406 ELT Thread

J

JC150

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
491
Display Name
Display name:
JC150
Sorry to bring up the topic again, but I've decided to purchase the 406 ELT this year. I'm stuck between choosing an ELT with an internal antennas or an external antennas (Artex). Can anyone with more knowledge and experience tell me why the Artex ELT costs more and if its in fact any better having the external antennas?

Thank You!
 
All 406 ELTs require external antennae. I've had an Artex ME406 since it was about the only choice. Today I'd probably use an ACK.
 
That simply means for hand held use. Normally there is a separate antenna that you would use in that case. You can clearly see the BNC connector on the unit for the coax to the external antenna (its labeled ANT)
 
Oh ok so I need an antenna no matter what. Gotcha thanks!
 
Your 406 should come with a new antenna in the kit. It should be a direct replacement of your old 121.5 antenna and should fit into the same hole and use your old coax. One thing to consider will be the TSO-required remote control panel. Maybe your plane has one of the later model 121.5 ELTs that had the panel switch, maybe not. Your new ELT will require that switch and require a comm cable to the ELT and likely some power connection at the switch itself. My plane did already have a panel ELT switch so I used the Artex ME406ACE kit, which allowed me to re-use my old ACK comm cable and uses a battery powered panel switch, which I prefer. The last item is to discuss your ELT mount with your mechanic. Your old ELT mount may not meet the structural requirement. The requirement isn't new but lots of old 121.5s were overlooked and most mechanics scrutinize the 406 installs more. The structural standards are very clear and aren't easy to comply with. Since your IA needs to sign the install into service he should be involved in the install decisions.
 
Interesting. I still have an old 121.5 with two 406 PLBs, so I consider that sufficient. A 406 will eventually get added, but I figure there's some more useful "Don't crash in the first place" items.
 
In Alaska a 406ELT beacon dispatch goes to the Air Guard Rescue Coordination Center. A 406 PLB goes to State Troopers. Huge difference. I don't own a PLB. But my airplane has a hard-wired Spidertracks unit in it so I figure my ELT is a backup unit anyway. A good friend is a helicopter pilot assigned to RCC. My wife knows how to contact him if my Spider info alarms her.
 
I got a 406 PLB this Christmas to act as a safety buffer for our 121.5 ELTs.

We are planning on replacing the 121.5 ELTs, however the funds to do so are lacking.
 
Stewartb said:
All 406 ELTs require external antennae. I've had an Artex ME406 since it was about the only choice. Today I'd probably use an ACK.
Click to expand...

This is interesting. My new 406 is getting installed today in my Cirrus and the avionics shop said it MUST go inside...

Can you shed some more light on this Stewartb? I just want to discuss with the shop before this is all completed....

Thanks
 
Your 406 will likely reside in a similar tray and location as the 121.5 it replaces. The 406's for GA usually use wire whip antennae and those are also direct replacement of the old wire whip. Some guys are using internally mounted ELT antennae and I believe Kannad and/or ACK address concealed antenna installation in their instructions. I'm not well enough versed about concealed installations to make any statements other than I'm not an easy sell that they're worth doing. I prefer to use what's known to work.
 
Emini,

Here's an exerpt from the ACK installation manual. Your mechanic needs to see whether the unit he's installing allows for this kind of antenna installation. Maybe he doesn't care but in my area the mechanics are very careful with ELT installs.

SECTION 3 ANTENNA INSTALLATION
The antenna may be mounted internally in composite construction, and tubular fabric
covered aircraft, as long as the fabric or composite material is of a non conductive nature.
The antenna must be mounted externally, on airframes of metallic construction. The
antenna should be mounted as close to the ELT transmitter as practical. The coaxial cable
connecting the antenna to the ELT transmitter, should not run in close proximity to comm
radio coaxial cables, and should avoid crossing aircraft production breaks. (i.e. Riveted
fuselage sections) The antenna must be mounted within 30 degrees of vertical, when the
aircraft is in normal flight attitude. The installed antenna must be able to withstand a static
load of 100 (one hundred) times it’s weight (13 lbs.) applied to the base of the antenna,
along the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. The antenna should be mounted a minimum distance
of three feet (1 meter) from any vertically polarized communication antennas. (i.e.
Antennas radiating in the 118-137 MHz band.)
Click to expand...

source: http://www.ackavionics.com/pdf/E-04_REV_1.7_SINGLE_PAGE_REDUCED.pdf

PS- once installed make sure to do your on-line registration and include good phone contacts for people who'll know how to find you or find out if you're flying. 406 rescues begin with a telephone investigation to validate there's an emergency. That phone contacts list is very important. Give them enough contacts so that they'll find somebody that'll answer.
 
