The cost of equipping with a 406 ELT has come down considerably. Even the "Cadillac" manufacturer, Artex, has a lower priced, full feature (built in GPS) version in their Artex ELT 345, about $550 (about $100 more than the ACK). When I had one of the first Artex 406MEs installed, it was about $1100, without an internal GPS--it was the first brand that was certified for light GA aircraft, and I bought one of the first ones right after certification. Mine is now hooked to my 430W for its GPS source. A couple of years ago, I changed out its original mounting tray, which used a heavy duty Velcro strap to hold the ELT to the tray, for the newly required metal strap version. It's mounted on the shelf in the tail, which supported the original glideslope transmitter, so it's pretty solid.

Regardless of which brand chosen, it's so much better to have a 406 ELT than one restricted to 121.5/243.0. As far as I can determine, all of the 406 ELTs on the market right now also broadcast on 121.5/243.0, so SAR folks can home in on them. But the real value to a 406 with GPS is that the lat/long provided by the satellites will narrow the search area down to less than 10 meters--and that's pretty phenomenal. Additionally, they are much less prone to non-emergency accidental activation, which has been a problem with the 121.5/243.0 ELTs ever since they were first required in the early 70s.

On the theory that more is better and being somewhat of a belt and suspenders sort of person, I also carry a couple of ACR PLBs, and the usual signalling devices in my survival kit and survival vest. Like I've said many times, I want to be found sooner than later!

Cary

Cary,

The Artex 345 does NOT have an onboard GPS. It has an onboard GPS interface, meaning you can connect a GPS to it.

Artex has had a lot of issues with antennas, and other failure points. The Velcro attachment never seemed very smart to me.

Also, at least one premium 406 beacon does NOT transmit on 121.5 or 243.0: the unit built by Emergency Lifesaving Technologies.

I still think the 121.5 signal has merit, expanding the number of aircraft equipped to search.

MTV

mtv wrote:Cary,

The Artex 345 does NOT have an onboard GPS. It has an onboard GPS interface, meaning you can connect a GPS to it.

Artex has had a lot of issues with antennas, and other failure points. The Velcro attachment never seemed very smart to me.

Also, at least one premium 406 beacon does NOT transmit on 121.5 or 243.0: the unit built by Emergency Lifesaving Technologies.

I still think the 121.5 signal has merit, expanding the number of aircraft equipped to search.

MTV

You're right, Mike--I misread their webpage. It has the interface built in, not the GPS. Since probably 90% of the airplanes today have a GPS of some sort in them, I suspect that's not too much of a problem, if the owner decides to go with the Artex 345.

FWIW, I've not had any difficulty with any of the Artex peripherals in the several years I've had the ELT. The Velcro strap attachment was common to several manufacturers, although I agree that it wasn't too sensible; the metal strap/clamp is a lot sturdier.

I think having the 121.5 signal as part of the installation has merit, but I see little merit in a new installation of a 121.5/243.0 ELT. If the purpose is only to fill a regulatory block rather than actually provide SAR benefits to the pilot and passengers, that's penny wise and pound foolish. That lengthy thread we had some time ago, about the PA28 that went down in Utah with survivors who died some days after the crash is some evidence of the inadequacy of a strictly 121.5 ELT.

Cary

Here is an option with internal GPS and a 270 degree antenna. http://www.eltechnolgies.com/ Their new website is underwhelming.

It runs off AC power while in flight keeping track of your position; therefore, there is no lag time collecting GPS information when the HELP button is pushed or the accelerometer trips.

TomD wrote:Here is an option with internal GPS and a 270 degree antenna. http://www.eltechnolgies.com/ Their new website is underwhelming.

It runs off AC power while in flight keeping track of your position; therefore, there is no lag time collecting GPS information when the HELP button is pushed or the accelerometer trips.

This is the ELT that I went with when I replaced the old one last summer. I spent some time researching ELTs and this one seems to be a good product. They had some supporting videos that made some good sales points. Super robust case with built in GPS and like Tom says, constantly keeps track of your position so there isn't a delay reporting it when needed.

