CARAC Notice of Activity - PICA and NPA - Emergency Locator

[CD]

CARAC Notice of Activity - PICA and NPA - Emergency Locator Transmitters

Notice to CARAC members,

We have created two new activities (#2015-13 and #2015-14) in the CARAC Activity Reporting System on Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs). These two activities address different issues pertaining to ELTs and are to be treated as separate:

1. PICA – Emergency Locator Transmitters (link)

Due to the evolution in ELT technology, Transport Canada intends to examine the potential increase of the maintenance interval for 406 MHz capable ELTs installed on aircraft (Appendix C of Standard 625) and proposes the establishment of a Focus Group. CARAC members are invited to confirm their interest in participating to this Focus Group. Additionally, feedback is being sought related to new ELT design features (Appendix G of Standard 571) and equipment installation standards for ELTs (Airworthiness Manual Section 551.104).

2. NPA – Emergency Locator Transmitters (link)

This NPA is proposing changes to CARs 605.38, 605.39 and 605.40. This NPA is also proposing to amend CAR 571.04 to allow for the installation of stand-alone 406 capable MHz ELT systems to be classified as non-specialized.

The objective of this NPA is to:
• safeguard aviation safety in Canada by ensuring that ELTs on Canadian aircraft are transmitting at the monitored 406 MHz frequency;
• provide a cost-conscious implementation time frame that respects the needs of small business;
• provide a simple, straightforward ELT rule for Canadian aviation which reduces compliance burden;
• ensure that the Canadian civil aviation system fulfills its international obligations, and that civil aviation rules approach harmonization with our international partners where possible in order to facilitate cross-border trade; and
• allow simplified rules for the installation of compliant ELTs.

We would appreciate your comments on both the PICA and the NPA in writing to CARRAC@tc.gc.ca by July 27, 2015.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I find it disheartening that TC is still beating the 406 dead horse. Less than 40 % of crashes result in a ELT activation for either the 121.5 or 406 beacons. A GPS based continuous tracking system is clearly a superior solution to the 30 year old 406 technology and now can be enabled with cheap technology. The latest SPOT 3 has an option of 2.5 minute tracking and cost 150 dollars.

For commercial operations a system like Spyder tracks is a totally automatic fitted system with a very high degree of system reliability.

It is time to take a step back and start over with a clean sheet approach to what is the best and most cost effective aircraft locating system to mandate.

[CpnCrunch]

An airplane owner I know upgraded to a 406ELT a number of years ago. Last winter he got a call saying that his ELT was transmitting on 406Mhz, and a CH149 was hovering overhead homing it. It was likely high humidity that set it off, in foggy weather. He had a lot of problems in the past with this new ELT (an Ameri-King) in the past -- apparently they are known for being a piece of crap. Anyway, he had to buy a new one (different model).

I completely agree that SPOT is a much better option. You can also use free android apps for 30-second tracking if you're within cellphone range.

[PilotDAR]

Thanks for the notice CD.

Do the experienced posters here agree that this may be a natural opportunity to review this in a bigger context?

I have resisted 406 ELT's for my planes so far. Now I have to admit from a recent embarrassing experience that 121.5 ELTs still work, so they're out for recert. But I prefer my SPOT. It covers the bases well enough for my sense of need to be safe.

I'm a proponent of a requirement that the pilot assure that some means is carried to enable an effective search. The lack of a G switch is compensated by the SPOT being monitored by the same responsible person, who otherwise would report me missing.

Aside from the ability to identify the subject aircraft, I have no experience which tells me that the 406 is otherwise superior to 121.5. I know there are other PLB's and such, with which I'm not familiar, so there must be numerous other options to be found. Now if there had been a SPOT aboard MH370.....

We did not do so well mounting an AvCanada unified front against proposed aerodrome regulation, is it time for another crack at it with this topic? This is social media, and we are a tiny social circle, should we not make the most of it? Who's in for a group reply to CARAC on this?

[photofly]

A GPS based continuous tracking system is clearly a superior solution to the 30 year old 406 technology and now can be enabled with cheap technology.

The technology in a 406 ELT doesn't cost any more than a SPOT tracker - you can buy a 406 PLB for less than $300, the battery is good for 5 years and it doesn't need an ongoing subscription either. The expensive part of an ELT is the certification requirement, and no aviation regulator in the world is going to let you replace an ELT with an uncertified device. So you can have a $1000 ELT, or a $+1000 SPOT unit. Take your pick. (The cheapest ADS-B out unit I can see is $3500, for example.)

I don't want to consider mandating a technology that, absent a requirement for emergency assistance, lets the gubbermint track my airplane around the globe; I'm surprised you all do.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I don't want to consider mandating a technology that, absent a requirement for emergency assistance, lets the gubbermint track my airplane around the globe; I'm surprised you all do.