Last edited:
Stewartb said:
Emini,

Here's an exerpt from the ACK installation manual...

The antenna must be mounted within 30 degrees of vertical, when the
aircraft is in normal flight attitude...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That's one of the things I've never quite understood since in most cases an ELT will be transmitting after a crash landing and how can you possibly ensure that the antenna will be in the proper position in that situation? What I mean is how can the ELT be expected to perform as needed if that is such a critical issue? :dunno:
 
I assume testing and statistics. Mine's on the fuselage aft of the cabin and fore of the vertical fin. In that location it's protected as well as it can be.

A year ago a 182 crashed near Galena, Alaska and instantly flipped in shallow water. Off duty Troopers were asked to fly to the scene in private Cubs. They found the three occupants in good shape. The 406 beacon directed the rescuers to the site even with the plane inverted in water. Pretty cool.
 
Stewartb said:
Emini,

Here's an exerpt from the ACK installation manual. Your mechanic needs to see whether the unit he's installing allows for this kind of antenna installation. Maybe he doesn't care but in my area the mechanics are very careful with ELT installs.



source: http://www.ackavionics.com/pdf/E-04_REV_1.7_SINGLE_PAGE_REDUCED.pdf

PS- once installed make sure to do your on-line registration and include good phone contacts for people who'll know how to find you or find out if you're flying. 406 rescues begin with a telephone investigation to validate there's an emergency. That phone contacts list is very important. Give them enough contacts so that they'll find somebody that'll answer.
Click to expand...

We confirmed today with Cirrus - it goes inside - same place the old one was. But thank you for the info. I was a bit nervous to be honest... Apparently they knew all about it..
 
EminiTrader said:
We confirmed today with Cirrus - it goes inside - same place the old one was. But thank you for the info. I was a bit nervous to be honest... Apparently they knew all about it..
Click to expand...

I didn't catch that you had a Cirrus at first. I know nothing of composite airplanes but remembered seeing that antenna instruction. Out of curiosity, is your antenna close to vertical? It wouldn't be required to be if Cirrus certified it differently. I've never seen a composite airframe ELT installation. Bravo for switching to 406, too.

Thx
 
Stewartb said:
I didn't catch that you had a Cirrus at first. I know nothing of composite airplanes but remembered seeing that antenna instruction. Out of curiosity, is your antenna close to vertical? It wouldn't be required to be if Cirrus certified it differently. I've never seen a composite airframe ELT installation. Bravo for switching to 406, too.

Thx
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know if it's vertical or not... But one of the reasons we changed it to 406 is the old ELT was going off on occasion. Turns out if you use COm 2 on low freqs it was setting off the ELT.. There is also a G switch that was supposed to be swapped every 5 years. Mine wasnt. So figured why not go to 406 and be done with it.

Flew it today on comm 2 and no issues..
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Interesting. I still have an old 121.5 with two 406 PLBs, so I consider that sufficient. A 406 will eventually get added, but I figure there's some more useful "Don't crash in the first place" items.
Click to expand...

You realize there isn't anyone monitoring 121.5 anymore, right? If you crash, it will be just luck is anyone hears it.

For a while it was good enough to say "I know the 121.5 is illegal to broadcast on. If you hear it come find me and give me a citation", but today there just aren't that many listening anymore.
 
bflynn said:
You realize there isn't anyone monitoring 121.5 anymore, right? If you crash, it will be just luck is anyone hears it.

For a while it was good enough to say "I know the 121.5 is illegal to broadcast on. If you hear it come find me and give me a citation", but today there just aren't that many listening anymore.
Click to expand...

??? not around here...
 
121.5 is dead technology. Finding excuses to keep using one is insane. Next time you spout off about how you support your troops or support your local LEO look in the mirror at the guy who'd have them risk their lives to go look for your dumb ass with your useless technology as the only guidance. 15 minutes after a 406 goes off they know who you are and where you are within just a few meters. Explain your choice to your kids when you tuck them in tonight. Explain your rationale as you explore that they may be in that plane with you. Sleep on that.
 
bflynn said:
You realize there isn't anyone monitoring 121.5 anymore, right? If you crash, it will be just luck is anyone hears it.



