406 MHz ELT’s Becoming Mandatory in Canada

[brien23]

406 MHz ELT’s Becoming Mandatory in Canada Feb. 2009 . What is the latest word on this is it going to be required or not for U.S. aircraft going into Canada.

 

[Ted]

Last I understood it, US aircraft will be required to have that 406 MHz ELT for flight into and over any country that requires them.

 

[EdFred]

I personally don't see why we need any ELT if we aren't flying for hire or volunteer. Of course, if we don't have one, then no SAR, but that should be a choice.

 

[Ken Ibold]

As of now, that mandate is still in effect. And it has to be installed, not a PLB.

 

[Dan Thomas]

I personally don't see why we need any ELT if we aren't flying for hire or volunteer. Of course, if we don't have one, then no SAR, but that should be a choice.

Yeah, and if you go missing we'll still send out airplanes looking for you and spend upwards of a million dollars a day doing it. Your family will sue to get that done. I'd be OK with a provision that said SAR would not even be permitted if the owner had signed a waiver granting him the right to fly without the ELT.
You should fly over Canada sometime. Well outside the populated areas. We have much rough, remote, unfriendly terrain. There are many missing airplanes that have never been found. Once in a while some hunter or hiker or surveyor stumbles across one, but most never show up. Sometimes the airplanes that are found contain diaries left by the occupants detailing the long wait and deep despair because no one came or they could see the search planes but couldn't get their attention. Very often it's in areas of deep snow that make any movement nearly impossible, and starting a fire becomes a desperate effort.

Dan

 

[TMetzinger]

AOPA reported yesterday that you must be equipped to fly in Canadian airspace when the deadline takes effect. That includes things like the overflights of Canadian airspace between Cleveland and Detroit, or on the way up to Alaska.

 

[EdFred]

If you never land in Canada, how would the Canadians know whether or not you had the 406MHz beacon?

 

[Anthony]

You should fly over Canada sometime. Well outside the populated areas. We have much rough, remote, unfriendly terrain. There are many missing airplanes that have never been found. Once in a while some hunter or hiker or surveyor stumbles across one, but most never show up.

You should fly over the U.S. sometimes. We have much rough, remote, unfriendly terrain. There are many missing airplanes that have never been found. Once in a while some hunter or hiker or surveyor stumbles across one, but most never show up.

 

[alaskaflyer]

You should fly over the U.S. sometimes. We have much rough, remote, unfriendly terrain. There are many missing airplanes that have never been found. Once in a while some hunter or hiker or surveyor stumbles across one, but most never show up.

Ever been to Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Washington, California, the deserts of the Southwest, Appalachia, the swamps of Florida, ALASKA?

I personally think they should become mandatory in the US too, for all the reasons you just described most eloquently. In this instance the Canadians are right.

Please, Canada has no more rough terrain than the U.S. and no deserts. Keep your over regulating, anti-gun, crown loving *ss out of our business.

Out of OUR business? It is THEIR airspace in which WE are GUESTS. You think the Canadians who fly south or to Alaska are overjoyed over our ridiculously onerous DHS requirements? Are we muddling in their business in that case? You win the award for the most silly complaint on this matter

 

[4CornerFlyer]

Please, Canada has no more rough terrain than the U.S. and no deserts. Keep your over regulating, anti-gun, crown loving *ss out of our business.

While I don't disagree with Anthony's point, let me just say that you can still fly within 1500 feet over the Parliament and Prime Minister's residence in Ottawa, where there is a thriving and unrestricted GA airport (Rockcliffe) just a few miles from the seat of government. Meanwhile, the DC ADIZ is becoming a permanent part of the FARs.

The 406 MHz ELT requirement in Canada won't become mandatory until 2011. It's mandatory in Mexico as of July 2009.

Jon

 

[4CornerFlyer]

If you never land in Canada, how would the Canadians know whether or not you had the 406MHz beacon?

Same thing could be said about the vast majority of aviation regulations.

It isn't much of a stretch to make things up in your logbook, or forge a BFR, as the chance of being caught is close to zero. I realize you're joking ED, but I doubt one follows aviation rules for fear of getting caught if you don't.

Jon

 

[Anthony]

I would be perfectly willing to sign ANY document guaranteeing me or my estate would not sue due to lack of SAR. When I fly over hostile terrain I file a flight plan and still have an ELT. I probably will get a handeld as back up. To force airplane owners to yet again sink thousands of dollars into an airplane for an unlikely event is ridiculous. I mitigate those risks through other means, like common sense, and I HAVE flown in and over some of the most unforgiving terrrain in North America.

 

[Anthony]

I personally think they should become mandatory in the US too, for all the reasons you just described most eloquently. In this instance the Canadians are right.

