406 ELT question

[Widow]

May 5, 2009

Canada Backs Off 406 ELTs
By Russ Niles, Editor-in-Chief

Canada's Minister of Transport, John Baird, has overruled his bureaucracy and suspended implementation of a controversial rule that would have required almost all aircraft to have certified 406 Mhz emergency locator transmitters installed by February of 2011 in order to fly legally in Canada. The rule would have applied to aircraft trying to enter Canada from other countries. In an interview with AVweb at Canadian Aviation Expo in Hamilton, Ontario, earlier this week, Kevin Psutka, president of the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association (COPA), said the minister refused to sign the rule as presented by Transport Canada because it didn't include any viable alternatives to 406 ELTs, even though it included language that indicated an alternative method of compliance was possible. "There is no technology that exists today that could meet those (alternative) requirements," Psutka said. He said the minister has ordered his staff to draft a rule that gives new technology a fighting chance for acceptance.

Psutka and COPA have been fighting the mandatory equipage with 406 ELTs for 10 years, arguing the new ELTs, while somewhat improved in the level and types of information they provide rescuers, suffer from the same operational flaws as the old-style 121.5 units. The vast majority of ELT signals are accidental and do not announce any kind of emergency. On the other hand, when a plane does go down, they fail to trigger more than half the time, according to COPA's research. Psutka was urging Transport Canada and the Canadian Forces (which handles search and rescue) to consider new GPS-based systems that leave a "bread crumb" trail of position reports for rescuers to follow but the rule, as written, excluded all of them, he said. TC's position was that 406 ELTs meet International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards that changed when the satellite constellation that monitors search and rescue alerts stopped receiving 121.5 signals. The U.S. did adopt mandatory 406 equipage, but the military and Civil Air Patrol are recommending aircraft owners install the new ELTs.

http://www.avweb.com/avwebbiz/news/Cana ... 325-1.html

[Invertago]

Sometimes the ELT is fine, it is the zap strap holding it to the airplane that fails. (wasn't too impressed to see that on one aircraft a while ago.) Improperly installed ELTs don't do much good to anyone.

[Inverted2]

Good news!! Private aircraft ownership is fast becoming too expensive for the average person, so not having to shell out nearly $2000 to have an ELT installed that they don't necessarily need is a huge relief. On the other hand if you fly in remote areas or rugged terrain, its a good idea to have one, but if you fly around southwestern Ontario on the weekends, a 406 ELT is not necessary.

[Invertago]

I know a guy building an RV4 who doesn't want to bother with an ELT because he never plans to leave 25nm from the airport.


Why own an airplane (especially a 200mph one) if you never go anywhere with it? Maybe I just don't get it. I see airplanes as a means to see the world.

[fleet16b]

I know a guy building an RV4 who doesn't want to bother with an ELT because he never plans to leave 25nm from the airport.

Does the 25 nm rule apply anymore in Canada ?
Everyone I know thinks that the minute you leave the groud, you must have an operartional ELT unless it is out for service.

[petpad]

Kudos to COPA and industry lobbying for having achieved this reprieve. Remains to be seen however - not over yet. Baird has balls but he's no dummy. He will not piss-off DND and NSS just to please COPA. Don't uncork the champagne just yet.

[northmansx]

ok this may seem like a dumb question but if a guy doens't need a 406 elt now and the old 121 elt's are no longer being monitered, what does a guy do now if he doesn't want to pay for a 406elt????

[ragbagflyer]

ok this may seem like a dumb question but if a guy doens't need a 406 elt now and the old 121 elt's are no longer being monitered, what does a guy do now if he doesn't want to pay for a 406elt????

Well if you have a "SPOT" you'd be good to go in the meantime. 121.5 is still used for homing last I heard, even with the new 406 beacons (they transmit on both freq).

[Big Pistons Forever]

ok this may seem like a dumb question but if a guy doens't need a 406 elt now and the old 121 elt's are no longer being monitered, what does a guy do now if he doesn't want to pay for a 406elt????

Keep your 121.5 ELT and always file a flight plan including providing regular position reports/route changes. If you crash the flight plan will provide SAR alerting and the SAR aircraft will do a track crawl from your last reported position untill they can home your ELT.

[HS-748 2A]

I know a guy building an RV4 who doesn't want to bother with an ELT because he never plans to leave 25nm from the airport.

Does the 25 nm rule apply anymore in Canada ?
Everyone I know thinks that the minute you leave the groud, you must have an operartional ELT unless it is out for service.

What I gathered reading the reg. is that the 25 Nautical Mile Rule only applied to Approved Training Operators.

I asked about this in a previous thread hoping Prairie Chicken or CD would jump on it but I don't think it got answered.

