Stewartb
Final Approach
What I don't get is that ELTs are required equipment and so many guys are content carrying obsolete junk rather than a beacon that's proven far superior.
What I don't get is that ELTs are required equipment and so many guys are content carrying obsolete junk rather than a beacon that's proven far superior.
What I don't get is that ELTs are required equipment and so many guys are content carrying obsolete junk rather than a beacon that's proven far superior.
Superior. Not far superior.
It would be a whole lot better if you didn't have to wait a minute for a location. Lots of things can happen in a minute.
If you say to set it off a minute before crashing, now it gives you a precise location to the wrong place.
Before you say "it's good enough," I led a ground team of 8 Saturday to within 500 yards of a (practice) ELT, and it took them all afternoon to find it from there. This was on open grassland on a ridgetop, with occasional oak trees. This is a very good ground team. It's just that hard to find a signal through the topography. It's MUCH harder if it is forested, or the aircraft goes down in a ravine. Part of the problem in this particular location was that there were a lot of false alarms, like old ranch construction that looked like wreckage (and this is not at all uncommon in rural areas, even way out in the middle of nowhere), and at least one scientific experiment with a real shiny solar panel.
But from what I've seen, most 121.5 ELTs being replaced by 406 ELTs were installed long before the current requirements existed. My own (1970) B55 is a good example. The original ELT was attached to an interior piece of thin sheet metal with PK screws. In a serious crash the antenna cable would likely have been the strongest part of the attachment to the airframe.121.5 ELTs had the same structural installation requirement for many years, FWIW.
The new beacons talk to satellites.
The new beacons provide easy testing from the pilot seat.
The new beacons provide MCC a position solution in 10-15 minutes of operation.
The new beacons identify the specific aircraft and provide a contacts list.
The new beacons are reported to broadcast adequately with no antenna or a submerged antenna frim an inverted airplane. One Alaskan accident a couple of years ago proved that to be true. Happy ending.
Far Superior sounds right.
"No antenna" will severely shorten the range. An antenna submerged in ten feet of water won't have much range, either. And a burning airplane tends to quickly stop any transmissions. The 406 needs time to wake up; it will broadcast on 121.5 as soon as the G-switch activates, but the coded 406 signal can take nearly a minute. Boots up or something. Those with GPS built in take time to locate themselves, too, and submerged/inverted airplanes hinder that considerably.
The whole reliance on having some device send a usable signal after a traumatic event seems pointless. I wish the technology had moved more toward the Spot sort of thing, with a device that sends out frequent coordinates to dedicated satellites. Maybe every five seconds or so. It would, for instance, have located MH370.
Dan
I wish the technology had moved more toward the Spot sort of thing, with a device that sends out frequent coordinates to dedicated satellites. Maybe every five seconds or so. It would, for instance, have located MH370.
Dan
I'm not following this "cost analysis" argument. Whether 406, 121.5 or PLB your ultimate desire is for it to never be needed. If, for any reason you should end up in a situation where it is then, regardless of details, having a 406 is going to work much better than not having one and how do you put a price value on that?
Then there are those who figure "heck, I'm on FF they'll always be able to find me" that's naivety to the extreme
The new beacons talk to satellites.
The new beacons provide easy testing from the pilot seat.
The new beacons provide MCC a position solution in 10-15 minutes of operation.
The new beacons identify the specific aircraft and provide a contacts list.
The new beacons are reported to broadcast adequately with no antenna or a submerged antenna frim an inverted airplane. One Alaskan accident a couple of years ago proved that to be true. Happy ending.
Far Superior sounds right.
Equipping with ADS-B out will provide a similar benefit. That's because of privately owned networks of ground-based receivers. FlightAware now has almost complete coverage of 48 states. Typing in the tail number of my out-equipped plane, FlightAware shows records of my gps positions, at intervals of a minute or two.
The biggest downside of using that for search and rescue might be altitude -- the FlightAware receivers don't record me below about 1000' agl. But otherwise it generates a real time archived record of gps positions, similar to what you might have in mind.
Here are a few minutes toward the end of my last flight, stopping at about 1600 msl as I descended to an airport at 600'. Plotting those records anyone could see that I was descending from the FAF of an approach to RWY 25 at KIOW. If I crashed, it wouldn't tell you where I came to a stop, but it would give a pretty good hint.
View attachment 41234