F

Frank N821BF

Active Member
With Steve Fossett not being found for several days I wonder if we should replace our old 121.5 ELT's with the newer 406's. Not sure is the plane he had was updated or not! Is there any good pricing out there for the 406's and/or could we set up a group buy!! Thanks

Frank
N821BF 9A
 
Frank, I agree entirely!

My plane WILL HAVE a 406 in it!

Sooo, I hope you can wait until next year or so for the 406 group buy!

:) CJ
 
I carry a 406 MHz PLB

McMurdo Fastfind Plus (GPS) for $550 USD versus perhaps $1000 for an ELT version.
 
ELT's whether the 121.5 or 406 will not always go off on an impact especially if it was a light impact. If the plane rolled over it could be going off but the antenna is broken or buried. I think it takes a 5G impact to set them off.

I cannot justify the cost of the 406 yet and plan on getting a PLB.

Last Thursday I flew a mission and found an 121.5 EPIRB that someone threw away going off in a landfill which was 7 miles from a Class D airport. Because of the location of the hits we believed it would be either in a parked airplane at the airport or a plane that crashed in or outbound. The two SARSAT hits we had were within one mile of the location it was found which kinda surprised us. One thing that we like to hear along with SARSAT hit locations is that it has actually been heard by someone. This one was heard by an airliner at FL200. I guess it is common for airliners to monitor Guard? Keep those ELT reports coming in, we like and use them.

A funny note on this mission was that the Ground Team was upset with us. Apparently we were lucky because we only had to fly over the landfill and they had to walk through it for a few hours.

As to the 406 ELT's they will definately make life easier for CAP and other volunteer search organizations. When one goes off the AFRCC is able to call the owner before calling us to assemble a search team. Most ELT's going off are "non-distress". We have found them in everything from aircraft in maintenance hangers, an ultralight in the back of a bar (no, the GT did not indulge after the "Find"), parked aircraft on the ramp that for whatever reason set it off, boats (we have the Chesapeake Bay here with LOTS of boats) and now twice this year EPIRBs thrown away in landfills without batteries removed. They are also much more accurate in positioning especially if GPS enabled.

One thing I have not heard from the news reports on Fossett is which type of ELT he had. It will be interesting to see when he is eventually found if his ELT even went off.
 
Yes

Captain_John said:
Frank, I agree entirely!

My plane WILL HAVE a 406 in it!

Sooo, I hope you can wait until next year or so for the 406 group buy!

:) CJ
Click to expand...

My issue is I don't see why the 406 unit will be any more reliable than a 121.5 unit...It still has a G switch...The anntenna will still get ripped off, the airplane with still flip upside down.

I think the GPS/PLB is better cus you will make sure its activated as soon as the emergency occurs...Stuff it up under the glaresheild and chances are are big Brother will get a lock on you before you hit the ground.

I know the last thing we want is another duty in the event of an emergency but out in the boonies it would seem prudent to put activating the PLB as item #2...i.e engine quit...Obvious reason?..No..Set off PLB, then do everything else.

Of course an in flight fire might alter the priority.

Frank 7a
 
I'm really not trying to start trouble -- really I'm not. But when I was thinking about this the other day, I decided I would spend the extra money on the upgraded ELT.

Then I thought back to the whole primer war thing and thought, 'why would people go to such extremes such as priming everything on the plane...accepting the weight penalty etc., even if they live hundreds of miles away form the ocean,' and then NOT do everything possible to give them an edge in their chances for survival in the event of a crash." It MIGHT not go off? Yeah, it might not go off. You might not get corrosion. Your electrical system might not need a backup. Your nose gear might not collapse. That enlarged bolt hole might not shed a control surface.

But we'll spend upwards of $100,000 on these planes... is this really where $500 should be saved? And where we want 100% guarantees?
 
No antenna

frankh said:
My issue is I don't see why the 406 unit will be any more reliable than a 121.5 unit...It still has a G switch...The anntenna will still get ripped off, the airplane with still flip upside down.

........