For a while it was good enough to say "I know the 121.5 is illegal to broadcast on. If you hear it come find me and give me a citation", but today there just aren't that many listening anymore.
Click to expand...

Really? Then why is there still so much chatter and guard nazis on IAD these days?

Last trip I did VFR coming back from Tennessee a week ago, there was just as much talking on 121.5 as Atlanta Center.

I'm not arguing for sticking with a ELT, but to say 'no one is listening to Guard anymore' is a very inaccurate statement.
 
Last edited:
bflynn said:
You realize there isn't anyone monitoring 121.5 anymore, right? If you crash, it will be just luck is anyone hears it.

For a while it was good enough to say "I know the 121.5 is illegal to broadcast on. If you hear it come find me and give me a citation", but today there just aren't that many listening anymore.
Click to expand...

When I'm flying, I always have 121.5 on #2 Com unless I'm using it for picking up weather or some other reason. So, I'm monitoring it. I've reported several ELTs in my flying career. My point was I also have PLBs, plus I always (at least almost always) fly IFR, so there are a lot of ways someone should be able to know where I am. That puts a 406 ELT much lower on the list than items that will help prevent me crashing in the first place.

I agree 121.5 ELTs are dead technology and they will, eventually, all get replaced. The need for a 406 ELT depends on what you do. If I flew a lot of VFR work, especially in the mountains, I'd consider it mandatory.
 
The AAFRCC isn't listening and they're the ones that dispatch people (CAP) to come find you. I know there are some who listen on guard, but there's fewer than there used to be.

At best, you're getting a slower response, perhaps a much slower response.
 
The satellites stopped listening years ago. If you use a 121.5 your only hope is that somebody flying by might hear a beacon. What then? They call it in. What then? The SAR guys look at each other and shrug. Not enough info to act on. Maybe if another guy hears the beacon they'll think about starting to look. That's if the 121.5 beacon is still broadcasting. Compare that to a basic 406, let alone a GPS enabled 406. Satellites get the signal within 50 seconds. They know who you are instantly and start calling your contacts to validate an emergency. By the time they finish a call or two they know precisely where you are. No search, just a pickup. The potential advantage of GPS enabling is that your location will go out in the initial burst, which is important if the plane sinks or burns. You might be dead but your family will have a body to bury. If you've never had friends who lost spouses and kids that were never found? Trust me, it'd be much better if they found you. I've lost enough friends to aviation accidents. A couple that should have been survivable. The technology to maximize your survival chances is here, now. Your choice not to use it is not an intelligent choice. There's no tap dancing around that.
 
bflynn said:
The AAFRCC isn't listening and they're the ones that dispatch people (CAP) to come find you. I know there are some who listen on guard, but there's fewer than there used to be.

At best, you're getting a slower response, perhaps a much slower response.
Click to expand...

Almost every ATC facility is listening, every CAP plane is listening, every legal VFR pilot with an idle radio is listening, every airliner is listening.

Don't spread misinformation. Guard is used for other things besides ELTs. For instance, asking for medical help at a nontowered airport.

It's true that SARSAT is no longer listening, but that's it. It's a good reason to get a 406.

And if you hear one, report it to any ATC facility. If you're not listening, review your NOTAMs.
 
Stewart, I understand why a 121.5 would be stupid for the kind of flying you do in Alaska, VFR.

I fly IFR 99% of the time, and in the lower 48 east of the Rockies. If I drop off, they'll wonder WTF happened. Airliners are almost always on guard. If I have an impending crash, I'll likely tell someone beforehand. It's not just random plane that nobody knew about disappeared and nobody knew it disappeared. Combine with 406 PLBs (hopefully I'm alive to use them) and I'm comfortable with that for what I do. You can call me stupid for it, and I can call you stupid for flying a single. Just comes down to mission and risk.

Like I said, a 406 is on the list, and it will happen.
 
It's not my place to call anyone stupid and I apologize if I came off that way. 406 ELTs are a hot topic for me and I do get wound up by all the misinformed rhetoric on the Internet. If you fly in my plane you'll see a 406 control switch and a Spidertracks unit on the glare shield. This isn't idle chat for me. I use this stuff. Honestly I trust my Spider more than the ELT and I believe the FAA should allow pilots alternate means of compliance for ELT requirements. On on that vein I think as long as ELTs are required equipment they should be required to work. 406s should be required equipment until alternate means are approved. 121.5 ELTs are nothing more than ballast. But that's just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
Almost every ATC facility is listening, every CAP plane is supposed to be listening, every legal VFR pilot with an idle radio is supposed to be listening, every airliner is supposed to be listening.
Click to expand...