I saw the 270 degree antenna as a standout attribute. Important to me in an airplane that is just as likely to end up on its back as it is on its belly. I was able to mount it inside the tail of my airplane to minimize the chance of it getting damaged in a wreck. I mounted the antenna laying on its side, so I'd have to come to rest perfectly with the copilot side toward the ground (right wing sheared off) in order for it to not be broadcasting toward the sky. This could also make a difference if you come to rest in terrain that may block a more narrowly broadcast signal.

I think it was a couple hundred dollars higher than the next best thing, so in the grand scheme, not too bad.

FYI, a Garmin 396 updates every few seconds.....you're worried about updating position on an ELT?

MTV

MTV said:

FYI, a Garmin 396 updates every few seconds.....you're worried about updating position on an ELT?

My point was not the speed the GPS updates but if the ELT gps information is updated only when the need arises and does not need to update once the switch is activated. If one links their ELT to the 396 or other GPS source then all is good assuming the data is updated in the ELT.

Battery only powered ELT's, if I understand the technology correctly, are inert until the switch is activated, manually or by deceleration, I guess my question is if the remote GPS source will get the info to the ELT if the switch is not manually operated giving the ELT time to download the information for broadcast.

The E.L.T. 406 unit updates the GPS information continuously since it is on Aircraft Power and then when the switch is tripped it broadcasts via battery power the last GPS location. I understand the unit then searches for the GPS satellite swarm to further update the position, Failing that the last position is still used.

I would guess any ELT with aircraft power hooked to a GPS source could do the same.

TD

TomD wrote:MTV said:

FYI, a Garmin 396 updates every few seconds.....you're worried about updating position on an ELT?

My point was not the speed the GPS updates but if the ELT gps information is updated only when the need arises and does not need to update once the switch is activated. If one links their ELT to the 396 or other GPS source then all is good assuming the data is updated in the ELT.

Battery only powered ELT's, if I understand the technology correctly, are inert until the switch is activated, manually or by deceleration, I guess my question is if the remote GPS source will get the info to the ELT if the switch is not manually operated giving the ELT time to download the information for broadcast.

The E.L.T. 406 unit updates the GPS information continuously since it is on Aircraft Power and then when the switch is tripped it broadcasts via battery power the last GPS location. I understand the unit then searches for the GPS satellite swarm to further update the position, Failing that the last position is still used.

I would guess any ELT with aircraft power hooked to a GPS source could do the same.

TD

I can only speak for the ACK ELT, but that unit is fed a new location from a portable GPS something like once per second. If the ELT activates, it transmits the latest position it has received. No ships power is required.

No difference in operation. The Emerging Lifesaving Technologies website claims a lot of "advantages" of its units, most of which are really not advantages at all.

And that unit does not transmit on 121.5, FWIW.

MTV

Interesting. I thought the battery powered units were not active until activated. Live n learn I guess.

The point is made, but let me try to restate it in another way.

If you move a GPS any significant distance while it is turned off, and then turn it on, it takes a considerable time to boot up, lock onto a few satellite signals, and determine position. We don't typically do this. The GPS usually boots up quickly because it remembers where it was when it was shut off and starts calculating from there. Remember when you bought a new GPS and it arrived by mail, how long it took to locate?

The built in GPS in some ELTs will exhibit this pause. There may not be time for the GPS to pinpoint its location. If the GPS wakes up to a clue regarding its location that is stored in an eprom, or is incoming from your panel mount or portable GPS, not only can it broadcast that position first, it will also locate itself more quickly and begin broadcasting position updates faster.

This could be of value in two scenarios: If you are in trouble and manually activate your ELT, you want a position to broadcast immediately. If the ELT doesn't survive the crash, won't it be appreciated if it sends a data burst away earlier? You may land upside down with an antenna buried in the dirt or underwater. If the ELT activates via G-switch on impact, but then quickly burns, better to get a data burst off immediately, not wait for a position resolution?