Frank 7a
Click to expand...
It seems like most of the 121.5 ELTs do work without an antenna.
I bet the units disposed of in the landfills were not hooked up to antennae... :)

We had an airpark aircraft owner working on an annual who triggered a CAP response (they were out on a training mission) from an ELT in his hand. He had it switched on and was carrying it around - he should have known better since he is an ex-CAP person... :rolleyes:

Antennae are much better, but apparently these units do emit enough RF radiation on their own.

gil in Tucson -- but I'm getting a 406 PLB... :)
 
The newest "primer war topic"

406 MHz or 121.5 MHz ELT

Way to go Bob. This topic will have you as the originator! :)

I recently saw where 121.5 MHz ELTs only activate perhaps 73% of the time. That does not seem very high to me. There are also too many (~98%) false alarms. I don't understand why that happens.

How do we know that 406 MHz ELTs will be any better in these two areas? Regardless, the advantages of a 406 MHz unit (whether ELT, EPIRB or PLB) is obvious. Here is one comparison:

http://www.equipped.org/406_vs_1215.htm

Also: http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/406vs121.pdf

If I could find a diagram that graphically shows the relative search area between 121.5 MHz, just 406 MHz and GPS-enabled 406 MHz, it is very enlightening and that alone might encourage many to get at least a 406 MHz PLB.

I agree with Frank. Activating the 406 MHz PLB while airborne, if you have time, can provide your location very quickly compared to a 121.5 MHz ELT that may not activate.

I got my PLB after flying in the Rockies and west where cell phones can't be counted on and the area is desolate.
 
Seems to me

The smart thing to do whether you have a 406ELT or a PLB is to set them off before you crash in the hope that it gives you a bigger chance.

I.e we don't know why the 73% operation rate will be any better with the 406 than the 121.5 ELT....I'd rather know its beeping before I'm potentially in a position where I can't do anything about it anyway.

I.e there you are injured, can't move..."now is the ELT going off?...Don't know, cable between remote panel and ELT probably ripped off...I hope"

Doomseday Frank
 
frankh said:
I.e we don't know why the 73% operation rate will be any better with the 406 than the 121.5 ELT....
Click to expand...
Even *if* the success rate is 73%, doesn't that give you a 73-percent better chance of being found?

OTOH, a flight plan would give you a better chance of being found too, but I guess I wouldn't file one either if I was just going up and looking around.

Still, it does make me think about what I *really* value in this whole construction thing. I'm going with the new ELT, I'm putting in a traffic gizmo, I want to put in a Vertical Power unit (I really like the idea of having something help with emergencies so I can fly the plane), I put in dual brakes (in the unlikely chance my passenger needed help stopping the plane if I were incapacitated), I've bought a thingy to clamp near the seat to break the plexi (hey, I have nosegear!) .

I'm even trying to figure out a paint scheme that will increase visibility... and I once toyed with the idea of embedding some lights (like the airlines, I guess) in the HS to illuminate the full tail.

I'll probably get a cheap paint job and I didn't prime too much so my resale value is probably shot.

I think it's because I've flown with myself too many times.:D
 
Last edited:
frankh said:
My issue is I don't see why the 406 unit will be any more reliable than a 121.5 unit...It still has a G switch...The anntenna will still get ripped off, the airplane with still flip upside down.

I think the GPS/PLB is better cus you will make sure its activated as soon as the emergency occurs...Stuff it up under the glaresheild and chances are are big Brother will get a lock on you before you hit the ground.

I know the last thing we want is another duty in the event of an emergency but out in the boonies it would seem prudent to put activating the PLB as item #2...i.e engine quit...Obvious reason?..No..Set off PLB, then do everything else.

Of course an in flight fire might alter the priority.

Frank 7a
Click to expand...

Frank, the trick isn't in the freq, it is in how it gets handled.

Basically the way the 121.5 thing happens is antiquated. The accuracy of the equipment is terrible, the false alarms are too many and the system is "dumb"... if you will.

The 406's can locate you AND provide your identity at the same time.

To top this off, SAR will no longer support 121.5 beyond sometime in 2009 as I recall.