FTFY

Stewart got it. If CAP gets a call from Center that there's a 121.5 beacon heard in some general area, they're almost certainly going to figure out how to fund the mission, then go take a look if only for old times sake. Traditionally, calls from the Air Force automatically get funded by the Air Force. At best, this might get funded by CAP membership money or a member deciding to pay their own money to fund a "proficiency" flight that just happens to be over the area the signal was reported. They would probably make sure that they were in radio contact with someone on the ground to change to a CAP funded mission if they found an ELT.

Most 121.5 ELTs have historically been false alarms and there aren't supposed to be any out there anymore. But CAP probably wants a little more than "in the general area of X", it's irresponsible to dispatch an airplane on a wild goose chase. At full battery, an old ELT has a 12 nm detection range, less as the battery weakens. The chances of them flying around in the area of X and finding you are not certain. And because it's not a good fix, if they can't pick up your signal, they will probably conclude that it was a bad report.

Yes, there are people listening. But not with the same urgency.

Now if it's a 406 ELT, then the AF probably knows within 15 minutes of activation and has your lat/long. CAP strives to be in the air 1 hour after getting a report, but realistically it might be slightly longer, they don't have people sitting around in a ready room waiting to jump into an airplane. Then accounting for air travel to you, it might be 2 hours or so before there's an airplane over you verifying your position and ready to lead a rescue team to you.

You decide which one you're comfortable with. I recommend the 406, but I understand everyone cannot get one right away.
 
It's worse than that. I've sat in the Alaska RCC and watched them work cases. A 121.5 beacon gets no attention unless it coordinates with an overdue aircraft report. On the other hand I've seen them take great effort to track down reported overdue airplanes even when no beacon was heard. I can think of a couple of cases where crashes happened within 50 miles of Anchorage and RCC ended up finding the accident sites but 121.5 beacons were never heard even though they were going off. One of those accidents had a happy ending and the other took the life of a tie-down neighbor.
 
Stewart, like I said, for your flying it makes perfect sense.

In my case, let's say I have bad icing and I realize I'm going down. I'm on my IFR flight plan and I'm telling ATC this. So they already know I'm in trouble.

If I were VFR in Alaska, very different. Y'alls operate different up there, it's a different world.
 
bflynn said:
FTFY
Click to expand...
No, you didn't. If you are not listening to 121.5 and you have an idle radio, you are not flying legally.

bflynn said:
Stewart got it. If CAP gets a call from Center that there's a 121.5 beacon heard in some general area, they're almost certainly going to figure out how to fund the mission, then go take a look if only for old times sake. Traditionally, calls from the Air Force automatically get funded by the Air Force. At best, this might get funded by CAP membership money or a member deciding to pay their own money to fund a "proficiency" flight that just happens to be over the area the signal was reported. They would probably make sure that they were in radio contact with someone on the ground to change to a CAP funded mission if they found an ELT.
Click to expand...
Review how CAP funded missions happen, what CAP's policies on self-dispatching are, how many AFAMs their really are for ELT searches (it's not near zero, and it's not for old time's sake), before you show how little you understand it.

bflynn said:
Most 121.5 ELTs have historically been false alarms and there aren't supposed to be any out there anymore. But CAP probably wants a little more than "in the general area of X", it's irresponsible to dispatch an airplane on a wild goose chase. At full battery, an old ELT has a 12 nm detection range, less as the battery weakens. The chances of them flying around in the area of X and finding you are not certain. And because it's not a good fix, if they can't pick up your signal, they will probably conclude that it was a bad report.
Click to expand...
The only thing that's correct in that whole paragraph is that most 121.5 alarms are false. EVERYTHING else has no relation to reality. 12 miles? Are you FN kidding? It's more like whatever line of sight is, generally 100 miles or more from high altitude, and it can be zero if the wreckage is under trees -- and the same is true for 406's. These used to be picked up by a satellite before it was turned off, which I guarantee is higher than 12 miles. The last one I picked up was quite strong from 40 miles away. Enough to break squelch at Sacramento pattern altitude when it was blasting away at Concord.

Every CAP airplane has a direction finder in it, and that ELT position can be narrowed down real fast. I never homed that last ELT, as I was on a transport mission. But I located it at Concord from two different bearings along the flight plan (one from Sacramento, one from abeam the ELT, near Livermore), and reported it as such.
 
