406 ELT's Mandated In Canada? US planes Banned?

406 ELT's Mandated In Canada? Per AvWeb article:

January 31, 2008, By Glenn Pew

The Canadian Owners and Pilots Association (COPA) is warning pilots they should be concerned that revisions to a regulation's wording could mean mandatory installation of 406 ELTs in all Canadian aircraft -- and transient aircraft, too. In a letter from Kevin Psutka, president and CEO, Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, Psutka states that "low-cost alternatives to ELTs have all but been ruled out for our sector of aviation." Because the U.S. does not mandate 406 ELTs, "thousands of U.S. aircraft will be banned from Canada," posing a particular problem for aircraft transiting to and from Alaska.

I'm hope he's wrong about this, but I spoke with a former Nav Canada employee yesterday who said that it's Nav Canada's goal to eliminate all 'small aircraft' from the air in Canada.

Nav Canada is a privately held non-profit corporation for managing Canada's airspace. They have been given a monopoly by the Canadian Government, and their board of directors are primarily airline representatives.

Transport Canada (part of the government) is responsible for the ELT decisions, but they have no love for general aviation either. In fact, they want more and more of the administration of GA to be farmed out to various letter groups. For example the MDRA in Canada is responsible for amateur built aircraft. Most people I've dealty with at Transport are very nice and helpful, but they have a limited budget and it shows.

The reason that Transport and other groups want the 406 ELT has little to do with pilot safety. In fact, they hate false alarms and the cost of dealing with them. 406 ELTs will allow them to positively identify the aircraft and owner when triggered, so they can make a phone call rather than send a Buffalo out to search for a downed aircraft (or false alarm). They think that individual pilots spending $1000 to $2000 to install a 406 ELT is a prudent budget decision (for them), and they don't care about the cost for owner/pilots.

Those of you fighting for your freedom to fly in the USA and the issue of user fees... keep up the fight. We are losing this battle in Canada and I predict that in my lifetime, it will be either illegal to fly aircraft for pleasure in Canada, or will be taxed to the point that it will destroy the industry.

I would like to add my comments regarding NavCanada. I do not care for user fees any more than the next guy but so far they have been more of an annoyance than any real barrier to flight. I spend more on one tank of fuel than I do on all my yearly aviation fees combined! Last fall, as a representative of the RAA, Recreation aircraft association of Canada, I was at a meeting hosted by Nav Canada to discuss airspace considerations in the Toronto area. All players were inivited and many came. I found that Nav Canada was much more open to suggestion than Transport Canada has ever been. In fact over the last few years the service that I recieve from NavCanada in regard to weather briefings flight plans has been getting better and much more user friendly.
Having more control in the MDRA system has greatly benefited builders in Canada vs dealing with the limited resources that Transport Canada has. Change is not always a bad thing.

Our regional COPA director commented on this at a meeting last night . He said that it is the Canadian military that is behind it. They feel they are spending too much searching for false alarms, and the new ELTs will take care of that. He thinks the best way to fight this is to get behind COPA and make as much noise as we can to fight the decision. He also felt that we could use as much support from the US as we could get.

Paul Tuttle said:

Our regional COPA director commented on this at a meeting last night . He said that it is the Canadian military that is behind it. They feel they are spending too much searching for false alarms, and the new ELTs will take care of that. He thinks the best way to fight this is to get behind COPA and make as much noise as we can to fight the decision. He also felt that we could use as much support from the US as we could get.

Click to expand...

Guys, picture this:

crash site, you and two buddies, one with a broken back from launching out the side of the 182 into the strut.

Scenario 1. Alert occurs, sartechs load and go, drop into your site directly.

Scenario 2. Alert occurs, search is mobilized, and folks start looking based on a pretty large set of error bars. When a likely target is identified, sartechs load and go, and probably do a bit more position refinement of their own.

Now, what's the first impact on survival rate? They taught us that it's time to medical aid.

