mtv wrote:The new 406 beacons also incorporate a pinger, operating on 121.5, so they can still be tracked aurally. This is not true of the PLBs, though.
...
SO, I doubt you'll see any "bridge" process.
MTV

I'm not sure what you you are trying to differentiate between when you compare 406 beacons to PLBs. Regardless, I believe you are mistaken about PLBs not operating on 121.5. The PLBs that I sell operate on both 406 MHz and 121.5 MHz.

I may have misunderstood him but I thought the "bridge" that mauleace was referring to was his owning a SPOT. His SPOT gives him some safety between the time when the 121.5 MHz ELT becomes essentially worthless and the time that he decides to purchase a 406 MHz ELT. Other pilots may buy a PLB to fulfill the same bridge purpose. I did not think he was trying to say the FAA needed to implement any "bridge process."

Sorry, should have said that not all Personal Locator Beacons incorporate a 121.5 transmitter.

I assumed that mauleace was suggesting that the regulators should develop a bridge process.

I agree that a wise pilot should consider doing this on their own. That said, without an impact activated ELT, whatever you use will have to be activated manually by YOU. If you are badly injured, or unconcious, that may not happen.

I still think the multi band ELT is really necessary, and hopefully the prices will come down soon, but I wouldn't count on it.

MTV

mtv wrote:I still think the multi band ELT is really necessary, and hopefully the prices will come down soon, but I wouldn't count on it.

MTV

Just as soon as I buy mine, the price will drop through the floor. Always happens that way.

Federally mandated requirement will probably equate to demand which will equate to,,, haha GA users we got you by the short hairs now...

......and if it has been mandated by Congress or some other agency, somebody's brother-in-law stands to make a profit because they came up with the idea that everyone needs this new fangled contraption to save us all from ouselves.
Progress is one thing....the price of fun (flying) just keeps going up!
If I crash I hope that I have the "RIGHT" piece of equipment (intrument of the month) installed in my aircraft so anybody who might be looking for me has the same receiver that I have the transmitter installed in my aircraft.
No problem with new and better equipment but don't do away with the old standard...it has worked for a long time...or maybe the FCC wants to sell 121.5 to some private party to use for cell phones or remote control dune buggies.
Will the manufacturers give you a trade in on a new model if you have the old 121.5?..........not! My ELT has both frequencies but how long is that good for?
The next thing we need is an ELT that you have to update the sofware every month (with a service charge) or it times out and does not transmit anything but AIS!
My 2 bits
HC

hicountry,

Actually, the original ELT requirement came from legislation passed by Congress after two Congressmen (Hale Boggs and Nick Begich) disappeared in a GA aircraft in Alaska, and were never located. Presumably, they crashed into the ocean, but that never slowed Congress down.....they decided that we just can't be losing Congress persons, soooo, pass a law.

The FAA tried to talk sense into them at the time, but it is Congress after all.

Now, the rescue folks have convinced Congress that 406 beacons are much better than 121.5, so they're going to remove the 121.5 reflectivity from the satellites after February 09.

The FAA could care less, cause ELT's have never been their initiative, nor have they been their problem. All they care about is that the one you install is tso'd and mounted legally.

MTV

Advertisement:
I can get several brands of PLBs and ELTs through my dealer accounts for skymountaingear.com. BCP members get a 10% discount by entering a discount code.

The website doesn't list a fraction of what I can get - tents, sleeping bags, aviation books and DVDs, avionics, PLBs, GPS, etc. - so please let me know if you're looking for something.

This whole thing is weird.

1. 121.5 satellite detection goes away Feb 2009

2. There is no FAA requirement that a 406 be installed.

3. The FAR's still require that you replace the 121.5 battery every 48 months.

The other shoe has to be a FAA requirement for a TSO'd 406 to be installed.

The requirement makes sense if the FAA's real concern is the safety of a downed pilot and passengers. As it stands right now is if you want to be found, buy a 406 ELB if not have fun but don't sue SAR.

TD

TomD wrote:This whole thing is weird.

1. 121.5 satellite detection goes away Feb 2009

2. There is no FAA requirement that a 406 be installed.

3. The FAR's still require that you replace the 121.5 battery every 48 months.

The other shoe has to be a FAA requirement for a TSO'd 406 to be installed.

The requirement makes sense if the FAA's real concern is the safety of a downed pilot and passengers. As it stands right now is if you want to be found, buy a 406 ELB if not have fun but don't sue SAR.

TD

People make the loss of the satellites listening for the ELT's as a big deal. It's trivial. At the tower we get ELT reports frequently. More than 95% of the reports come from other aircraft or ATC facilities that monitor 121.5. The satellite hits that do come in are so unreliable as to be useless for location anyways. If you really want to have a useful device get a 406 ELT and either a PLB or a SPOT. Every airliner monitors 121.5, it's one of the most used frequencies today as the various airliners fly out of ATC radio coverage and are always asking a nearby facility to contact Center to get them the right frequency. Or just as frequently Center calls me at the tower and asks me to broadcast on 121.5 for a certain aircraft. The vast majority of the time that aircraft answers me and I get him to where he's supposed to be.
The FAA requirement to install a 406 is coming but years off.

Actually, satellite triangulation of 121.5 beacons can be RELATIVELY precise, but it requires a series of hits by different satellites as they pass overhead. That equates to hours.