:cool: CJ
 
Yes but

I thought i read somewhere that the the 121.5 units only worked 73% of the time...(note no ELT signal has been detected from Steve Fossestts plane).

From this I concluded (maybe incorrectly) that the darn things simply don't work...I mean if they are combing the countryside with a radio and can' pick up a signal that presumably means a signal is not being generated...

regardless of how the signal is handled, if it doesn't get transmitted then the thing is a large paperweight.

My point was that the 406 units are still a Gswitch and antenna...I.e the same technology as used in the existing ELTs.

So in other words,,,if you wait till you hit the ground you will then be almost guaranteed rescue 73% of the time with a 406ELT.

Still pretty poor odds from my perspective.

i assume if you set it off (PLB or 406 ELT) while still flying your odds should climb close to 100%.

Frank
 
from FAA Safety Team - look below to sign up for the e-mail service

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


You have received this notice from FAASafety.gov because you have selected "General Information" in your preferences on your FAASafety.gov account. Click here to log in and edit your preferences on FAASafety.gov.

Safety is a learned behavior...Learn to be safer at the Learning Center found on FAASafety.gov
 
SAR won't support 121.5 MHz after next Feb?

I don't think so. The orbiting satellites supposedly won't but that does not translate into SAR organizations blowing off 121.5 MHz alarms.

If that were true then the FAA would likely mandate 406 MHz ELTS which they are not as of today.

As far as the 73% number, let's assume that it means the times that the ELT should activate. But then it has to be detected which may not happen. Finally since the search area is so large, you may not be found (ala Fossett). Therefor I proclaim a being found rate of no more than 50% for 121.5 MHz.

If you install a 406 MHz ELT, then spring for the GPS enabled option so your exact location is transmitted.
 
Don't count on it, all it means is the FAA is screwed up

Ron Lee said:
I don't think so. The orbiting satellites supposedly won't but that does not translate into SAR organizations blowing off 121.5 MHz alarms.

If that were true then the FAA would likely mandate 406 MHz ELTS which they are not as of today.

As far as the 73% number, let's assume that it means the times that the ELT should activate. But then it has to be detected which may not happen. Finally since the search area is so large, you may not be found (ala Fossett). Therefor I proclaim a being found rate of no more than 50% for 121.5 MHz.

If you install a 406 MHz ELT, then spring for the GPS enabled option so your exact location is transmitted.
Click to expand...
Ron that is faulty logic my friend. This was announced in 2000 and its our lovely FAA and government that has screwed up the implementation out of either incompetence and/or laziness. The FAA just has its head up its tail pipe. This is not a secret signal that the date will be pushed backed or 406 will be canceled.

You say "If that were true then the FAA would likely mandate 406 MHz ELTS."

Listen the US Coast Guard mandated it for boats Jan 2007. Every contry on the planet has made it mandatory. You can hope and pray, but the USA does not run the SARSAT's, its an international agency. They could not have been more clear, they will NOT look for you (by satellite) after Feb 2009. They warned us in 2000. This almost a decade in the making.

The idea that they certainly would not ignore your little old ELT alarm is optimistic. May be some of the US satellites will be on watch?

I suppose (and this is wild-a gussing) if some one calls in and says you are missing, they may request signal data after the fact. I understand you think they will still be up there after Feb 2009 so why not use them. I don't know but the birds are not being maintained any more. How long will they stay up there and who has access to the data, I don't really know. I think its moot. The capability is going way sooner than later. There's no doubt and you would agree, 406 is more accurate.


The day of the $189.95 El-Cheap-O ELT should be over. Lets get some $995 Artex units in there, heck $1,500 or more if they really work. We try to put the cheapest ELT we can find may be some of the problem. You get what you pay for. We spend $10,000 on a fancy panels. I don't get the resistance to the new technology. Its needed, the 1970 technology is long outdated. I have a Artex and its quality is much better than the ACK I had.

406 is not a magic bullet; Fossett may not have been found with a 406 either. If the crash is super violent or under water, etc, not even a 406 will save the day, but that is not a logical reason to not upgrade. With the 5 watts the 406 can be picked up by satellite even with the antenna disconnected I have been told. Not ideal but during test it happened.
 
