This isn't the first time this subject has been discussed on BCP. I bought my first GPS-PLB after Berk went down and his wife wasn't rescued until 3 days later. Everyone who flies with me from that day forward knows where it is and how to use it. That was 2007.

The poll now about how many of us fly with a ship-installed 406 ELT is interesting. I suspect that most of the "no" guys carry a GPS-enabled PLB or a SPOT or something equivalent.

In light of what happened, is it unreasonable for the G to require pilots carrying passengers to have either a current GPS PLB or tracking device, or an installed 406 ELT, and to brief passengers on location and use of the equipment? Yes, it's more regulation, but the portable devices offer huge benefits compared to their costs. Anyone know how much the air bag systems add to the cost of a new car? IMHO the portable beacon/tracker is on that level of disruptive technological improvement in safety.

CAVU

Zzz wrote:

A1Skinner wrote:The regs say a flight plan or itinerary is required. I very rarely fike plans, just inform my wife or someone where im headed.

I recall from a discussion a while back that the definition of what constitutes the "required" VFR flight plan in Canada is pretty loose. Take this with a grain of salt, because my memory is fading, but I read that the simple fact of telling your wife or friend where you're going and when you plan to arrive suffices for a flight plan. It doesn't have to be filed with any official. If I'm wrong, Canucks, let me know so I'm not spreading bad info.

Your bang on Zzz. Thats the itinerary part. Just tell so.eone you deem responsible where you are going. It is very loose.

Hey blown fitting name...the lawyers response is due to tje fact they can gain access to sensitive information that is difficult for family...the lawyers are needed so that CAP will ne held accountable for mistakes so that change can be achieved...i am not suing anyone...im sorry about your daughter i know your pain
.its different one man doing something than an entire system breaking down...if you noticed in the beginning i was all about flight plans but based on the opinons the dialogue has switched to beacons and plbs...again i have put down my defenses here so i can listen and truly hear..maybe u should do the same..listen read and dont read into things...again i am truly sorry for ur child if i can help in any way let me know..i would be happy to

Blown56.
I apologize. Sincerely. I am now the insensitive prick. Guess I misunderstood your post. I reread it and can't say I really understand it but my words where uncalled for. You would have more right than I to speak you mind. Again I'm sorry.

CAVU wrote:In light of what happened, is it unreasonable for the G to require pilots carrying passengers to have either a current GPS PLB or tracking device, or an installed 406 ELT, and to brief passengers on location and use of the equipment?

Part 91.519 already sort of addresses that second part in the pax briefing. I'm not sure how I feel about equipment mandates. Educational campaigns on crash survival and being found should be pushed heavily.

I like the Canadian system I would rather have my mom dad wife or girlfriend looking for me than an outfit like cap. Someone who cares about you personally isn't likely to give up or decide its late ill see if they turn up in the morning.
We didn't have much luck with the early spot up north the global star sat network was to sketchy I think, I'd like to see some real testing of the gps elt in the far north. I think they are the answer if they can get a signal out.

OK, dumb comment on my part, so I've deleated. Blown and I have kissed and made up- my apology issued.

Mark,

You already know the impact that this accident had on me through PM. August 28th or there about we will be welcoming Allison Shyann into our family in remembrance of you brave daughter on that mountain side all alone.

A new line of thinking for you. you have heard time and time again that the flight plan route wont do much good, but we all feel strongly that a 406 PLB or ELT would do the most good. How about starting a campaign that would do ALL GA pilots some good. The amount of $$ wasted by the government on tracking down false beacons, or searching in the wrong areas is staggering. Why then would not the government give us some help in getting the newer 406 ELTs put into each and every general aviation aircraft that is flying. The amount saved on a few "normal" search and rescue missions would pay for them to subsidize us and GIVE the GA pilots a 406 ELT to have installed in the planes, or atleast have a 50% subsidy or something of that nature. With all the crap the Gov. gives out on a daily basis, I would think this one would actually be useful and turn into a HUGE cost savings for them. This would be a win win.. You get to campaign for something that is actually useful and would probably go the farthest in keeping this from happening in the future, Pilots don't have to fork out the money they were planning on spending on that fly out vacation / camping trip for a new federally mandated ELT that ALOT of pilots really cant afford, and in the end, the government would save money from spending countless days having multiple C130s and various other assets flying a 150,000 square mile search pattern.