For me, a one time cost is not even an issue - I'd rather not spend any money, but it seems to me that you get a much better technical product, and a higher chance of survival in an exposure post-crash. I'll spend far more than this costs on flowers and chocolate for my wife, so that I can complete the kit.

If I'm wrong, please clarify it for me.

rv8eh said:

Guys, picture this:

crash site, you and two buddies, one with a broken back from launching out the side of the 182 into the strut.

Scenario 1. Alert occurs, sartechs load and go, drop into your site directly.

Scenario 2. Alert occurs, search is mobilized, and folks start looking based on a pretty large set of error bars. When a likely target is identified, sartechs load and go, and probably do a bit more position refinement of their own.

Now, what's the first impact on survival rate? They taught us that it's time to medical aid.

Click to expand...

Howard,Your point about the golden hour for medical intervention is very valid. As an Aircraft Rescue Firefighter I've been to 8 fatal aircraft crashes. These were incidents that happened within two miles of the airports I've worked at.We were on scene in a short period of time. The sad fact is that you almost have to be right on top of the scene to make much of a difference. In the event of a high impact crash it usually doesen't make any difference in the outcome.

SAR responded to one fatal crash that I responded to (whole other story). The aircraft was at an airport, the SAR base was located approx 50 miles by air from the site. It was over an hour before they arrived on scene.

I may be a little jaded, but my feeling is that at the end of the day these new ELTs are not going to make a huge difference in survival when compared to the existing ones. Having said that, if I were hanging upside down in my straps in the woods I might be singing a different tune.

There are two sides of the coin

Paul Tuttle said:

I may be a little jaded, but my feeling is that at the end of the day these new ELTs are not going to make a huge difference in survival when compared to the existing ones. Having said that, if I were hanging upside down in my straps in the woods I might be singing a different tune.

Click to expand...

May be not we shall see. The big differnce is in saving millions of dollars on faults alarms and SAR wasting time, sometimes even losing their life in the effort of chasing these faults signals. The registered aspect of 406 is the key. Technically they 406 is way better. The spec is more ridged in every way, and of course accuracy or search area is smaller. As for senerios, for every example of "they could not be saved even if they crashed in the hospital parking lot", there are many cases where people die from exposure 24 or 48 hours later. In one famous case (the one that got the original ELT law going), a plane crashed in the Sierra Nevada mountains. A mother and daughter survived for a MONTH! They looked and looked for them but did not find them in time. The diary they left spoke of airliner's flying over head many times a day, every day. We can go on about ELB or ELT saving lives at sea or military as well. The idea of surviving a crash, only to die a few days later from exposure or shock, just does not sound good to me.

Vernon,

You are always welcome to come on down. The weather's fine, and we still have room for freedom loving folks down here. At $4 AMU for the ELT with GPS Interface, and $0.4 AMU for a new battery, I'll count on a PLB for the pinpoint rescue effort. Choice. The cost and advantage of freedom. Enjoy it while it lasts...

406 ELT

There are some big problems here in the great white North. Last spring I was looking for a ELT for the RV-7A, Artex ME406 looked reasonable. ARTEX is located right behind Vans so I dropped in for a chat. Yes, they said, the ME406 is approved in USA and Europe but not Canada. Canada has these cold temperatures and has mandated impossible batteries to cope.

I just have the single heat muff so maybe I could live with placarding my aircraft - "not to be operated when surface temperatures are forecast to be lower than (-fill in number) in the proposed operating area during the following week."

Anyway if anyone knows of a Canadian approved 406 aircraft ELT in the +- $1000 range let me know!

Hey George, I have a brochure in my hangar for the (soon to be approved) 406 ELT that Maxcraft sells. I'll pick up a few more for tomorrow's seminar at the RAA meeting as well.

Vern

Excellent 'Aaa'

vlittle said:

Hey George, I have a brochure in my hangar for the (soon to be approved) 406 ELT that Maxcraft sells. I'll pick up a few more for tomorrow's seminar at the RAA meeting as well. Vern

Click to expand...

That is great, can you scan it and post it as a JPG? When AKC gets their's certified and we get more on-board the price will go down. Any idea of price?