[northmansx]

a couple of good ideas there, i have heard that airlines will still moniter for 121.5 signals like in the past. I have also been looking a the SPOT, seems like a great idea. continuing with a detailed flight plan of your inteneded stops and possible alternate fishing holes is still a very good idea with the 121.5 signal for back up..

[Old Dog Flying]

A few of the guys here at Langley are carrying the "SPOT" unit and have subscribed to the track following...and their families love the idea of being able to keep track of them. One individual has also added the password to track his position on his canned flight plan...smartest idea yet!

[iflyforpie]

605.38 (1) Subject to subsection (3), no person shall operate an aircraft unless it is equipped with one or more ELTs in accordance with subsection (2).


(3) An aircraft referred to in subsection (1) may be operated without an ELT on board where the aircraft is

(a) a glider, balloon, airship, ultra-light aeroplane or gyroplane;

(b) Repealed
(amended 2004/09/01; previous version)

(c) 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, and is equipped with a serviceable radio transmitter that

(i) is approved by the state of registry for search and rescue purposes, and

(ii) has a distinctive audio signal and is capable of communication on the frequency of 121.5 MHz, or simultaneously on the frequencies of 121.5 MHz and 243.0 MHz;

(d) 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;

(e) engaged in a flight test;

(f) a new aircraft engaged in flight operations incidental to manufacture, preparation or delivery of the aircraft;

(g) operated for the purpose of permitting a person to conduct a parachute descent within 25 nautical miles of the aerodrome of departure; or
(amended 2002/09/24; previous version)

(h) operated in accordance with section 605.39.
(amended 2002/09/24; previous version)

605.39 (1) An aircraft that is required to be equipped with one or more ELTs under section 605.38 may be operated without a serviceable ELT if the operator
(amended 2002/09/24; previous version)

(a) repairs the ELT or removes it from the aircraft at the first aerodrome at which repairs or removal can be accomplished;
(amended 2002/09/24; previous version)

(b) on removal of the ELT, sends the ELT to a maintenance facility; and
(amended 2002/09/24; previous version)

(c) displays on a readily visible placard within the aircraft cockpit, until the ELT is replaced, a notice stating that the ELT has been removed and setting out the date of removal.
(amended 2002/09/24; no previous version)

[snoopy]

From the COPA website ( I don't think I can provide a link - it asked for me to sign in before I could access the full article):

ELT Update

by Kevin Psutka
4 May 2009

The Transport Minister’s office has informed COPA that the proposed regulation that would effectively mandate 406 MHz ELTs has not been accepted. Thanks to COPA’s representations as well as contacts by COPA members with their Members of Parliament, Minister Baird came to appreciate that the regulation, as drafted, prevents any available alternative from being acceptable.

COPA had been pushing for the regulation to be returned to the Canadian Aviation Regulations Advisory Council, in which COPA participates, for further discussion leading to revised wording that would permit alternatives for our sector. The Minister has granted this request. A date for this meeting is being arranged but there is no firm schedule as of the date of this update.

Until this work is complete, the current regulation remains in place. Members are reminded that monitoring of the current ELTs is limited to overflying aircraft and a small number of NAV CANADA facilities. Satellite monitoring is limited to 406 MHz. Members who have not converted to 406 should take extra precautions to maximize their prospects in the event of an emergency.

[Spinner]

any one want to buy some used narco 10's?

pm me for details

[Jungle Jim]

It's hard to believe that a politician was the one using common sense at TC and had the presence of mind to shoot this thing down.

There's hope yet that reason will prevail.

Jim

[Sulako]

Well, if they aren't monitoring 121.5 elts any more then it's probably worth the money to get an elt that is in fact being monitored. I'd hate to be stuck out in the bush somewhere with the little yellow box going 'ping' but nobody can hear it. I know it's good practise to listen in on 121.5 but lots of planes go down without anyone else around, and once they are down the elt isn't really much good to them. I feel like I must be missing something here...

[snaproll20]

QUICK!!!!!
Slip Baird the SMS stuff while he's refusing to sign. After all, there IS an alternative!!!!

HURRY! HURRY!

[fleet16b]

Comparison between the "SPOT" and the 406ELT
The "SPOT" is subscription based at I am told approx $100/year
The 406 ELT is about $2000.00
Breaking it down the 406 ELT at $2000.00 = 20 yrs of "SPOT" subscription. However, the $2000 does not inlude fees for recertification of the units every 2 yrs etc, so the cost grows. It also has a high failure rate.
The "SPOT" is a fixed fee at 100/month , no unit to send in for inspection etc. It also offers a more detailed record/footprint of your whereabouts.
With that said, you have to ask yourself am I going to be flying for the next 20 yrs? We all want to say "yes" to that one.
In reality nobody can predict that, so the "SPOT" is actually better value for your money.
I am not trying to endorse either one just trying to look at this objectively.
Besides with todays technology, both will most likely be replaced long before the 20 yrs is up anyway.
So again the "SPOT" looks more attractive.