The advantage of a 406 beacon is that RCC immediately knows WHOSE beacon is transmitting. That permits them to relatively easily track down false signals and shut them off, and also, if the signal is coming from somewhere other than the vicinity of an airport, and RCC can't raise anyone on your registration list, they will initiate a SAR. This saves hours.

The first satellite hit from a 406 is somewhat more precise than that from a 121.5 beacon, but it's still a huge search area. Like the 121.5 beacons, as more satellites pass overhead and detect and triangulate the 406 signal, the location becomes more precise. Ideally, a relatively precise triangulation will have happened about the time SAR assets head out, putting them much closer to the subject.

In any case, once a SAR is initiated, the SAR folks will still use the 121.5 freq to pinpoint the beacon's location, just as has been done in past.

And, since this initiative (ELT's) wasn't the FAA's idea in the first place, and the FAA (via ATC and FSS) uses up a lot of time tracking down active beacons that were inadvertently activated, they probably would be really happy if the ELT requirement was completely removed.

Note that turbo jet aircraft are not required to be ELT equipped.....

MTV

mauleace wrote:If they make it mandatory over a reasonable period of time, the marketplace would probably bring the prices down.

If the fed gov't would make ALL ELTs (whether 121.5 or 406) OPTIONAL instead of MANDATORY, the marketplace would decide which one is better and the price would seek to its natural value. I might consider a personal locator beacon for some trips, but I don't want an ELT installed in my plane!

kevbert wrote:If the fed gov't would make ALL ELTs (whether 121.5 or 406) OPTIONAL instead of MANDATORY...

I second that make then Optional. Hey, maybe Sarah Palin can help us with that.

Is anyone familiar with the Emergency Beacon Corporation (EBC) 406 series ELTs? The EBC 406AP unit is specifically intended for cockpit mounting within reach of the pilot, requires no panel switch or wiring harness (other than the coax cable to the antenna).

It is available for under $1000, which is still outrageous, but comparatively low priced for a 406 frequency unit.

This is for an installation in a new experimental aircraft, and I'm thinking that as long as I have to buy a new ELT, I may as well get a 406, especially since I anticipate entering Canada sooner rather than later.

Mark

No financial interest:

Just for reference, the ACR "ResQfix" PLB costs $520 at Pudget Sound Inflatables
http://www.life-raft.com/product.asp?Pr ... =12052&l2=

(low prices and excellent service in the past). Shipping is at UPS or USPS rates.

bumper

I purchased a PLB from Prepared Pilot In july 07 when I flew out from Ma. to Idaho in august 07. The unit malfuntioned for whatever reason on the way ,and I contacted Prepared Pilot about the problem.When I arrived in McCall Idaho a new unit was waiting for me without any hassle or question. Great way to do business.

The ACK webpage indicates that they are coming out with a reasonably priced 406/121.5 ELT. The ELT with a complete installation kit shows a list price of $599.

http://www.ackavionics.com/

Still a lot, but much better than anything else I have found for an installed, automatic ELT

Mark

One of the things you want to look for in a 406 ELT is if it has a built in GPS to transmit a precise location along with the help me signal. I don't think all do. Yes the 406 signal can be triangulated over time, but it takes time and will not be as precise as the location from a GPS.
I could be wrong, but I don't think all 406 ELT's are created equal.

a64,

That feature will increase the price of a $1000 device by a factor of at least $2,000 right now.

There are NO relatively low cost (ie: $1000) aircraft ELT's that have that feature.

MTV

Bonanza Man wrote: Every airliner monitors 121.5, it's one of the most used frequencies today as the various airliners fly out of ATC radio coverage and are always asking a nearby facility to contact Center to get them the right frequency. Or just as frequently Center calls me at the tower and asks me to broadcast on 121.5 for a certain aircraft. The vast majority of the time that aircraft answers me and I get him to where he's supposed to be.

Before my son gave me a Spot, I broke down in the middle of the Owyhee Desert, a long ways from anywhere, and I found out the hard way that United States airliners are not required to monitor 121.5, only some foreign carriers. I can tell you that it will take a long time of transmitting to get ahold of an airliner overhead, and your battery can be almost dead before you do, even if you know the ATC freq for your area. I love the Spot, and it will be my savior, but I'm still gonna always carry a sleeping bag, food, tools, water and a survival kit. And to heck with the ELT...

Coyote Ugly wrote: I love the Spot, and it will be my savior, but I'm still gonna always carry a sleeping bag, food, tools, water and a survival kit. And to heck with the ELT...

What about CoCo??

Coyote Ugly wrote:

Bonanza Man wrote:I can tell you that it will take a long time of transmitting to get ahold of an airliner overhead, and your battery can be almost dead before you do, even if you know the ATC freq for your area . . . ELT...

Until I found the guy in the Black Rock desert recently, I'd never had the need to try and raise anyone on 121.5. When I did need it, it worked almost immediately . . . 1st transmission as I recall. The airline pilot that answered didn't sound foriegn and I'm assuming it was a US carrier, though I can't be sure.

I have no inside knowledge, but I suspect that since 911, more aircraft are monitoring 121.5. I know I do when I'm "out there", if only because it's usually a relatively quiet channel so it doesn't interfere with my XM music

bumper