Well, you are in this business. I applaud your service, but think there are other ways to mitigate this risk. See my previous post.

Out of OUR business? It is THEIR airspace in which WE are GUESTS. You think the Canadians who fly south or to Alaska are overjoyed over our ridiculously onerous DHS requirements? Are we muddling in their business in that case? You win the award for the most silly complaint on this matter

Yes, the FAA will look at Canada and elsewhere as a PRECEDENT to enact this regulation here. I have NO intent to fly in Canada. I don't even like to fly over New Jersey.

 

[RMCN172RG]

While I don't disagree with Anthony's point, let me just say that you can still fly within 1500 feet over the Parliament and Prime Minister's residence in Ottawa, where there is a thriving and unrestricted GA airport (Rockcliffe) just a few miles from the seat of government. Meanwhile, the DC ADIZ is becoming a permanent part of the FARs.

The 406 MHz ELT requirement in Canada won't become mandatory until 2011. It's mandatory in Mexico as of July 2009.

Jon

I think this documents the 2 year transition period requirements.

http://www.pointeravionics.com/images/downloads/Transport Notice.pdf

 

[John Collins]

If you never land in Canada, how would the Canadians know whether or not you had the 406MHz beacon?

The 406 ELT is required to be registered with SARSAT. In the USA, there is a $10,000 fine if it is not registered, so most will register. If you don't have a registered ELT, Canadians could use this information to deny your aircraft access their airspace. Whether or not they would go to the trouble is another question.

 

[EdFred]

The 406 ELT is required to be registered with SARSAT. In the USA, there is a $10,000 fine if it is not registered, so most will register. If you don't have a registered ELT, Canadians could use this information to deny your aircraft access their airspace. Whether or not they would go to the trouble is another question.

Except when I fly from Michigan to Philadelphia, I could be in Canadian airspace, but never talk to Canada. Since I'm under control of Detroit/Cleveland Approach and ZOB, I highly doubt the guys at approach and center are going to bother looking through some database, call up NavCanada and let them know about me. I've overflown Ontario more than once, and have never gotten Canadian permission or denial.

 

[poadeleted20]

Last I knew, the Canadians hadn't published the Final Rule yet. Does anyone have a link to it? However, there was talk of including a two-year grace period for lead-in, including visiting aircraft, especially since there didn't appear to be enough compliant ELT's available and shops to install them to equip the fleet in the time between the publishing date and the effective date of the rule.

 

[poadeleted20]

I think this documents the 2 year transition period requirements.

http://www.pointeravionics.com/images/downloads/Transport Notice.pdf

That document speaks only to the proposed rule.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Last I knew, the Canadians hadn't published the Final Rule yet. Does anyone have a link to it? However, there was talk of including a two-year grace period for lead-in, including visiting aircraft, especially since there didn't appear to be enough compliant ELT's available and shops to install them to equip the fleet in the time between the publishing date and the effective date of the rule.

Update as of today:

The new rule is set to take effect on Feb. 1, 2009, but a political crisis involving the current federal government makes implementation on that date unlikely. Transport Canada is planning on phasing in the requirement to allow manufacturers and maintenance facilities time to cope with the onslaught of installations. As the phase-in is now proposed, affected aircraft, including foreign-registered aircraft, will have to be equipped with an approved 406-MHz ELT on Feb. 1, 2011, or during the last annual inspection before that date or it will be illegal for them to fly in Canadian airspace.

 

[alaskaflyer]

That document speaks only to the proposed rule.

The president of COPA is on record as saying the proposed rule in its current construction (as quoted in the pdf file above) is a done deal despite their and others' efforts...the only thing left to determine is when the rule will become final and in effect - perhaps sometime after Her Majesty decides to un-suspend Parliament Regardless of when it becomes final I don't see the February 2011 date as being likely to change.

 

[poadeleted20]

The president of COPA is on record as saying the proposed rule in its current construction (as quoted in the pdf file above) is a done deal despite their and others' efforts

When the Minister of Transport says the same, let us know.

 

[Everskyward]

It is THEIR airspace in which WE are GUESTS. You think the Canadians who fly south or to Alaska are overjoyed over our ridiculously onerous DHS requirements? Are we muddling in their business in that case?