George in Langley BC said:

There are some big problems here in the great white North. Last spring I was looking for a ELT for the RV-7A, Artex ME406 looked reasonable. ARTEX is located right behind Vans so I dropped in for a chat. Yes, they said, the ME406 is approved in USA and Europe but not Canada. Canada has these cold temperatures and has mandated impossible batteries to cope. Anyway if anyone knows of a Canadian approved 406 aircraft ELT in the +- $1000 range let me know!

Click to expand...

NEWS FLASH: Artex 406 ELT is Canadian approved, BUT your must have the new battery pak (which has been in production for awhile). It is true Canada did not like the original battery, but they approved a new Artex battery pak for the 406ME awhile back. Most of the old batteries should be out of the loop. If you buy a new Artex ELT, make sure you get the ELT with the new battery and a 'dual language sticker' on the elt, saying it meets the Canadian revision or Regs.

All new Artex 406 units should be good to go. The new bat pak part number is 452-6499. The old number was 452-6504 (good for US not Canada). The new battery is Lithium Magnesium Dioxide (lMnO2), the old Lithium Sulfur Dioxide (lSo2), which is noted on the battery label with the part number as well. Again all new products should be the newer 452-6504 battery.

I asked if replacing the old battery Pak, with a new Canadian approved bat pak, would make the ELT OK for Canada? Yes, the new battery pak should do it, but it might be a good idea to send it back to Artex for 're-certification' to get the dual language sticker/placards, also part of the Canadian ELT requirements. The sticker SHOULD NOT BE necessary as long as you have the new battery.

To be clear the 406 ELT rule is not enforced yet in Canada or USA, but it looks like Canada will mandate it sooner than later. If you don't fly to Canada don't worry about it. There's debate that a US reg airplane can be denied Canadian airspace based on the battery pak alone, but if the 406Mhz rule goes through, it might be a show stopper.

Just for grins and giggles ACK 406 elt is still in development with some issues getting certified.

huh?

You're confusing me George...easy to do. I'm going to need an ELT soon.. do I spring for one of these Artex units or?? No point buying one that will be obsolete soon.
Aircraft Spruce have them for $992.

Yes go buy one, you are OK

777Dave said:

You're confusing me George...easy to do. I'm going to need an ELT soon.. do I spring for one of these Artex units or?? No point buying one that will be obsolete soon.
Aircraft Spruce have them for $992.

Click to expand...

Yes! Just go buy one, you will be fine. Van's has a cheaper price I think.

The info I gave was only to differentiate what changed: new battery design (part # 452-6499) and a sticker with dual language. Both of these are to make Canada happy. All units regardless of battery are good to go in USA or Europe.

My other comments where for folks who have an older battery pack and unit (with out the magic sticker) who want to go to Canada. If buying new, it does not apply. All the new units should be Canada approved, should be.

Canada only gave Artex approval of the battery on Nov 16, 2007, and final approval of the unit December 27, 2007. So there might be some units in boxes on the shelf with the original battery, sans sticker? If buying a new unit, all the old batteries and units SHOULD be out of the pipe line, but who knows? Just a heads up.

Note: As I said Canada does not have an OFFICIAL rule yet, only a threat they will mandate 406Mhz in the near future. So regardless of ELT, you can go to Canada even with an old NON 406Mhz unit. To be realistic, 406Mhz is going to happen, sooner or later, but it will take Congress to do it in the USA. AOPA wants some grandfathering/attrition deal. If I was buying a new ELT today, I'd spend the extra $760 and get a ME406 Artex, than an old 243Mhz unit.

NOTE NOTE: EBC has a new 406Mhz unit (LINK). However like all 406Mhz units it will have an external antenna, verses an internal / integral only antenna like EBC's old 502 units. The new EBC 406AP has the battery that makes Canada happy the Li-Magnesium. They should have it approved any day now. Trivia: The reason for being shy about the lithium-sulfur-dioxide batteries was in the early days, they could explode, but new specs and test make them safe. Canada never got back on board with that, so they only allow Li-Magnesium.