Homing is a poor technology. It always was. Defending it is like defending the use of leaches in modern medicine. Seriously. You have far better equipment available yet you publicly defend the obsolete. That's irresponsible in my book, but only in the sense that you represent it as an informed position. It is not. Go sit in a RCC for a day and I guarantee you'll have a different perspective. If you get to Anchorage I can set up a visit for you.

Ted, in polite response to your comment that we live in different worlds and twins using IFR don't need 406? Review the Kentucky accident of a week ago. It's a miracle that the little girl survived considering nobody knew there had been a crash. That seems relevant to this discussion.
 
Stewartb said:
In Alaska a 406ELT beacon dispatch goes to the Air Guard Rescue Coordination Center. A 406 PLB goes to State Troopers. Huge difference. I don't own a PLB. But my airplane has a hard-wired Spidertracks unit in it so I figure my ELT is a backup unit anyway. A good friend is a helicopter pilot assigned to RCC. My wife knows how to contact him if my Spider info alarms her.
Click to expand...

How do you come by this information? Who is segregating this information dispatch? The RCC should be getting all 406 hits.
 
In Alaska ELTs go to RCC, EPIRBs go to the Coast Guard, and others like SPOTs and PLBs go to the Troopers. That info is from RCC, the Troopers, and the Coast Guard. And yes, I've spoken with them. I can say with certainty that the Troopers sometimes hand off a mission to RCC if they fit the need better. A friend had a serious snow aching accident in the middle of the night and the Troopers sent it to RCC who sent a Pave Hawk with a full PJ crew. Pretty efficient at their craft, those guys. Another friend with a similar accident in daylight got a Trooper helicopter. They were good but not as good as the Air Guard.
 
Last edited:
Stewartb said:
In Alaska ELTs go to RCC, EPIRBs go to the Coast Guard, and others like SPOTs and PLBs go to the Troopers. That info is from RCC, the Troopers, and the Coast Guard. And yes, I've spoken with them.
Click to expand...

The 406 PLB still has a person in Santa Barbara responsible for your signal.
 
Stewartb said:
Homing is a poor technology. It always was. Defending it is like defending the use of leaches in modern medicine. Seriously. You have far better equipment available yet you publicly defend the obsolete. That's irresponsible in my book, but only in the sense that you represent it as an informed position. It is not. Go sit in a RCC for a day and I guarantee you'll have a different perspective. If you get to Anchorage I can set up a visit for you.

Ted, in polite response to your comment that we live in different worlds and twins using IFR don't need 406? Review the Kentucky accident of a week ago. It's a miracle that the little girl survived considering nobody knew there had been a crash. That seems relevant to this discussion.
Click to expand...

Who the hell is defending it?

You're spouting misinformation. 121.5s do exist and will for some time. They are taken seriously. 406s are strictly better technology, but it is wildly wrong to say 121.5s are useless.

Don't make up information. 121.5 ELTs are legal and are installed in a large number of aircraft. That they may not be the best thing out there is not the same statement.
 
Take me up on my offer. Come visit the RCC. Please. What the heck, I'll even take you fishing!
 
Stewartb said:
Take me up on my offer. Come visit the RCC. Please. What the heck, I'll even take you fishing!
Click to expand...

As much as I might want to visit Anchorage, it ain't happening anytime soon.

The RCC would be an interesting visit, but it doesn't change any of the facts about 121.5s. Yes, they suck. No, they are not useless. Nor are they illegal. Heck, we had a rather miraculous 121.5 save late this summer in the high Sierra. And yes, we saw the ELT from across the state.

We don't go searching for those for fun. Did you really believe that?

A more recent ELT was much more challenging due to forest cover and terrain, but it still got us out there looking for him with no other indications. That one was a corpse. But it was still a 121.5 ELT. The forest cover would have blocked a 406 ELT as well, and neither would have resulted in an electronic or visual find due to the conditions. It was found because he hit a power line and the landowner investigated.
 
Last edited:
Stewartb said:
In Alaska ELTs go to RCC, EPIRBs go to the Coast Guard, and others like SPOTs and PLBs go to the Troopers...
Click to expand...

ELTs, EPIRBs and PLBs are registered with NOAA/SARSAT, SPOT is an entirely different thing. Any 406 signal goes to the government agency monitoring the satellites, it doesn't illuminate a blinking light at the Highway Patrol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top