What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Cdn 406 ELT Operational Check

Champ

Well Known Member
Got my ELT back today from its biannual Performance check with a sticker that indicated it's next "Certification Date" was only one year from now - not 2. When I checked this with the recertifier he indicated the CARS require an annual Operational Check which includes verification of the 24-bit address registered with the Canadian Beacon Registry and the CBR cannot do this. This requires special equipment so the annual is not something an owner can do solo. So - we're stuck with the same aggravation and expense as the biannual Performance check every year. I emailed COPA to get their input. Any other Canadians experience the same?
 
Last edited:
Turn it on outside of the "5 minutes before the hour" test period, and let it run for a minute or two. If you get a call about it, the code has to work because they used it to identify you.
Operational test complete.
 
It seems to me that verifying the code every 2 years when doing the performance test should be enough. Once the code and your contact info is registered with CBR it shouldn’t change unless you purposely change it with them.

I did accidentally activate my ELT one time. It only took minutes and I got a call from Trenton AFB - good test.
 
It seems to me that verifying the code every 2 years when doing the performance test should be enough.

This is where our limited experience in our one-owner General Aviation airplanes limits our perspectives.

The regulations are written to cover a broad range of contingencies. We tend to consider the regulation solely from our perspective, from our one use case.

In this instance the requirement to verify the code stems from the challenge fleet operators encounter when they move ELT's from airplane to airplane. This requirement came about as a result of an incident where a fleet operator's aircraft crashed and its ELT signal was detected by JRCC. In turn, JRCC used the beacon registry information to contact the operator to tell them aircraft XYZ had an active ELT. Nope, says the operator, that airplane is sitting on the ramp here. It took a little while to figure out the crashed aircraft was indeed a valid ELT activation and that it was carrying an ELT coded for an airplane that was sitting on the ramp back at home base.

Clearly this is not a good situation and it's one that our current regulations try to help us avoid.

I don't believe we in the "single owner" GA fleet are well served by this regulation - it's akin to swatting a small fly with a large cast iron frying pan - overkill.

The matter of the CBR Registry Verifier is entirely different. It was developed by a now-retired JRCC commanding officer as a hobby project. It has never been funded or supported - we're darned lucky to have it at all. This week it seems to have gone U/S - who knows when it might work again, if at all. The Verifier simply is not intended to be a diagnostic tool for the purposes of providing an end-to-end ELT operational check.

Realistically, it would take precious little to develop a highly useful end-to-end beacon test tool (after all, one person did it as a hobby project!). While our government talks big about public safety and drives multi-thousand-dollar "safety" equipment mandates down our throats they also ensure the public purse is never opened to make a true safety enhancement available to Canadian citizens.

Keep in mind it's not just ELT's that use the 406MHz signal, it's EPIRBs on boats, PLBs in the hands of hikers and mountain bikers. We could very easily provide a broad swath of Canadians with a very worthwhile method of verifying the operational readiness of their distress beacons. Instead, our government has opted to craft legislation which specifically removes themselves from the role of providing a public service, all so they can avoid some perceived liability.

What an opportunity missed.

OK, rant mode off.
 
In this instance the requirement to verify the code stems from the challenge fleet operators encounter when they move ELT's from airplane to airplane. This requirement came about as a result of an incident where a fleet operator's aircraft crashed and its ELT signal was detected by JRCC. In turn, JRCC used the beacon registry information to contact the operator to tell them aircraft XYZ had an active ELT. Nope, says the operator, that airplane is sitting on the ramp here. It took a little while to figure out the crashed aircraft was indeed a valid ELT activation and that it was carrying an ELT coded for an airplane that was sitting on the ramp back at home base.

Clearly this is not a good situation and it's one that our current regulations try to help us avoid.
And a woefully inadequate method it is. If ELT's are being moved from plane to plane on a yearly basis, the regulation should require re-coding and re-testing every time they're moved. If ELT's are moved every week as the fleet shuffles, testing yearly still won't solve the problem.