Before purchasing a 406 ELT for Canadian use, it would be wise for the regulation to be enacted.

There is some possibility that there will be some sort of compromise once the regulation has been gazetted for comments. My personal recommendation is that it only apply to new or newly registered aircraft, so that there is some graceful transition period. I don't expect Transport Canada to listen to me, but there are enough pilots who think the same who will make similar comments.

When airbags became mandatory in autos, Transport did not madate a retrofit of every existing car in the country, despite the proven safety improvment. This is a similar issue. One can voluntarily install a 406 ELT (once certified and available), but it should not be mandated for existing aircraft!

By the way, if you want to install a 406 ELT in Canada, it must be purchased from a Canadian source so that it is traceable in the registration database. Even if the Artex unit is legal, you can't just import it from Aircraft Spruce and stick it in the airplane. Perhaps the Toronto storefront can manage the issue for Spruce.

As we have been told, this is not just an issue of safety! Our military is tired of responding to false-alarms from 121/243 ELTs. They just want to download the cost onto airplane owners, and they are the ones who've mandated the 100% conversion. Of course, they will have to hire people to randomly trigger 406 ELTs for them just so they can have some practice in SAR.

Personally, I'm going to wait until the last minute to upgrade if I have to. I think the regs will be clearly established by then, and hopefully 406 ELT prices will be more reasonable.

V

Just does not sound correct.

vlittle said:

Before purchasing a 406 ELT for Canadian use, it would be wise for the regulation to be enacted.

By the way, if you want to install a 406 ELT in Canada, it must be purchased from a Canadian source so that it is traceable in the registration database. V

Click to expand...

I agree with the first statement, not to buy anything based on Canadians and their rules.

I agree with you Vernon, you could be right, if you are in Canada you need to get an ELT coded for Canada not America, but its the same ELT. ELT's in Canadian Reg aircraft are "Coded" for Canadian use; US 406 ELT's are coded for US registered aircraft. (I called and checked). Coded means the protocol, in the US its 15 bit (but the US will accept any code), ELT's in Canada are 24 bit (only). For some reason everyone had to be a little different. The Artex ME406 can be programed for any country by the manufacture and some distributors. It's still the same ELT. So to get the proper coding you should buy it in that country, but there are dealers in the USA that can code the ELT for Canada or Germany.

If you are registering your ELT in the USA (N numbered plane), you need to have it coded for the US. Now if you fly into Canada, with your US coded ELT, the satellites will receive the signal and send the registration and location to the home country, no matter where in the world the ELT is.

US reg ELT's are good to fly into any country. The Canadian deal was mostly due to their ban on the liSO2 battery, which caused the big brouhaha. If there is any doubt, print out the two docs below and keep them in the plane. (Pdf files from Air Transport Canada approving the Artex ME406, both the battery and the unit.)

http://www.artex.net/documents/getF...sport_Canada_ME406_Series_Approval_Letter.pdf
http://www.artex.net/documents/getF...ustry_Canada_ME406_Series_Approval_Letter.pdf

If you want your eyes to bleed, and you think the FAA is messed up, read this about Canada and the 406 ELT's. This is from COPA, Canada's equivalent of AOPA. Of course the French speaking part of Canada, Quebec is involved, so what can I say..........their still mad English is the official language of aviation?

http://www.copanational.org/non-mem...port Canada effectively mandates 406 ELTs.htm


"If you are in the market for an ELT now, you have a choice between equipping with a C91a compliant ELT that broadcasts on 121.5 and 243.0 MHz, and a C126 compliant ELT that broadcasts on 121.5 and 406 MHz. The battery must not be LiSO2 and, for a 406 ELT, it must be coded for Canada and registered with the National Search and Rescue Secretariat www.nss.gc.ca.

If you can find a 406 ELT that you can afford to install, you should equip because no matter how this issue turns out, 406 will be an acceptable solution. Be sure that the 406 ELT is coded for Canada."

