Opening salvo in 406 MHz ELT Mandate?

[Ron Lee]

I have not read this report yet and do have a 406 MHz PLB but am not sure what to think about this yet. Knowing that the SARSAT system will cease monitoring 121.5 MHz in 2009 it seemed inevitable that 406 MHz equippage might be mandated.

http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2007/A07_51.pdf

Then there is the looming costly ADS-B mandate which I am currently opposed to but that would make another good thread.

[mburch]

I'm of two minds on the 406 MHz ELT issue... on the one hand, I like the technology and I want to have the best chance I can of getting found in the event of an unscheduled landing. On the other hand, the things are so danged expensive!

Since I am building, not yet flying, I bought and installed a cheap 121.5 MHz ACK ELT. However, I made sure to call ACK and verify that they do plan to eventually introduce a 406 MHz ELT that will fit in the same mounting bracket as the old style. If they really do come out with a 406 MHz retrofit ELT and it's not too outrageously expensive, I will most likely upgrade. And of course I will be sure to always carry appropriate survival gear in the plane with me so I don't have to rely on outside help to survive.

This is an interesting subject because not everyone lives in the same spot along the cost-versus-safety continuum... not to mention there is a legitimate argument to be made that gets to the question of just how much real benefit having an ELT really does give you. I don't have an answer, but it does make you really think hard about what the lives of yourself and your passengers are worth.

In the long run, maybe increased adoption of 406 MHz ELTs (whether by choice or by mandate) will drive the cost down to the point where we no longer have to think about the tradeoffs. At least I hope it turns out that way.

mcb

[gmcjetpilot]

When you think about it ACK ($225) verses Artex ($995) is not a lot in the big scheme of things, especially with the better technology.

PLB will never be approved as the official aviation alternative and further those little units put out much less power. I love them and the idea but just saying.

The battery issue - Yes the idea of waltzing down to Wal mart and getting two 4-paks of D-cell Duracell's, is nice, less than $8. However the 5-year factory Artex pak for the ME406 is $100-$130 and last 5 years. Lets say you compare with eight "D" cells, replaced every year*, or $40 over 5 years. So over 5 year its $90 more or $18 more a year. With the fact you don't have to deal with it every year, that is not so bad.

* I don't want to get into how long you can let the "D" cells go, one year or till expiration date, per a recent thread, which left me with a headache. I went to the store yesterday and saw Duracell's with a 2014 expiration! There is no doubt "D" cells have there price and convenience attraction, but there may be a problem using them for 406 units.

As I understand it ACK is having a hard time with their 406 MHZ unit. From what I understand alkaline does not have the power. The 406Mhz needs more power to make its pulse (which gives it the transmitting performance).

[Ron Lee]

Can't agree with your battery cost trade-off George. I just installed 2014 expiration date D-cells so I would cut the D-cell cost at least by 50%.

Then what does having any ELT really do for me? If I really screw up and hit a mountain while scud running then I am an idiot and just cleansed the gene pool. Finding my remains is immaterial.

Now if I land in a desolate area safely because of engine failure then my PLB will do far better than an ELT. I can find the saves area (probably on the NOAA website) and point out where these units have worked fine.

If Fossett is alive then a PLB would have provided the info needed to get him within minutes of activation. If GPS enabled then they could have flown right to him.

It is interesting that the NTSB reports lauds a 406 MHz detection 42 minutes after a crash during an ILS approach to Pueblo. Yes the response time is better and the location is better but why did the tower not note that the plane did not land?

The case against 121.5 Mhz as stated in the report may just be another case of pilot error. It is hard to tell from the report. Here again a 406 MHz PLB would have helped.

[mburch]

Originally Posted by gmcjetpilot

As I understand it ACK is having a hard time with their 406 MHZ unit. From what I understand alkaline does not have the power. The 406Mhz needs more power to make its pulse (which gives it the transmitting performance).

Oho, very interesting... I didn't know that aviation-grade 406 MHz ELT's were different from PLB's in terms of signal strength. I guess that explains some of the cost difference. Thanks for the info George. Did ACK happen to also tell you when they thought they might have their 406 unit ready?

mcb

[gmcjetpilot]

Originally Posted by mburch

Oho, very interesting... I didn't know that aviation-grade 406 MHz ELT's were different from PLB's in terms of signal strength. I guess that explains some of the cost difference. Thanks for the info George. Did ACK happen to also tell you when they thought they might have their 406 unit ready?

mcb

Just talked to them. They say may be in Nov they might have a 406 unit. As I thought they are using Lithium batteries to meet the spec for these new units. It was not clear from ACK if it would be a battery pack or over the counter Lithium ( lithium-thionyl chloride, aka: Li-SOCl2)

I did some research and you can find "D" sized cells in lithium. They are about $23 each, 3.6 volts (not 1.5 volts) and not made by Duracell. They are also not over the counter, they're not common. You'd likely have to order them from either ACK or a speciality battery company.