Exactly. Our counterpart which we visit all the time in Canada needs to abide by the same TSA rules as we do to fly a charter trip to the US, which includes fingerprinting and a background check for pilots flying an airplane over 12,500 lbs. I'm sure they are not too happy about that but it's the way it is. If you fly in their airspace you follow their rules... or not. But be prepared for the consequences if you get caught, just like in the US.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Update as of today:

The new rule is set to take effect on Feb. 1, 2009, but a political crisis involving the current federal government makes implementation on that date unlikely. Transport Canada is planning on phasing in the requirement to allow manufacturers and maintenance facilities time to cope with the onslaught of installations. As the phase-in is now proposed, affected aircraft, including foreign-registered aircraft, will have to be equipped with an approved 406-MHz ELT on Feb. 1, 2011, or during the last annual inspection before that date or it will be illegal for them to fly in Canadian airspace.

There's a bit more to it that that. You will need a 406 February 1 2009 to fly north of 55°N west of the Ontario/Manitoba border, and north of 50° east of it. So any aircraft going to Alaska needs it.

Dan

 

[Dan Thomas]

You should fly over the U.S. sometimes. We have much rough, remote, unfriendly terrain. There are many missing airplanes that have never been found. Once in a while some hunter or hiker or surveyor stumbles across one, but most never show up.

Ever been to Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Washington, California, the deserts of the Southwest, Appalachia, the swamps of Florida, ALASKA? Please, Canada has no more rough terrain than the U.S. and no deserts. Keep your over regulating, anti-gun, crown loving *ss out of our business.

I have flown over Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, California, Nevada, both Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Missouri, iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Minnesota. All in small airplanes. Some of it just this fall.

The U.S has about 300 million people, I think. Canada has 33 million, about the same as California, and 80% of those 33 million live within 180 miles of the Canada/U.S. border. Canada occupies just a hair more square miles than the U.S. so its population density is about a tenth of the U.S.'s.

I own several guns. I grew up in Kamloops, B.C, the northern tip of the great Sonoran desert. Sagebrush, small cacti, low annual rainfall, rattlesnakes, the works.


Dan

 

[gismo]

Same thing could be said about the vast majority of aviation regulations.

It isn't much of a stretch to make things up in your logbook, or forge a BFR, as the chance of being caught is close to zero. I realize you're joking ED, but I doubt one follows aviation rules for fear of getting caught if you don't.

Jon

Do you suppose it's correct to assume that you're not violating any FARs overflying Canada w/o a 406 ELT and wouldn't suffer any sanctions if the FAA found out?

 

[brien23]

This was taken from the EAA page on October is their any new information.
EAA Seeks GA Relief From Proposed Canada ELT Rule



October 23, 2008 — EAA submitted comments to Transport Canada this week in an effort to reduce complexity and cost burdens on U.S. pilots flying into Canada post-February 1, 2009. On that date Canada will adopt the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standard requiring digital 406 MHz emergency locator transmitters (ELTs) in all aircraft during international flights. However, here in the U.S. the FAA is not planning to make any changes to FAR 91.207 (the regulation requiring ELTs in most airplanes) for domestic flights, so many U.S. general aviation (GA) aircraft will remain compliant to U.S. regulations and forgo the upgrade from the existing 121.5 ELTs to the more costly 406 MHz ELTs.

 

[gprellwitz]

Because of this (pending) rule, I doubt that we'll take our postponed trip to Alaska anytime in the foreseeable future.

 

[TMetzinger]

From Avweb December 14:

Canada will be closed to most U.S. light aircraft within about two years after Transport Canada affirmed its decision to make 406-MHz emergency locator transmitters mandatory on everything but gliders, balloons, ultralights and a handful of special-use aircraft. The requirement extends to all foreign-registered aircraft and includes those used for flights that begin and end in the U.S. but overfly Canadian territory, like the busy routes between the northern Midwest and eastern states, according to an e-mail sent to Canadian Owners and Pilots Association members by President Kevin Psutka last week. "We are at the end of a long battle to bring common sense to this issue," Psutka wrote. "Common sense has not prevailed." Psutka attended a meeting with stakeholders on the issue last week. Transport Canada, and the Canadian military, which handles most search and rescue operations in Canada, see the switch as necessary because search and rescue satellites will stop monitoring 121.5 MHz, the frequency used by most existing ELTs, as of Feb. 1, 2009. Of course, Psutka's main focus has been on the expense and inconvenience (not to mention logistical challenge) of equipping thousands of Canadian GA aircraft with the $1,000 (plus installation) devices. COPA believes better technology is available but being ignored in the rule. But he said the rule will also affect thousands of U.S.-based aircraft owners who plan to fly to Canada. The FAA is not planning to mandate 406-MHz ELTs and it's doubtful many American owners will voluntarily equip just so they can take a flying vacation in Canada.


