UK designator...
This is an 'interesting' problem, particularly flying in the Channel Islands where you rarely get an inter-island transit above 1000' - not much chance to glide in midway there....
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CASPEC05.PDF
I use ex-MOD Mk25 life preservers (if they are good enough for the MOD.....) which are serviced by SEMS annually. I also have an (oldish) Satfind 406MHz PLB (registered with MCA).
Re. 406MHz PLB's - don't ever be tempted to buy one cheap from the USA (or anywhere abroad) as MCA will ONLY register PLB's that have been programmed with a UK designator...
This is an 'interesting' problem, particularly flying in the Channel Islands where you rarely get an inter-island transit above 1000' - not much chance to glide in midway there....
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Daventry UK
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
London Mil
That's right. It's a long way to route up there in the hope of a crossing, which if declined means turning back or a lot more than 10mins of sea to skirt around. Do you know if crossings can be pre-arranged?
David, you mean that 402A and 403