The Artex ME406 uses two D's in their pack (lithium). So even if ACK uses only two "D" lithium as well, it would cost about $50 to replace. Again Artex charges $100-$130 for their 5 year pak.

Originally Posted by Ron Lee

Can't agree with your battery cost trade-off George. I just installed 2014 expiration date D-cells so I would cut the D-cell cost at least by 50%.

Got me there. You are right year 2014 is a long way. BTW I asked both AmeriKing and ACK they recommend two years, but both agreed you could go to say 2014 FAR wise, so pick your poison, one, two or 7 years. There's no debate over the counter "D" alkaline bats are cheap, however based on my above comments, the Lithium's seem like the only ones to pass mustard for the new aircraft 406 ELT spec.

Stay tuned. As of now ACK is using Lith bats for certification. Apparently they have greater ambient temps they must work? Whether ACK (and the FAA) allow you to buy individual cells or only custom "Bat Paks" is not clear at this time.

"Here again a 406 MHz PLB would have helped." May be?

Only if you turn the PLB on and are not out cold in a coma with head trauma. Many accidents happen suddenly, with out warning and may put you in the weeds and trees real fast, like the ILS accident. You are right 121.5 would probably been enough since they knew he was in the 4-6 miles between the marker and threshold somewhere. No argument PLB's are cool little goodies to have on your person. If you crash and activate the PLB, it may save the day and your life.

[Ron Lee]

http://www.cospas-sarsat.org/Documen...es/T1Nov05.pdf

From paragraph 2.3.2 (page 2-4) it appears that all units operate at 5 W

"2.3.2 Transmitter Power Output
The transmitter power output shall be within the limits of 5 W + 2 dB (35 to 39 dBm) measured into a 50-Ohm load."

According to the following link my PLB conforms to that spec so I don't think that in-spec PLBs are less useful for being rescued than a 406 MHz ELT if you can activate it.

http://www.mcmurdo.co.uk/doc/Fastfin...nge_Techni.pdf

The NTSB reports suggests mandating these prior to Feb 2009. Maybe I am just a cheap *** but I don't want to be on the front edge of this possible mandate. I have a 121.5 MHz ELT plus a 406 MHz PLB which provides a far better chance of rescue as long as I can activate the PLB. My view is that if I am high and going down I will activate it while airborne situation permitting.

If they want to mandate this for new aircraft in 2009, that may be fine then others as units wear out and perhaps even sold.

[N941WR]

Geo,

Did ACK say if their new ELT will fit/use the old tray, antenna, wire, panel switch, etc?

I'm just wondering if I will have to move my ELT from under the baggage floor to the tail cone in a few years.

[gmcjetpilot]

Originally Posted by N941WR

Geo,

Did ACK say if their new ELT will fit/use the old tray, antenna, wire, panel switch, etc?

I'm just wondering if I will have to move my ELT from under the baggage floor to the tail cone in a few years.

Don't know did not ask? Makes sense if they do, but recall a picture a while back and they will have TWO antennas, one for 121.5 and one for 406. Artex used one antenna.

Originally Posted by Ron Lee

http://www.cospas-sarsat.org/Documen...es/T1Nov05.pdf

From paragraph 2.3.2 (page 2-4) it appears that all units operate at 5 W

"2.3.2 Transmitter Power Output
The transmitter power output shall be within the limits of 5 W + 2 dB (35 to 39 dBm) measured into a 50-Ohm load."

Hummm, the ELT expert told me the PLB's have less transmitter output? PLB's do output less on the 121.5 freq, like 1/4 to 1/2 the power, 25/50 milliwatt verses 100 milliwatt. However its most likely the save will come from the 406 Mhz, and if they are that close the 25mW will be good enough.

The small antenna and lack of ground plane may also be a limiting factors for the PLB, verses a full meal deal aircraft ELT installation, but you are right, PLB's transmit 5 watts on 406 Mhz. I guess the ELT expert was alluding to less transmitting power on 121.5 and the smaller antenna? Of course if the planes ELT antenna is broke off than the PLB is likely the winner. You just have to be conscious to activate the PLB.