I was a naysayer about a 406 ELT for a long time. I read Finding Carla after receiving it as a Christmas gift this year. I've been cynical because I figured that the expense was more about identifying false alarms to save money than it was about finding me dead or alive. Looking beyond my interests, it's also about not endangering searchers unnecessarily, and saving my loved ones a lot of anxiety. For the cost of two tanks of gas, maybe a 406 ELT will work if my InReach or PLB don't, whether I've survived or not.

You'd lose that bet. ELT notification to SAR in case of a crash is less than 50%, doesn't matter what kind. That's why sat-tracking is important. Now you could have close to the same if you had the perfect foresight to activate a constantly GPS updated ELT before impact, but most of us are too preoccupied or don't see it coming. First prize is a 406 that successfully sends a lat/long as part of the string. Most 406 also transmit a (weak) 121.5 homing signal in case the lat/long never got out and SAR only have an approximate location. In the other 50-70% of crashes where your ELT doesn't activate your tracking will be more helpful. Main benefit of 406 was optimizing SAR resources with fewer false alarm searches. Second was the actual improved locating.

Part of this discussion is regulatory compliance, the other half is actually getting found. Be nice if they were the same but they're not.

You're not wrong, so I'll continue to keep my InReach active as a backup to a 406 failure. If I'm able, I'll be glad to have two way communication with my rescuers and family. That's why I replaced my Spot with InReach. Depending on the tracking interval I set on the InReach, and if it is still transmitting after a crash, I could be a long way from last reported location. For one AU or less, I'll take the 50% chance that the 406 ELT will work and narrow the search in that situation.

I've been as scepticle as you for nearly a decade while this has been discussed. I still think this is more about search and rescue budgets than about rescuing me, but I've caved in and decided that despite the many shortfalls, it's the go to tool for the military. They may still treat other notifications with scepticism because they're conditioned by the brass to trust 406 the most. They might get a call from the monitoring station at Spot or InReach, but they'll react faster to a signal directly from the wreckage via 406 and a satellite relay. I believe they've even become wary of PLB false alarms.

Belt and suspenders for me is what I've settled on.

But, once again, bear in mind that one of the primary contributors to failures of ELTs to activate in crash sequences is improper ELT mounting. I would bet that 50 % or more of the ELTs out there are stuck to the airplane in a manner which does not meet the specified standards. Get hold of your ELT and reef on it.....if it moves, the mount is probably improper.

Those mounts need to be REALLY solid. Any movement in the mount, and the ELT may not activate in a crash.

Secondly, the 406 signal is considerably stronger than the legacy 121.5 and 243.0 signals were. They can get away with that increased signal output because the 406 beacon transmits the 406 signal in bursts, NOT continuous. That permits much higher signal strength without compromising battery life. Why is this important? To help get that signal out when the beacon/airplane is in a compromised situation.

Example: My 406 beacon decided to transmit on it's own. It was a very early example of the 406 beacons. I turned it off manually, and disconnected it from it's antenna. Soon thereafter I received another call from RCC to the effect that the beacon was still transmitting. RCC was receiving a readable signal from that beacon, even though it wasn't connected to an external antenna. I wouldn't count on that working, but.....

I can recall a light twin accident in western MN where the plane impacted in a swamp, and was mostly submerged. No ELT was detected, but the plane was on radar. Once searchers got close to the wreck, they received a very weak 121.5 signal, and were able to locate the wreck. The plane was not equipped with a 406, but had they been, it's possible that RCC would've had a position for the airplane much sooner than occurred in this case.

Every little bit helps in an emergency.

But, EVERYone should go out and check the integrity of their ELT mounting. It makes no sense whatever to carry emergency gear, but then mount it such that it's compromised before you even take off.

MTV

Having a 406 PLB in your pocket when flying is also a good back up.

TD

I agree that not seeing the accident coming would preclude manually activating the ELT, but I've given a lot of thought to the next time (I hope never) I have an engine out, one of the things I'll do is activate the ELT--it's just a matter of pushing the button on the panel.