Zzz wrote:

CAVU wrote:In light of what happened, is it unreasonable for the G to require pilots carrying passengers to have either a current GPS PLB or tracking device, or an installed 406 ELT, and to brief passengers on location and use of the equipment?

Part 91.519 already sort of addresses that second part in the pax briefing. I'm not sure how I feel about equipment mandates. Educational campaigns on crash survival and being found should be pushed heavily.

It's not even a requirement to have a radio. Tough to require a tracking device.

I think there's a fundamental disconnect happening here. Shysdad, your daughter was not killed by aviation. She survived the flight and even the crash. So the way I see it, no change to aviation would have saved her.

On the other hand, the SAR component failed and your daughter perished because of THAT. Focus on the fix there and leave aviation, mandates, safety, regulations, and more rquirements of pilots and planes out of it.

Accidents happen. Shit happens. As you and Blown have shown (and many others here know)... sometimes they happen to US. It's part of the equation. It's called life... and death is always a part of it.

You are already succeeding.

ShysDad wrote:If I bang my head long enough, two things will happen. One is that I will get on heckuva headache, and two is eventually I will get through the wall. When I am done there will be changes, I do not know yet what they will be but there will be some. Everyone who knew my daughter said she was stubborn and hard headed, a force to be reckoned with, and that is true by the way haha. It is important to note that I taught her those traits. I promised her I would never stop fighting for her and I will never stop. I do appreciate everyone here for their help though.

soyAnarchisto wrote:You are already succeeding.

+1

I can. The government provides crap equipment. I bet the pilots are even barred by regs from carrying their own personal gear.

55wagon wrote:Could not believe they would not of had plb's!!!! The one thing that could of led them straight there.

S-12Flyer wrote:It's not even a requirement to have a radio. Tough to require a tracking device.

I'm not a fan of equipment mandates, either (see rants against ADS-B), but this one has got me thinking. If I had a Pietenpol Air Camper that never saw pavement, I wouldn't want an electrical system and might not want to carry a portable comm. Just to live the antique experience. But if I take someone for a ride and I'm seriously injured or die in a crash out in the boonies, I'd sure want them to have a PLB. More to the point, I'm not sure I have the right to choose for them whether they should have a PLB or not, and many passengers aren't really competent to evaluate the risks of doing without.

CAVU

robertc wrote:As far as T182T and Blown56 are concerned, they should be invited to Johnson Creek for some dinner bell ringing activities.

Really? Not cool. This is an emotional topic, and everyone should make a greater effort than normal to tread lightly and post with empathy and professionalism.

ShysDad has done a good job of that despite receiving some crisp education in this thread. Don't ruin the discussion with petty insults, name calling, or threats. That goes for all.

ShysDad wrote:Really mike..have i once placed blame?...no i havnt..i have even said i dont want more rules...i have been asking questions to see how i could make thing safer. Its easy ro be an azz behind a keyboard..you wouldnt happen to be CAP would you? I am asking questions on how to make location of crash victims easier...i have not placed blame i jave asked for advice...dont attack me i have not attacked you or anyone
..if u wanna attack me then pm me your address we can meet and swap ideas buddy. I am even exploring the idea of pilots lessons? Does that sound like someone with a vendetta?...no it doesnt there is that ego we were talking about

Not CAP, and that part of the story really irks me too. The idea of preventing people from looking because they didn't have permission or authority just gets to me. I am sure you are a nice guy and such and this is a good subject for discussion. But, the comments about behind the scenes stuff with legislation, teams of lawyers, etc... sounds like you are looking for someone to blame. If I were in your shoes, I certainly would be angry too. But, at regulations, TFRs or such that prevented others from looking. I do really feel for you. But, I am also tired of being PC and silent while sad events are used as a springboard to create more regulations and control over people's freedom. Do what you want. I hope you can find peace. I'll say no more...