Psutka said at least 63,000 foreign-registered light aircraft, 90 percent of them American-registered, touched down in Canada between May of 2007 and May of 2008. Figures for the number of overflights were not available. The new rule is set to take effect on Feb. 1, 2009, but a political crisis involving the current federal government makes implementation on that date unlikely. Transport Canada is planning on phasing in the requirement to allow manufacturers and maintenance facilities time to cope with the onslaught of installations. As the phase-in is now proposed, affected aircraft, including foreign-registered aircraft, will have to be equipped with an approved 406-MHz ELT on Feb. 1, 2011, or during the last annual inspection before that date or it will be illegal for them to fly in Canadian airspace.

I'd like to see the original letter, or something else directly from the Canadian government, but I trust Avweb is correct.

 

[Anthony]

I have flown over Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, California, Nevada, both Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Missouri, iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Minnesota. All in small airplanes. Some of it just this fall.

The U.S has about 300 million people, I think. Canada has 33 million, about the same as California, and 80% of those 33 million live within 180 miles of the Canada/U.S. border. Canada occupies just a hair more square miles than the U.S. so its population density is about a tenth of the U.S.'s.

I own several guns. I grew up in Kamloops, B.C, the northern tip of the great Sonoran desert. Sagebrush, small cacti, low annual rainfall, rattlesnakes, the works.


Dan

OK, sorry I got testy, but the environment for more equipment is ridiculous. Take away both coasts of the U.S. and you have a VAST, mostly unpopulated area. I'd like to see the population density stats for that. However, it still should not require us to purchase more equipment when what we had was suitable and what we still have works if used in conjunction with other tools.

 

[Dan Thomas]

OK, sorry I got testy, but the environment for more equipment is ridiculous. Take away both coasts of the U.S. and you have a VAST, mostly unpopulated area. I'd like to see the population density stats for that. However, it still should not require us to purchase more equipment when what we had was suitable and what we still have works if used in conjunction with other tools.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7052

 

[Anthony]

Yep, that's a big ocean, but I don't fly over it.

 

[poadeleted20]

Do you suppose it's correct to assume that you're not violating any FARs overflying Canada w/o a 406 ELT and wouldn't suffer any sanctions if the FAA found out?

Yes, I suppose it is correct. The FAA has no authority to enforce Canadian rules -- that's TC's job, not the FAA's.

 

[EdFred]

So, is Cleveland Center going to allow me to cut across Lake Erie or not?

 

[Ted]

So, is Cleveland Center going to allow me to cut across Lake Erie or not?

How do they know whether or not you have a 406 MHz ELT? Similarly, you can file IFR /G and they have no way of knowing you're using a 430, KLN-90B (or KLN-90A - no GPS approaches allowed), or (really bad) a 196. You can call up and ask for pop-up IFR clearance, and most of the time they just give it to me and don't even ask me to certify that I'm IFR rated, current, and in a capable aircraft.

The assumption seems to be if you ask to do something, they assume you're good to do it. When you screw up, it's your own fault for being an idiot and saying you can do something you can't. I really want it to stay that way, and I think the main reason that it hasn't changed is that the honor system seems to generally work, and violations of it have been such that nobody has ever found out.

 

[poadeleted20]

So, is Cleveland Center going to allow me to cut across Lake Erie or not?

Canadian rules are not Cleveland Center's concern. Just be aware that if you have to land in Canada, TC could nail you there.

 

[EdFred]

Canadian rules are not Cleveland Center's concern. Just be aware that if you have to land in Canada, TC could nail you there.

My point is, are they going to demand that ZOB ask us what ELT we have and send us south? Now, if I am talking to Toronto Center, sure, I am using their system, and should comply with their rules. But I'm never even talking to them. And if I flying into Baudette, MN, and have to go missed on the VOR12, do I need a 406MHz ELT? I just flew into Canadian airspace, I am going to die w/o one!

 

[Anthony]

Ed,

Don't want to speak for Ron, but what I think he's saying is that if you have to inadvertently/unintentionally land in Canada you will need the new ELT. So if your talking to Cleveland, have an engine failure and you divert to an airport in Canada because its closest, that may be a problem.

 

[EdFred]

Ed,

Don't want to speak for Ron, but what I think he's saying is that if you have to inadvertently/unintentionally land in Canada you will need the new ELT. So if your talking to Cleveland, have an engine failure and you divert to an airport in Canada because its closest, that may be a problem.

The regs say all overflight however. So they are going to enforce this how?

 

[Anthony]

The regs say all overflight however. So they are going to enforce this how?

I don't think they can, that's why you'll only have an issue if you have to divert there unexpectedly. Technically you are in violation though. Maybe you could self enforce?

 

[TMetzinger]

A good bureaucratic way for the FAA to address this is to publish a notice that states that the act of filing through Canadian airspace indicates that you are properly equipped to fly in Canadian airspace.


Then if something happens, you can be in violation of both Canadian and US rules.