[fleet16b]

clunckdriver

Thanks for catching the typo ....got it right first line but not the second.
All and all it looks like the "SPOT' could be a good replacement.

[YoungPunk]

Even if the 406 gets pushed through I may pick up a SPOT system, $100/year is some really cheap insurance when you think about it!

[Vortex_driver]

I don't think it's very professionnal to think that you don't need an ELT. That's the kind of thinking that will get you in trouble. I'm suprise so many pilots think it's a luxury and unnecessary device. Even if it goes off half the time, and it helps localizing people another half the time, it might still save a few lives and it could be yours...

I would like to see you guys in the bush tomorow morning watching plane go by and getting hungry after 5 days, because it could really happen tomorow. Then you would be thinking "how ironic this is"!!!

[fleet16b]

I don't think it's very professionnal to think that you don't need an ELT. That's the kind of thinking that will get you in trouble. I'm suprise so many pilots think it's a luxury and unnecessary device. Even if it goes off half the time, and it helps localizing people another half the time, it might still save a few lives and it could be yours...

I think most people here are not saying we don't need one.
Most think just as the Minister says, that there should be alternative choices.
TC forcing yet another costly rule upon us without us having alternate choices is what pisses people off. Why should we pay for something that has been proven to not be an improvement?

[/quote] would like to see you guys in the bush tomorow morning watching plane go by and getting hungry after 5 days, because it could really happen tomorow. Then you would be thinking "how ironic this is"!!![/quote]

This is quite true but what about the pilots that don't fly in the bush?
Should they be exempt because they are in populated areas ?
Most likely no, it should be one rule for all.

[StudentPilot]

<Removed stupidly long bit>

I think having something that automatically alerts SAR about a crash is pretty important. I don't really care if it's someone checking the company/personal planes every 15-30 minutes or a G-switch (or whatever ELT's use), but it shouldn't be solely based on someone not showing up when they're supposed to or relying on someone to check the progress at frequent intervals. Do you really think your buddy Joe is going to check your track every so often this summer while you're flying, or is he going to spend the entire day out on the lake fishing and enjoying himself?

While I fully agree SPOT, SpiderTracks, SkyTrac, and all the other satellite tracking things are great, they also require someone to be following them quite frequently to replace ELTs IMO. One place I've worked that had satellite trackers in a few planes would rarely be tracking them. More often than not it seemed like the only time the tracking was used was to get ETAs if someone wanted to know when they were landing or to see if they were airborne from somewhere if their take off time was subject to change/delay. Factor in the cost for someone to monitor progress every 15/30/60 minutes to fleet's cost estimates. I know I wouldn't be interested in waking up every hour to check someone's progress all through the night. This would probably be more of a problem for the private flyers rather than the commercial ops (assuming they were allowed to use SPOT instead of 406 ELTs).

Other random thoughts:
I've heard of a few people that have SPOTs and have had some reasonably long losses of satellite signals. It may not happen right away, but eventually someone's going to go down during a loss of signal and not be all that close to their last position. It may have just been the position of the unit, but it was on the glareshield where it normally is located in at least some of the cases I've heard about. Anyone know if an external antennae would improve reliability (at least for those with problems getting consistent service)?

The 911 button gets you local emergency services via a call center. How does a police officer know if the SPOT emergency warrants involving JRCC right away or not? I have no idea how SPOT is set up, but assuming they have a profile for each user online, perhaps they could make it an option to contact local emergency services or JRCC? A simple radio button to select one or the other online, save it in a profile, and when a 911 message hits their call center they see you've selected JRCC and they call JRCC rather than local emergency services. It most likely gets you the help you want, and cuts out a step that all 911 operators would need to be aware of and may miss at a critical time.

For what it's worth, I read (on pprune or skywagons.org I think) someone cartwheeled their 180 in NZ. The pilot was the only one onboard and was fine. He got out and called his wife to let her know what happened and that he was ok. While he was talking to his wife, his dad got a call from SAR asking if the 180 was out flying. In that case it was five minutes or less from the ELT activating to SAR verifying the signal.

Personally, I think SPOT/GPS tracking and 406 ELTs are good ideas for anyone that flies in sparsely populated areas (by which I mean you make a forced landing and are practically guaranteed people will be showing up within an hour at most without any additional actions on your part).

[AME 283]

I keep hearing about the cost of the 406 ELTs, what is your life worth ?? the 121s will tell them you are down, the 406 will tell where you are within a few feet. Something is being done that will really affect safety, and we knock it down. Lets knock down some of the useless bull shit and get rid of TC