A1Skinner wrote:

mtv wrote:

Karmutzen wrote:To use an example at hand, there’s a Caravan missing near Nome Alaska today that they are trying to find. Last seen 38 miles from destination airport at 5300’.

No ELT signal, but nobody in the bush would be depending on that these days. On the other hand they should have a remote switch the pilot can activate before ground impact.

Does ADS-B not work to ground level everywhere in Alaska? Canada is going Sat-based, thought Alaska was the same.

What about Spot/Inreach 2 minute tracking, doesn’t everybody use that? Or Skytrac, or SpiderTracks. All our helicopters I flew up north last summer had sat-tracking, and all my planes do as well. I used a Spot up in Tuk, worked fine.

Can iPhones do their sat-thing comms up there?

It doesn't sound like the ELT alerted on that Caravan. Often times, the reason 406 ELTs fail to activate is that the mounting fails, but I've also heard of the antenna cable being severed, or the antenna destroyed. Based on the photos of that Caravan, it may be the ELT alerted but was disconnected from antenna....pure speculation on my part. Terrible tragic accident, and that airplane hit hard.

The US FAA opted to use ground based transmitters (GBTs in their vernacular), which in my opinion was the stupidest thing they could have done. As a result, ADS-B coverage in Alaska is VERY poor, and it's not a lot better in the US West, where there are these things called mountains. It seems all the FAA wanted was coverage around busy airports. Their excuse for not going with a space based system? "Cost too much for all that satellite time". So, build a very substandard system which does nobody but perhaps the FAA much good.

I know some operators use one of the aviation tracking devices in their aircraft. Apparently, Bering Air wasn't. I'm a fan of these devices and use InReach in my own plane. Not that anyone bothers to track me. That said, you CAN put the passcode to your device on your master flight plan with Flight Service.....of course, fewer and fewer pilots are using Flight Service any more....including myself.

Most of Alaska has no Cell service either.

I get why you think ground based is substandard, but as a user of the satellite based system, I would argue it is substandard as well. There is no weather in available for space based systems, which ia a huge advantage of the ground based system. Pros/Cons to both systems.

The ADS/B weather data was "bait" to get pilots to install ADS/B out. And, it likely worked, even though it's only functional very close to an ADS/B tower. Yesterday, I was flying around home, and even though there's a tower at our airport, I was not recieving ADS/B data, even with line of sight from 15 miles away. Frankly, that's useless.

If you want GOOD weather data ANYwhere, sign up for Sirius XM Aviation Weather. It costs, but it works everywhere I've ever flown since I started using it, including sitting on the ground at very remote landing sites. At backcountry strips, you'll become very popular on sketchy mornings, from other pilots looking for weather.....

As to ELTs, it's important to understand the differences between 121.5 mHz and 406 mHz ELTs. It's NOT just the frequency differences, and the fact that 121.5 is no longer monitored (other than the airlines).
First, the 406 signal is constantly monitored by polar orbiting SARSAT satellites, PLUS it's also monitored by a few other SARSAT systems, like COSPAS. So, coverage is excellent.

Secondly, MOST, but not all, 406 beacons also transmit on 121.5 mHz as well as 406 mHz. BUT, the difference between the 121.5 signal and the 406 signal is that the 406 signal is a very short burst signal, and thus can be transmitted at much higher power output than the 121.5 signal is, since the 121.5 signal is constant.

The first 406 ELT I bought had a fault, and it began transmitting unintentionally. I was contacted by the SAR folks in Florida, and asked to turn it off. That didn't work....it was still transmitting. So, I removed it from it's mounting bracket, disconnected it from it's antenna, and placed it in the center rear floor of a Cessna 170. A few minutes later, the nice Major from RCC called me to let me know they were still getting the signal....NO antenna, and enclosed in a metal airplane! That is a result of the 406 signal being transmitted at a full 5 Watts output power.

Finally, some of the new 406 beacons (mine is an ACK) can also be configured to connect to a GPS (portable or panel mount), which then tags a set of GPS Coordinates to the 406 output signal. I asked the nice Major at RCC where my airplane was located. In a couple minutes, he gave me a location which was within a few meters of where the plane was parked.

So, now, imagine that you experience an engine failure over rough terrain. Put out a Mayday call in the blind, and turn on that 406 ELT, which is connected to your portable GPS. As you approach the touchdown, that ELT is constantly transmitting your position. Even if the airplane winds up in a ball and burns right after impact, RCC will have a nearly precise location of the site, based on the last ELT burst sent with GPS coordinates.

You may have noticed that I find value in 406 ELTs, as long as you take advantage of their function......

I agree with you Mike on 406s being great. Even without a GPS attached to it the are very accurate. My issue with them is that they are far from fail proof. I've had a couple not go off when wrecks have happened, and a couple go off and start transmitting while I was just trying to fly. Neither is a great outcome. I wish they were more reliable.
SiriusXM weather doesn't work great for me up here in Northern AB. Even the XM radio is sketchy at times. Just not enough satellites far enough north to be relied upon. Some people have started setting up ground ADS-B transmitters, and it sure is nice to get weather when I'm near them. So far I've had pretty good luck with being anywhere within 50 miles of them. Not bad for cheap setups. As far as "bait", I didn't need any bait to install ADS-B. One flight with the in function and I was sold on having out as well. It really does make the sky safer.

I’ve had reasonable success with XM reception north of 60. An external antenna helps a lot. I can get consistent reception about to the Arctic Circle. A bit north of that in the western NT and Yukon. A bit south of that as you go east in Nunavut. You don’t get much for weather products that cover those latitudes, but text TAFs and METARs are about 1000% better than nothing.