So you never fly IFR, never use flight following ?

[photofly]

I don't want to consider mandating a technology that, absent a requirement for emergency assistance, lets the gubbermint track my airplane around the globe; I'm surprised you all do.

So you never fly IFR, never use flight following ?

Sometimes. Sometimes I ask for flight following and use your call sign. Sometimes I fly VFR 1000 agl with all the avionics shut down. My choice. Not theirs.

[Big Pistons Forever]

. So you can have a $1000 ELT, or a $+1000 SPOT unit. Take your pick. (The cheapest ADS-B out unit I can see is $3500, for example.)

Yup spydertrack is about 1000 dollars. The difference is that when you crash there will be a bread crumb trail to/or near the crash site everytime, so the SAR folks will know where to go to find you. With the 406 beacon they will have a 60 % + probability of not having any clue where you are (when the device fails to activate). I like a system that close to 100% of the time is going to say "here I am" to the one that over 60 % of the time is going to say "Meh, don't have a clue"

[Big Pistons Forever]

I don't want to consider mandating a technology that, absent a requirement for emergency assistance, lets the gubbermint track my airplane around the globe; I'm surprised you all do.

So you never fly IFR, never use flight following ?

Sometimes. Sometimes I ask for flight following and use your call sign. Sometimes I fly VFR 1000 agl with all the avionics shut down. My choice. Not theirs.

Safeway has a special on tinfoil........

[photofly]

It doesn't look like Spidertrack is certified: I'm not the expert on such things, but they haven't jumped through the hoops needed permanently to install it on an aircraft, and it's $1000+ already. I guess it would be about $4000 with an STC.

You're welcome to joke about tinfoil if you want. I don't want government tracking of my car in case I crash, and I don't want government tracking of my airplane in case I crash. Don't give away your freedoms voluntarily. When they're gone, they're gone for ever.

[AirFrame]

The whole concept of certification on this equipment needs to be re-evaluated. For Commercial flight I understand the need to protect the paying passengers. But for private flight, there is no reason I shouldn't be allowed to rely on a 406MHz PLB, SPOT, and/or APRS system to ensure the people who need to know where I am know that i'm safe.

Technology has improved in leaps and bounds beyond the antiquated equipment that the current rules were meant to regulate, yet we're still paying through the nose hairs to certify year after year that our equipment still works as it did when it was installed. Same applies to Transponders and Encoders.

[TeePeeCreeper]

Thanks for the notice CD.

Do the experienced posters here agree that this may be a natural opportunity to review this in a bigger context?

This is social media, and we are a tiny social circle, should we not make the most of it? Who's in for a group reply to CARAC on this?

I'm curious to find out as a long time COPA member (whom kept his dues up during the D.R fiasco) what the new COPA president thinks about all of this and what his views and intentions are in regards to this matter.

Mr. Gervais, might you be able to enlighten us with your thoughts?

All the best,
TPC

[Heliian]

Read the NPA's would ya before spouting off about the system. It has nothing to do with mandating installations but making it easier.

[RatherBeFlying]

There's several emerging technologies, each with strengths and weaknesses.

Android apps can send out position updates with SMS. Works great as long as cell tower in sight. Not so good in really remote areas.

Once there's low level ADS-B coverage and a cost effective way to supply GPS position to a mode S transponder, FlightRadar will show your flight.

Flarm records from other gliders in the air have been used to find crashed gliders and injured pilots. Ground stations are under development.

PLBs have an excellent record. Their only drawback is that you need to have the ability to deploy the antenna and push a button or two, which may be difficult in case of injury.

Between PLB (secured to my person in case I need to use my chute), Flarm and SMS tracking I feel pretty well covered gliding near inhibited areas.

TC first needs to acknowledge that technology is leapfrogging ELTs. Then it can start looking at ways to integrate the new technologies into SAR.

[7ECA]

Somewhat off topic, but here goes...

With all of the very real concerns about ELT g-switch reliability, ELT mounting setup reliability/crash resistance, antennas, etc, why is it that so few pilots, especially ones flying in aircraft that contain a remote switch (panel mounted) do not activate their ELT as soon as they realize they are in trouble. That way you will be sending out that signal immediately, sure you will still be moving - which will tend to make tracking more difficult, but if you have a prolonged ELT signal someone will at the very least have some idea of where you are/were and should be able to find you. Which is a hell of a lot better than crashing, and having the ELT fail to activate, or the mount breaks, which severs the antenna connection, and now you are injured and SOL because the damn thing didn't work.

As for PLBs, the same thing could be done, with it on your person in the event you realize you are going to be in trouble activate it immediately, then hopefully if you do get injured it will be running...

Your thoughts?