The military PLB's on ejection seats activate with a pin from what I read. Some PLB's (class 1, class 2) have less stringent temp requirements but must work for 24 hours. ELT's may work longer, 48 hours operation, especially on the homing freq (121.5). Also the ELT is good for 100g's and of course has the G-force switch (2-2.3 g's).


Here is an interesting article: http://www.equipped.org/blog/?p=70

The NTSB is calling for the the 2009 mandate. Still the FAA has done nothing. AOPA been successful in blocking any action? or is the FAA and government just lazy and incompetent. AOPA wanted a phased in deal. They are going to have to do something before 2009. I can see where they might enforce 406 Mhz ELT's in first qtr of 2009, mandating them for all flights over mountains terrain. It would also be nice if the FAA allowed PLB as a stop gap, but that makes sense and we can't have that.

Interesting in same web site with the article above (http://www.equipped.org), they show one of these "personal trackers" (as well as all the new PLB's). A personal tracker is not a PLB I gather and they require a subscription. They actually can track you and up-date your position all the time, and that data is available to those interested parties, like friends, family or if you want emergency personal. You can even make simplex (one way) communication to get word out, that is less than a full blown rescue call, say to family to let them know you are OK and where you are (not voice just a OK). Here is the article: http://www.equipped.org/SPOT_ORSummer2007.htm

Pretty soon we will have a chip in our head and big Bro can watch us all the time. Latest word on Steve Fossett, not found but they are getting sonar equip out to a lake tomorrow.

[Jekyll]

Just recieved an FAA advisory email stating the satellite 121.5 coverage termonates on 1 February 2009, repreinted here.

Jekyll

Termination of 121.5 MHz Beacons for Satellite Alerting is Coming Soon
Notice Number: NOTC0981


On 1 February 2009, the International Cospas-Sarsat [1] Organization (U.S. included) will terminate processing of distress signals emitted by 121.5 MHz Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs). This means that pilots flying aircraft equipped with 121.5 MHz ELTs after that date will have to depend on pilots of over flying aircraft and or ground stations monitoring 121.5 to hear and report distress alert signals, transmitted from a possible crash site.


Why is this happening?


Although lives have been saved by 121.5 MHz ELTs, the downside has been their propensity to generate false alerts (approximately 98 percent of all 121.5 MHz alerts are false), and their failure to provide rescue forces with timely and accurate crash location data. Both of which actually delay rescue efforts and have a direct effect on an individual's chance for survival. Rescue forces have to respond to all 121.5 MHz alerts to determine if they are real distress alerts or if they are being generated by an interferer, an inadvertent activation (by the owner) or equipment failure.


Is there an alternative?


Yes, the Cospas-Sarsat System (U.S. included) has been and will continue processing emergency signals transmitted by 406 MHz ELTs. These 5 Watt digital beacons transmit a much stronger signal, are more accurate, verifiable and traceable to the registered beacon owner (406 MHz ELTs must be registered by the owner in accordance with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation). Registration allows the search and rescue authorities to contact the beacon owner, or his or her designated alternate by telephone to determine if a real emergency exists. Therefore, a simple telephone call often solves a 406 MHz alerts without launching costly and limited search and rescue resources, which would have to be done for a 121.5 MHz alert. For these reasons, the search and rescue community is encouraging aircraft owners to consider retrofit of 406 MHz ELTs or at a minimum, consider the purchase of a handheld 406 MHz Personal Locator Beacon (PLB) which can be carried in the cockpit while continuing to maintain a fixed 121.5 MHz ELT mounted in the aircraft's tail.


Remember, after February 1, 2009, the world-wide Cospas-Sarsat satellite system will no longer process 121.5 MHz alert signals. Pilots involved in aircraft accidents in remote areas will have to depend on pilots of over flying aircraft and or ground stations to hear emergency ELT distress signals. For further information concerning the termination of 121.5 MHz data processing visit www.sarsat.noaa.gov



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] The Cospas-Sarsat Organization provides a satellite based world-wide monitoring system that detects and locates distress signals transmitted by Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs), Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons (EPIRBs) and Personal Locator Beacons (PLBs). The system includes space and ground segments which process the signals received from the beacon source and forwards the distress alert data to the appropriate RescueCoordinationCenter for action.


Address SARSAT inquiries to:

NOAA SARSAT
NSOF. E/SP3
4231 SuitlandRoad
Suitland, MD 20746
Phone: 301.817.4515
Toll free: 888.212.7283
Fax: 301.817.4565