Last edited:
George, my analysis is correct

I am only saying that SAR assets will not ignore 121.5 MHz. Let them correct me if I am wrong.

Your point is that the FAA SHOULD mandate 406 MHz ELTs. No problem with that opinion. I don't agree. I have a PLB. If they want to start a transition with new aircraft and 121.5 MHz units that no longer work, I have no problem with that.
 
121.5 will be used by SAR, just not by satellites

Ron Lee said:
I am only saying that SAR assets will not ignore 121.5 MHz. Let them correct me if I am wrong.

Your point is that the FAA SHOULD mandate 406 MHz ELTs. No problem with that opinion. I don't agree. I have a PLB. If they want to start a transition with new aircraft and 121.5 MHz units that no longer work, I have no problem with that.
Click to expand...
I am not sure what you mean by SAR will not ignore 121.5 Mhz. I guess its academic if they don't hear the 0.1 watt signal at all to ignore. Again 406 ELT's has 5 watts and they are processing those signals via satellites. They (NOAA, Air Force, NASA, USCG) are clear, that they will not process 121.5/243 satellite signals.

Not sure how "ignore" and "will not process" fit together. I thought it means they will ignore it, but suspect if they get a request to search for a signal (via satellite) they can. However they will not initiate searches, is what I understand. :confused: Again its academic if the weak 121.5/243 signal is not heard.

121.5 will still be used with SAR (search and rescue). There is no doubt, even the new 406 Mhz has a 121.5 Mhz transmitter as well for local homing. However most saves will be from the satellite and 406 signal. No getting around the loss of satellite signal processing of 121.5/243, but you can use your 121.5/243 Mhz ELT for the foreseeable future, it just will be less effective after Feb 2009.

How can the government let us use the 121.5 Mhz ELT if its not effective? I don't know but they are. The confusion comes from the fact they have not mandated it but "strongly encourage" it. I suspect at some point, especially after another high profile missing plane the 406 will be mandated.

May be its Airlines lobbying who don't want to change? Airline transport planes may not have an ELT, its not required, but for over water ops rafts have ELT's, which would all need replacing $$. Funny thing is USCG has already mandated the change for maritime ops.


Here is an excerpt of current notice of proposed rule on the Federal register:

The implication of this Cospas-Sarsat
decision is that users of ELTs, EPIRBs,
and PLBs that operate on 121.5/243
MHz should eventually begin using
beacons operating on 406 MHz if they
wish to continue having their beacons
detected by satellites. United States
registered civil aircraft may carry a
121.5 MHz ELT to satisfy the
requirements described in CFR Title 14,
part 91, section 207. At the present time,
the United States does not mandate the
carriage of 406 MHz ELTs. The carriage
of 406 MHz ELTs is optional. The
United States does not have any
mandatory carriage requirements for
121.5 MHz EPIRBs.

Cospas-Sarsat is an international
program and the decision to terminate
satellite processing of distress signals at
121.5/243 MHz does not mean that
users cannot continue to use 121.5/243
MHz emergency beacons. The result of
this termination process is that the
121.5/243 MHz signals will no longer be
detected by satellites, under the
auspices of Cospas-Sarsat. This lack of
signal processing could result in a
distress signal from a 121.4/243 MHz
emergency beacon not being detected, or
the detection being significantly
delayed. The termination of 121.5/243
MHz processing is planned far enough
into the future to allow current 121.5/
243 MHz emergency beacon users to
transition smoothly to 406 MHz
beacons.

Here is a good ref. for folks that want to read more. Lots of good links at bottom, including the full Fed Reg ruling. http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/


phaseout.html


Clearly a PLB406 is a nice thing to have even if you stick with the old ELT. However its going to happen when they say all old ELT's are door stops.
 
Last edited:
406 mhz Question

Are the aviation 406 ELTs also going to transmit on 121.5? How do we check for inadvertent activation when we can't receive 406?

I'm getting close to having to do the install on one or the other on the RV10.
 