This is about Canadian pilots in Canadian Reg planes, not aircraft registered outside Canada. The Artex is approved for Canada use, purchase location is not an issue. The issue is WHAT country you register in. The big issue is the probation on LiSO2 batteries.

The registration is done in your home country. Bottom line, the Satellite still gets the message and the home county is notified. If your in the US, you register it with http://www.beaconregistration.noaa.gov/. The registration of all USA 406Mhz ELT's is done through SARSAT-NOAA. If you are Canadian, you register with Canada. Europe has their own registration, New Zealand their own. Regardless where you crash the controlling country is notified, who in turns makes some calls and than contacts the proper SAR authorities, what ever the world wide location / country is. Regardless of how its coded, you can fly into any country.

I'm waiting for the GPS version

I am waiting for a GPS version of the 406 frequency version for the airframe, otherwise I would go ahead and upgrade to the new technology.

Hans

nucleus said:

I am waiting for a GPS version of the 406 frequency version for the airframe, otherwise I would go ahead and upgrade to the new technology.

Hans

Click to expand...

I thought about this some and decided the GPS would not likely be worth it for a 406 ELT. In my mind the problem is the GPS antenna. Where and how do you mount it so it will likely work. This is much harder than finding a location for an ELT antenna, which in itself is not that easy. An ELT antenna can still put out a usable signal when completely shielded from the sky overhead. The GPS antenna is much more critical.

You could maybe use an input from a present GPS, but then you have the same problems plus the problem of maintaining the integrity of the interconnect cable.

I guess you could take the approach of just mounting it anywhere and figuring there is a chance it might end up in the clear and in an orientation that it could work but the satellites can get a quite good location without the GPS. Much better than with the present ELTs.

I think a 406/non GPS ELT plus a PLB with GPS is a good solution.

Yep that's a good combo

n5lp said:

I think a 406/non GPS ELT plus a PLB with GPS is a good solution.

Click to expand...

Goo suggestion. Actually the 406Mhz with GPS technology is here, it's just not ever going to be all internal like the PLB's, which are cool.

I asked Artex and its either a spec thing of cost thing. The where not clear. There more expensive units do have GPS interface ability.

The draw back of an ELT with its own GPS, as you said, would be another GPS antenna. Also you can't drive the GPS and the transmitter with the same internal battery, while meeting specs, unless you had a larger battery and unit. I don't know why after activation, it can't try to receive a GPS position. Once its obtained, the GPS shuts down. If it does not get it, than no big deal, you still have the basic accuracy. The batteries are stout, but they have to supply 5 watt 406Mhz signal bursts for 24 hours in cold conditions, plus the 121.5 has to go longer. The battery might be 4 yr/11 month old.

Artex higher end units, starting with the G406-4, $1622, have the GPS nav/data connection interface capability. You still need the GPS Nav to ELT interface box, $1568! Also you need a panel mount GPS. So plan on $3,200 + panel mount GPS. Why does the interface cost as much as the ELT? I don't know. Also instead $120 ever 5/yrs, for the ME406 battery, higher end units have $360 batteries! Why? This stuff goes in business jets and airliners?

If the $980 ME406 had GPS interface capability and the interface was $200 bucks, than I'd bite. Other wise a PLB/GPS is a great adjutant to a 406 ELT with out GPS. The PLB is totally independant, and for about $600 you get GPS and use it in the car or hiking. However the small antenna and battery of a PLB is a compromise I understand. They still have a 5 watt tx, but they apparently are not as powerful in actual operation (due to the small antenna and battery).

The good news, three lower end GA 406 ELT's are on the market now, with a few more about to come out (may be). Price may come down, but $900-$1000 seems to be the min price point. Cheap GPS interface is probably not going to happen any time soon. I guess we can be glad they don't cost more.

EPIRB = Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons

(9 things that do the saving - satellites) Cospas-Sarsat assisted in 1748 people saved/rescued in 2004, 68 people in aviation and of those 39 involved SAR.