The big game changer for me is the Starlink mini. I was able to mount it cleanly in my Husky and can get crazy fast Internet speeds just about anywhere. Not only does that open up numerous options for displaying weather data, the available products are far, far more comprehensive than XM. Best of all, my Garmin portable can connect wi-fi and access Internet weather so I don’t have to fiddle with any other gadgets.

And it CAN be relatively cheap. The high speed monthly rate is about the same as XM but when you put the service on standby at $7/month CDN you still get 500 kbps bandwidth up and down. That’s enough to feed weather data to my Garmin or Foreflight, and plenty to support a voice calls on my iPhone. That’s 1/10th what XM costs me, so I’d call that good value.

Long story short, seems like a great safety enhancement when I’m camped on some remote lake shore north of north.

Cheers.

Mike

Belloypilot wrote:I’ve had reasonable success with XM reception north of 60. An external antenna helps a lot. I can get consistent reception about to the Arctic Circle. A bit north of that in the western NT and Yukon. A bit south of that as you go east in Nunavut. You don’t get much for weather products that cover those latitudes, but text TAFs and METARs are about 1000% better than nothing.

The big game changer for me is the Starlink mini. I was able to mount it cleanly in my Husky and can get crazy fast Internet speeds just about anywhere. Not only does that open up numerous options for displaying weather data, the available products are far, far more comprehensive than XM. Best of all, my Garmin portable can connect wi-fi and access Internet weather so I don’t have to fiddle with any other gadgets.

And it CAN be relatively cheap. The high speed monthly rate is about the same as XM but when you put the service on standby at $7/month CDN you still get 500 kbps bandwidth up and down. That’s enough to feed weather data to my Garmin or Foreflight, and plenty to support a voice calls on my iPhone. That’s 1/10th what XM costs me, so I’d call that good value.

Long story short, seems like a great safety enhancement when I’m camped on some remote lake shore north of north.

Cheers.

Mike

Excellent information on the Starlink Mini. How obtrusive to visibility is mounting of the antenna? Even if you were to simply use it on the ground, at that price, it'd be a great device for backcountry camping.

Thanks,
Mike

A1Skinner wrote:I agree with you Mike on 406s being great. Even without a GPS attached to it the are very accurate. My issue with them is that they are far from fail proof. I've had a couple not go off when wrecks have happened, and a couple go off and start transmitting while I was just trying to fly. Neither is a great outcome. I wish they were more reliable.
SiriusXM weather doesn't work great for me up here in Northern AB. Even the XM radio is sketchy at times. Just not enough satellites far enough north to be relied upon. Some people have started setting up ground ADS-B transmitters, and it sure is nice to get weather when I'm near them. So far I've had pretty good luck with being anywhere within 50 miles of them. Not bad for cheap setups. As far as "bait", I didn't need any bait to install ADS-B. One flight with the in function and I was sold on having out as well. It really does make the sky safer.

You're correct on the decent accuracy of the 406, but only if it transmits for a significant period of time. The first satellite hit gets the location in a very large area, not very useful for SAR. Second satellite hit narrows the location to better fidelity. Third satellite hit gets it really pretty close, generally (dependant on geometry of the satellites and transmitter). Any more hits continue to resolve the location data, but generally three hits will get the location pretty close. The GPS connection to the 406 makes the first hit provide a precise location.

So, in an event where the airplane burns or sinks, not very helpful, unless you've attached it to your GPS. Then, engine quits, push the ELT activate button, land the plane. Even if it burns or sinks, SAR will have a pretty precise location of the wreck.

mtv wrote:

Belloypilot wrote:I’ve had reasonable success with XM reception north of 60. An external antenna helps a lot. I can get consistent reception about to the Arctic Circle. A bit north of that in the western NT and Yukon. A bit south of that as you go east in Nunavut. You don’t get much for weather products that cover those latitudes, but text TAFs and METARs are about 1000% better than nothing.

The big game changer for me is the Starlink mini. I was able to mount it cleanly in my Husky and can get crazy fast Internet speeds just about anywhere. Not only does that open up numerous options for displaying weather data, the available products are far, far more comprehensive than XM. Best of all, my Garmin portable can connect wi-fi and access Internet weather so I don’t have to fiddle with any other gadgets.

And it CAN be relatively cheap. The high speed monthly rate is about the same as XM but when you put the service on standby at $7/month CDN you still get 500 kbps bandwidth up and down. That’s enough to feed weather data to my Garmin or Foreflight, and plenty to support a voice calls on my iPhone. That’s 1/10th what XM costs me, so I’d call that good value.

Long story short, seems like a great safety enhancement when I’m camped on some remote lake shore north of north.

Cheers.

Mike

Excellent information on the Starlink Mini. How obtrusive to visibility is mounting of the antenna? Even if you were to simply use it on the ground, at that price, it'd be a great device for backcountry camping.

Thanks,
Mike

Not obtrusive at all. I have as far aft under the skylight as possible and my passenger never notices it there. In the next few weeks I’ll be moving it to the rear baggage area. I’ve tested it through the fabric and it has no noticeable impact on performance. It requires a 110 degree view of the sky so maneuvering in canyons or low in valleys I’m sure it would cut out, but that’s the last place I’d be fiddling with anything so not really an issue.

If a person intended to use it on the ground for more than a few minutes you’d probably want to bring an alternate power supply. It draws about 3 amps for a minute or so on boot up, then about 2 amps continually so if you thought you were going to watch Netflix while camped beside your airplane you’d likely be hand-propping the next morning. But for 5-10 minutes to view some weather data or make a phone call I’m sure it would be fine.

Mike