Yes, my 406 also transmits on 121.5. Not sure, but it seems to me the ack light on the manual activation switch should also come on with activation, regardless of whether the switch was thrown or not.

E.
 
I had one of those inadvertent activations caused by my tailwheel going over one of those reflectors in the middle of the taxiway. The reflector only sticks up half an inch, so it wasn't much of a bump. At least on mine, I found out that the ELT did work.

Seems to me better G-switches could be designed. Air bags are activated by a G-switch consisting of contacts held in place by a magnet. When the magnetic strength is overcome, a spring closes the circuit. If I remember correctly in an ELT the G-switch works off some kind of little pendulum, which seems primitive.

It also seems to me that two antennas could be used, one on top of the plane and one on the bottom so the signal could get out even if the plane were upside down. If there is an electronic design reason for not using 2 antennas simultaneously, then a G-switch could be designed to switch antennas if the plane were upside down.

I don't see ELT design as an insurmountable problem. I can see why a cheapo ELT selling to a small market for a couple hundred bucks or less might have problems, but a $1,000 unit should work almost perfectly. I hope they do.

Richard Scott
RV9A Fuselage
1941 Interstate Cadet
 
I just got a reply from Ameri-king on 406 ELTs. They said they are just TSOing their AK-451 now and it should be to market in a few months. Same footpint as the AK-450. He also said at this time there is no aviation mandate on the horizon for 406 devices and that military 121.5 satellite monitoring will continue well past 2009 according to his sources. Now what to do?
 
CFIT

frankh said:
I thought i read somewhere that the the 121.5 units only worked 73% of the time...(note no ELT signal has been detected from Steve Fossestts plane).

From this I concluded (maybe incorrectly) that the darn things simply don't work...I mean if they are combing the countryside with a radio and can' pick up a signal that presumably means a signal is not being generated...

regardless of how the signal is handled, if it doesn't get transmitted then the thing is a large paperweight.

My point was that the 406 units are still a Gswitch and antenna...I.e the same technology as used in the existing ELTs.

So in other words,,,if you wait till you hit the ground you will then be almost guaranteed rescue 73% of the time with a 406ELT.

Still pretty poor odds from my perspective.

i assume if you set it off (PLB or 406 ELT) while still flying your odds should climb close to 100%.

Frank
Click to expand...

I see where you're coming from Frank. That said, the one scenario where the g-switch (even at 73%... or whatever) would be a good thing is controlled flight into terrain. It's unlikely that you'd get your PLB switched on in these instances.

Shouldn't be an issue unless you fly in clouds or in the dark, and I'm sure we've all thought, "How could anyone be so incompetent as to fly into the side of a mountain," but it does happen.

Maybe best of both worlds is to have a manual activation switch in the panel for the "traditional" mounted ELT? G-switch there if it is called on, but you don't have to rely on it if you have the time to trigger manually on the way down.
 
Search Area

Here's a quick visualization of the minimum quoted accuracy area for 121.5 vs. 406 (25km and 5km respectively):

121.5:
537udzr.jpg


406:
682im15.jpg


Of course if you have a GPS enabled 406MHz ELT, even the 5km circle goes away...

--Bill
 
ACK Technologies, Inc.

I sent ACK Technologies a note asking if they were going to make a "plug-and-play" replacement for E-01 ELT. The following is their reply, posted with their permission:
ACK Technologies said:
Yes, we are currently working on the 406 Mhz retrofit for our old model E-01 ELT. It will use the same mounting tray, remote control, antenna wiring and holes, (Might be 1 more additional antenna however.) as well as using 4 standard D-cell lithium batteries. We plan for release of this unit near the middle of 2008, and priced somewhere between $500-$600 dollars. We will not have an exchange/upgrade program that I know of because we will have to slightly modify the current housing for the ELT and make the battery compartment smaller, and the head of the unit larger to accomidate the new circuit boards. So the old units will be fairly useless to us.
Click to expand...
In a second note he added:
ACK Technologies said:
We are also not entirely sure about the remote, we do know it will use the same screws, and fit in the same hole in the panel, but we are either going to offer a plug in audible buzzer attachment or design a new RCPI, w/out changing the facial panel dimensions.
Click to expand...
 