CAVU wrote:

S-12Flyer wrote:It's not even a requirement to have a radio. Tough to require a tracking device.

I'm not a fan of equipment mandates, either (see rants against ADS-B), but this one has got me thinking. If I had a Pietenpol Air Camper that never saw pavement, I wouldn't want an electrical system and might not want to carry a portable comm. Just to live the antique experience. But if I take someone for a ride and I'm seriously injured or die in a crash out in the boonies, I'd sure want them to have a PLB. More to the point, I'm not sure I have the right to choose for them whether they should have a PLB or not, and many passengers aren't really competent to evaluate the risks of doing without.

CAVU

Please don't get me wrong. I am not advocating that we should not have the equipment. Just saying that it would be difficult to justify requiring a tracking beacon before radios. I have always had a radio and a gps, even in my ultralights. If you are carring passengers I feel you are morally bound to have safety equipment. In my opinion, education, training, and personal responsibility are far more important than government intervention.

To all pilots and pilots to be i apologize for any hurt I have inflicted. Aviation and the freedom I enjoy and my family are most precious to me.
Regards Jess Hennis

Spinner wrote:I think there's a fundamental disconnect happening here. Shysdad, your daughter was not killed by aviation. She survived the flight and even the crash. So the way I see it, no change to aviation would have saved her.

I dont fully agree.

The emergency locator beacons are saving a lot of lives these days. There were 7 activated here in 1 week during hunting season (not on aircraft), but the point is every one was rescued within 24 hours, in most cases a chopper was there within a few hours. Granted many aircraft crash victims don't survive long enough to enjoy the benefits/cost of a beacon, but they do help survivors.

Here, the law requires every aircraft carrying passengers (certified or not) to be equipped with an emergency locator beacon, installed permenantly with an external antenna operating on 121.5 and 406MHz, minimum. Microlights need not have a permenant installation, but if they carry a passenger by law they must also carry a handheld 406MHz beacon. So we take it for granted in some respects. If I were to survive a crash, I'd be pretty upset to be caught in a wrecked plane without a beacon. That is a concern of the pilot and aviation regulations. Beacons are not prohibitively expensive to buy, and especially not relative to the tax dollars spent on SAR when a plane goes missing. So there are probably wider sociatal benefits too, not to mention the reputation of aviation.


One after-thought, in the past decades many aircraft have gone missing which were not discovered for many years or in some cases never to be found at all – including a friend of mine. I am sure these situations are even more prevalent in the USA given its size. I think not ever knowing what happened is the hardest result for friends and family, and while no equipment is 100% reliable, I think those instances would be much less frequent if those aircraft had carried modern ELTs.

S-12Flyer wrote:Please don't get me wrong. I am not advocating that we should not have the equipment. Just saying that it would be difficult to justify requiring a tracking beacon before radios. I have always had a radio and a gps, even in my ultralights. If you are carring passengers I feel you are morally bound to have safety equipment. In my opinion, education, training, and personal responsibility are far more important than government intervention.

I understand what you're saying, and I think we agree for the most part. I think it's logically consistent to require a PLB but not a radio, since the PLB's sole function is lifesaving, while the radio does that in some ways and also has a bunch of other uses and rules about it. There are already regulations requiring seat belts and survival equipment. You can fly a NORDO cub up to Alaska, but you still have to take the survival stuff.

I'm troubled by the victims of guys who won't respond to education or training, and who don't feel morally bound to take precautions for their passengers. But there's a lot more than could be done with education and training. If the FAA put half the juice into education about carrying PLBs that they put into decreasing runway incursions, I'll bet there'd be more PLBs flying. I like akavidflier's suggestion the best: use SAR money to equip aircraft.

CAVU