Keep in mind it's not just ELT's that use the 406MHz signal, it's EPIRBs on boats, PLBs in the hands of hikers and mountain bikers. We could very easily provide a broad swath of Canadians with a very worthwhile method of verifying the operational readiness of their distress beacons. Instead, our government has opted to craft legislation which specifically removes themselves from the role of providing a public service, all so they can avoid some perceived liability.
And at the same time the legislation ensures a continuing revenue stream for avionics shops which must perform the tests for us, when the system is perfectly capable of self-testing.
 
I thought this issue was solved long ago with config modules?
As an example the below is from the Honeywell Rescu 406 ELT:

"A smaller lighter Aircraft Identification Module (AIM2) dongle replaces the larger AIM/NAIM used in some 406AF or 406AFN installations, and automatically reprograms the ELT, making it easy to move the ELT from one aircraft to another."
 
ELT testing

I installed and registered my new 406 ELT and tested it 5 mins after the hour end everything worked. Eventually you may get a call from Transport Canada wondering what and how your doing your testing. If you do it long enough they will pick up your test but its still not acceptable.

They are relentless, kind like the GST guys and will keep on your case.

So, now I stay within 50 miles of the airport.

Tim
 
COPA sent a letter to Transport Canada in April 2021 with two recommendations:
1. Remove the 24-bit verification from the annual Operational Check or permit use of Canadian Beacon Registry Verifier.
2. Change the Performance Test interval from 24 mo to 30 for ELTs with a 5yr battery.

TC responded in June 2021 - basically No “in-service data needs to be collected”, “sometime in late 2022 or early 2023”.

If anyone wants to see COPA’s letter & TCCA’s response PM me your email and I can forward. At least COPA tried.
 
I'm trying to understand your "within 50 miles of the airport" comment, Tim. Please, if you have a moment and a bit of patience, help me to understand the meaning of that comment and how it pertains to a 406MHz ELT.

(I'm feeling particularly dense tonight...)
 
I'm trying to understand your "within 50 miles of the airport" comment, Tim. Please, if you have a moment and a bit of patience, help me to understand the meaning of that comment and how it pertains to a 406MHz ELT.
Possibly referring to the regulation only requiring ELT's for flights greater than 25 miles from the airport? 25miles each side of the airport = 50 miles?
 
50 miles

my mistake, 25 miles

(3) Subsection 605.38(3) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(3) An aircraft may be operated without an ELT on board if the aircraft

(a) is a glider, balloon, airship, ultra-light aeroplane or gyroplane;
(b) is registered under the laws of a contracting state or a state that is a party to an agreement entered into with Canada relating to interstate flying, is equipped with a serviceable emergency beacon that transmits on the 406 MHz frequency with a tested life of at least 24 hours and
(i) has a Class 1 or Class 2 Type Approval Certificate issued by the international search and rescue Cospas-Sarsat Council, and
(ii) is registered with the appropriate authority of the country identified in the coded message transmitted by the emergency beacon;
(c) is operated by the holder of a flight training unit operating certificate, engaged in flight training and operated within 25 nautical miles of the aerodrome of departure;
(d) is engaged in a flight test;
(e) is a new aircraft engaged in flight operations related to manufacture, preparation or delivery of the aircraft;
(f) is operated for the purpose of permitting a person to conduct a parachute descent within 25 nautical miles of the aerodrome of departure; or
(g) is operated in accordance with section 605.39.

Note (D) Test flight, every flight is a Test Flight;)
 
Note (D) Test flight, every flight is a Test Flight;)

Ummm... be very, very careful when using the term "test flight" as the term has specific meaning to Transport Canada and their enforcement folks. If you are doing a test flight you had better have some credentials as a test pilot and you might want to consider that TC wants test flights to take place under a special flight authority for that purpose.

Yeah, TC has a little more stringent interpretation of the term "test flight" than most of us have!
 
Back
Top