406 elt's antenna placement

The installation manual for the 406 mHz ELT's are very specific about mounting the antenna on the top of the plane so the signal will get to the satelites. This is seriously flawed logic - about 3/4 of the crashes I have some awareness of ended up with the airplane upside down. Seems like we are better off putting the antenna on the bottom.

Also, if I'm right side up, I may still want a rescue , but may not be urgent, If I'm upside down, I need help NOW.

This is an issue for RV-8's. Just no good way to put an antenna on the top. We put the 121.5 antennas oriented flat in the emp. fairing. This is a good place, signal gets out with almost any orientation, and its hard to damage the antenna. But the 406 signal is vertically polarized - a horizontal antenna may be worse than no antenna at all.
 
My understanding is the plane Steve Fossett was flying was used for glider towing, and as such, might have had NO ELT installed.

For my money, a GPS-enabled ELT is money well spent, and I WILL BE BUYING ONE SOON.
 
Sport Aviation Warning

And people think "Flying Magazine" is bad!

The March 2008 issue of "Sport Aviation" has an article on ELTs. It is in the "Technical Counselor" section. Please be warned that this article is filled with misinformation. An early quote is "The 406 MHz ELT is the same personal locator beacon (PLB) that can be found in department and sporting goods stores." This type of misinformation is repeated throughout the article. Near the end he refers to a "TSO'd PLB." I'd like to see that.

I don't know if the accuracy problems are from Professor Koehler's writing or in the editing, but I am afraid that many people may be mislead by this article.
 
As my CFII said

J3 cub, 70 miles offshore= Darwin award...:)

But flying over Nevada appears to offer about the same hope of rescue...I.e zero.

I feel grateful to live in a world with PLB's...

Frank
 
Landing in a desert or the ocean with a PLB is entirely different. I would pick the desert. Yes I have a PLB (GPS enabled).
 
A replacement one....

lostpilot28 said:
Has anyone heard anything about Ameri-King's new 406 Mhz ELT? It's listed on AC Spruce's website: http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/ak451PLB.php

I haven't done much looking around, but is $500 cheap for one of these? It doesn't appear to be the PLB type even though that's what the text says, but an actual airframe-mountable ELT (I'm going by the picture).
Click to expand...

Sonny... I believe that about 50% cheaper than the previous ELT units that transmit on 406 MHz.

Their competition at the low cost ELT end is ACK... it will be interesting to see what they come up with. I think the unit shown is a drop in (probably with an antenna change) replacement for the Ameri-King 121.5 unit.

Note it is not GPS enabled, but that feature may only be icing on the cake...:)

OOPS... UPDATE.... it looks like an ELT, but it is not certified!!!

from this web site....

NOTE: THIS IS NOT AN FAA APPROVED ELT AND DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS WHEN AN ELT IS REQUIRED TO MEET FLIGHT STANDARDS.
Does not include G-Switch, Remote indicator on/off/reset switch or mounting bracket for use in aircraft
Includes portable antenna only

Good description of 121.5 and 406 ELTs here, with different manufacturers...

http://www.wingsandwheels.com/page13.htm

gil A
 
I thought the 406 MHz ELTs were around $1000 USD. This "looks" like an ELT but they use terms like personal ELT and PLB. If you are looking for an ELT system, make sure that this has an auto activation function (G switch).

See also: http://www.cospas-sarsat.org/beacons/BeaconReports/179-1.pdf

Which is not clear if this is a auto activating ELT.

Apparently non-GPS enabled but still more accurate than a 121.5 MHz ELT

Thanks Gil. It is not an ELT so my view is wait until one comes out that is affordable or consider a PLB like the Acer or McMurdo Fastfind Plus
 
Last edited:
I talked to the ACK factory several months ago and they were hoping to have a low cost (about 1/2 of present units) 406 ELT by mid this year...
 
Updated ACK 406 info on their www page

To follow up w/ Deene's info, ACK's site offers some specifics:

NEW ACK 406/121.5 MHz E-04 ELT SCHEDULED FOR DELIVERY FALL 2008 *

Complete install pkg MSRP 599USD and retrofit for 560USD.