At the time I had my engine out and landed in a field, my airplane didn't have a panel switch for its ELT, an older Narco that was still legal at the time. But all new installations, whether 121.5/243.0 or 406, are required to have a panel switch (or a switch within the pilot's reach for the ELTs such as EBC's, which are typically mounted next to the pilot). I think it's wise to consider hitting that switch right away, if there's an engine glitch that might result in having to set the airplane down. Even if luck prevails and there's enough power to make it to an airport after activating the switch so that a rescue isn't needed, that would be better than not having it go off if the landing is less than successful.

Cary

One of our local pilots had an engine crap out yesterday & he had to ditch in the salt water.
He apparently had a spot or similar and hit the mayday button-- shortly afterward, the airport cafe got a phone call from his girlfriend, IN ENGLAND, asking if he was OK.

This one?


http://www.king5.com/news/local/small-plane-crashes-in-discovery-bay/392239811

Curious how the rest of the notification chain went, hitting the 911/Mayday button is supposed to activate all kinds of resources. Spots have been pretty reliable around here and are soundly endorsed by the SAR resources. Response in at least some cases has been quicker than to a 406 ELT. Different protocols.

That's the one.
I dunno who all the spot (or whatever) notified.
I was in the airport cafe when someone called in, they'd heard about the ditching on their police/fire dept band scanner and wanted to spread the word. So it might have notified the local 911 center.
A county sheriff drove the pilot back to the airport (3 miles away or so) within 90 minutes of the ditching.
The forced landing is already on the FAA prelim accident website so they are aware of it, either via the spot or the cops.

Any ELT replacement at this point should be 406MHz. They are economical enough now that you may even consider it if your 121.5MHz unit is working fine, just because the benefits are very real (i.e. life saving). 121.5 at best will just tell people an airplane is alerting, and if you are late on a flight plan, they'll start looking around for you after you've expired. The satellites no longer listen, so it will take an overhead plane hearing it, or an intentional search. Even then it can take hours *at best* to locate your approximate area, once they start. 406MHz w/ GPS coordinates sends the distress signal immediately and with your exact position. Rescues have been reduced from hours or days to, in some cases, under an hour with this technology. When you're bleeding, broken, and freezing, a few hours can be everything.

If you fly over remote terrain or places where people aren't going to see you without considerable effort (i.e. basically everyone here), I would absolutely complement your ELT with a PLB or tracking device. I like my InReach over a 406MHz PLB simply because it tracks constantly, and even if my last report is 10 minutes before my actual position, they still have my track, speed, and can start from the last report. It's also tied to my flight plans through the Lockheed website, so if I go missing and happened to have it turned on during the flight, SAR can directly look at the beacon reports regardless of whether I was alive to hit the button or not. Obviously the text message benefits of the InReach go without saying.

Many (many!) pilots have survived the crash, only to die from exposure and not being found in time. It's a great time to stay alive, and becoming far more cost effective to do so.

colopilot wrote:Any ELT replacement at this point should be 406MHz. They are economical enough now that you may even consider it if your 121.5MHz unit is working fine, just because the benefits are very real (i.e. life saving). 121.5 at best will just tell people an airplane is alerting, and if you are late on a flight plan, they'll start looking around for you after you've expired. The satellites no longer listen, so it will take an overhead plane hearing it, or an intentional search. Even then it can take hours *at best* to locate your approximate area, once they start. 406MHz w/ GPS coordinates sends the distress signal immediately and with your exact position.

Yes, 100% in agreement. I had a CFI that taught me to dial up 121.5 on my "other" radio when flying. As a result I have years of flying listening to that and the occasional distress signal as well as responses from ATC. That will convince you *very* quickly the 121.5 for SAR is no solution (ever, but particularly now). You'll here jets call in a report, but they are at FL300-450 so it could be anywhere in thousands of square miles of terrain. There is a total lack of concern when these reports come in (the vast majority are false alarms after all) and ATC will sometimes call other planes to try and narrow things down a bit. I've heard exchanges that took 30-60 minutes trying to get a fix that was in any way helpful.

This thread has pointed out the shortcomings of PLBs and sat communicators, so I won't go through them again, but anyone who is relying on just 121.5 in 2017 is, IMO, taking a risk that isn't necessary from either a technological nor cost standpoint. Get *something* that's going to send out GPS coordinates.