[Rookie50]

Somewhat off topic, but here goes...

With all of the very real concerns about ELT g-switch reliability, ELT mounting setup reliability/crash resistance, antennas, etc, why is it that so few pilots, especially ones flying in aircraft that contain a remote switch (panel mounted) do not activate their ELT as soon as they realize they are in trouble. That way you will be sending out that signal immediately, sure you will still be moving - which will tend to make tracking more difficult, but if you have a prolonged ELT signal someone will at the very least have some idea of where you are/were and should be able to find you. Which is a hell of a lot better than crashing, and having the ELT fail to activate, or the mount breaks, which severs the antenna connection, and now you are injured and SOL because the damn thing didn't work.

As for PLBs, the same thing could be done, with it on your person in the event you realize you are going to be in trouble activate it immediately, then hopefully if you do get injured it will be running...

Your thoughts?

Absolutely, and its part of every pax brief I do, have the ELT switched on.

[RatherBeFlying]

As for PLBs, the same thing could be done, with it on your person in the event you realize you are going to be in trouble activate it immediately

Not really. The antenna has to be erected. It's about a foot long metal strip and you wouldn't want it flailing about in a crash.

Also the GPS antenna needs a clear view of the sky.

[photofly]

Read the NPA's would ya before spouting off about the system. It has nothing to do with mandating installations but making it easier.

Uh... I think you might want to re-read the links more carefully.

[SeanMountainous]

Also the GPS antenna needs a clear view of the sky.

Does it though? I've had my Dual GPS hooked up to my iPad while in the house and I still had a moderately good signal.

[photofly]

Here's one way that the GPS in an ELT differs from something like an iPad: the ELT is doing a cold start, and has no almanac or ephemeris data. It has to do a complete sky search and start from scratch. I stand to be corrected, but a GPS that already knows where it is approximately and where the satellites are, and the time, can manage with a weaker signal.

[duCapo]

I find it disheartening that TC is still beating the 406 dead horse. Less than 40 % of crashes result in a ELT activation for either the 121.5 or 406 beacons. A GPS based continuous tracking system is clearly a superior solution to the 30 year old 406 technology and now can be enabled with cheap technology. The latest SPOT 3 has an option of 2.5 minute tracking and cost 150 dollars.

For commercial operations a system like Spyder tracks is a totally automatic fitted system with a very high degree of system reliability.

It is time to take a step back and start over with a clean sheet approach to what is the best and most cost effective aircraft locating system to mandate.

What he said. ^^^

[Big Pistons Forever]

Read the NPA's would ya before spouting off about the system. It has nothing to do with mandating installations but making it easier.

Uh... I think you might want to re-read the links more carefully.

Uh....maybe instead of trying make an obsolete and poorly performing system slightly easy to use, the CARAC process should be used to start over......

[PilotDAR]

the CARAC process should be used to start over......

Hear Hear....

[AirFrame]

Here's one way that the GPS in an ELT differs from something like an iPad: the ELT is doing a cold start, and has no almanac or ephemeris data. It has to do a complete sky search and start from scratch. I stand to be corrected, but a GPS that already knows where it is approximately and where the satellites are, and the time, can manage with a weaker signal.

Again, technology leapfrogging existing products. There's no reason an ELT couldn't be watching your onboard navigational GPS full-time, so it always knows it's location and never has to waste time "locking on".

[photofly]

Again, technology leapfrogging existing products. There's no reason an ELT couldn't be watching your onboard navigational GPS full-time, so it always knows it's location and never has to waste time "locking on".

Nothing has been leapfrogged. my ELT allows for exactly that. Probably all of them do. But what if you don't have a navigational GPS? Are you going to mandate that too?

Secondly if an ELT is connected to a GPS then the installation becomes specialized avionics work - the exemption that allows for any AME to install an ELT requires that the ELT isn't interfaced to any other onboard system.

There's nothing stopping anyone here from using a SPOT tracker if they want. But it's laughable to suggest it as an alternative to an ELT - how is SAR going to home in on it? It doesn't transmit any kind of continuous signal, and the 2xAA batteries would last about 3 seconds if it did.

Any system must, as a minimum:

1. Have an impact sensitive switch (unreliable as they may be) so that it has at least some chance of automatic activation
2. Transmit on the international frequencies of 121.5MHz and (or?) 406MHz for compatibility with SAR equipment
3. Have sufficient guaranteed reserve battery life to transmit without external power for some period, probably 24 hours. How much use would a SPOT-type device be if you crashed when the batteries were almost dead ("I was going to change them tomorrow...")
4. Transmit a coded signal to identify the source of the signal
5. Uh... that's it.

You can add whatever additional fancy features you like, but when you put all that together in a box it looks a lot like an ELT to me.