I can't paste the rest since it's an image (well, I _could_, but...) ... so here's the link:

http://www.ackavionics.com/index.html
 
This is good news from ACK!

As I read their web site they talk about "Accepts GPS position input data from Bendix/King, Garmin, Nema 0183 GPS".

I take this to mean I have to run a wire or wires from my 496 to the unit. This is going to be a real PITA as I have my ELT stuffed under my baggage compartment floor. :(

Also, what is with this "Antenna is swept back 20 degrees, and features a molded plastic base"? I'm guessing it will not work behind the roll bar as many of us have done.
 
Does the ELT work?

Hello
Why are folks arguing about ELTs? What ever you use make sure it will work any where and any time.................................................................................................................
 
leeschaumberg said:
Hello
Why are folks arguing about ELTs? ...
Click to expand...
Lee,

Because you can't fly into Canada or Mexico with the 121.5 only ELT's, that's why. Or soon won't be able to. Which stinks IMHO.

I heard back from ACK. Their new antenna is not straight and I doubt it will work for those of us who have mounted the antennas behind the roll bar (tip-ups) or back in the tail cone. :(

As for wiring, it will need three 24 AWG wires, which in my case will be very difficult to route. By difficult I will have to remove both the seat pan and the right baggage compartment floor. So I doubt I'll be installing one any time soon. :(
 
We don't like the stupid 406 ELT rule here either and TC is under attack from COPA about how they are trying to implement it. Seems we may have a bit more time to comply here as they are waffling now a bit. Not sure how the rules will apply to US aircraft. Seems maybe the guys in Ottawa got some ideas from the dimwits in Maine. They both wanna lose a bunch of tourism dollars I guess.
 
The other issue Lee....

Is that current 121.5 MHz ELTs supposedly fail to activate in too many cases. Plus they are not very accurate compared to what a 406 MHz (particularly GPS enabled) provides.
 
It seems that many 406 models use the same somewhat unreliable type G switches as the old models so this may not change. Certainly once activated, the 406 models provide more accurate location and aircraft information. That part in not disputed, it is the quick, forced implementation that we object to.

There are not enough units on hand or qualified installation people to do all the aircraft within the timetable it would seem. Many players are still working on their low cost 406 designs like Ameriking- not even on the market yet.
 
ELTs of Today

Hello
The old ELTs should be a thing of the past period. If the poloticians in DC and Ottawa screwed things they should be yelled at. My warm body is worth some thing to me and my (cold) body is worth some thing to my family. When ELTs don't work it's the ELT companies problem and they won't change until people stop buying from them! The ELT should work at all times if you nose it in , land on your back, your belly. or your tail on ground or water. Antennas should not get pulled off and it shouldn't care if the plane is aluminun or glass. If some people lose money because of the change thats the cost of doing busness not the plane owner or pilots problem. With that said the 406 ELT with GPS positioning is good. The 121.5 stuff is old junk. So you want a workable PLB and next a plane monted unit.
Bye Now
Cool I just turned 100
 
java said:
Maybe best of both worlds is to have a manual activation switch in the panel for the "traditional" mounted ELT? G-switch there if it is called on, but you don't have to rely on it if you have the time to trigger manually on the way down.
Click to expand...

The manual control switch that has been mandated for years allows for manual activation of the ELT. I will admit that my emergency checklist has not included this as an action item, but it sure will in the future. I am sure that there are exceptions, but all the switches that I have seen, have two buttons "ON and RESET".
As an aside, how many of us, when exiting the plane stop to check the "ON" light to assure that the ELT did not activate after a less than stellar performance of aeronautical prowess?

To answer a previous question: Yes, us guys in the jets do monitor 121.5 at all times. World wide as a matter of fact.
 
AK-451 Now Available

I received an E-mail from Ameri-King this morning that their new 406 MHz ELT is now available. The AK-451 (TSO C126) is a direct retrofit for the older AK-450.

You can see an install on the Skycatcher at the Cessna booth at Oshkosh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.