So the DTV transition gets delayed but 121.5 ELTs are doomed on schedule?

wbarnhill

wbarnhill

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
7,901
Location
Greenwood, SC
Display Name
Display name:
iEXTERMINATE
Well I guess pilots, being the rich playboys we are, should be able to afford a 406 ELT, whereas we can't expect the folks who still rely on rabbit ears (seriously, what are there, like 5 folks left?) to hand over a coupon for a converter box.

Sorry, just got the email reminder and decided to vent.
 
wbarnhill said:
Well I guess pilots, being the rich playboys we are, should be able to afford a 406 ELT, whereas we can't expect the folks who still rely on rabbit ears (seriously, what are there, like 5 folks left?) to hand over a coupon for a converter box.

Sorry, just got the email reminder and decided to vent.
Click to expand...

Vent away William, just don't expect your argument to make sense to some of us ;)

For the record I am at odds with AOPA and some of you over this. We should have been mandated months and months ago, with a hard deadline put in place in conjunction with the Cospas-Sarsat change with plenty of lead time so all could have planned for it. Human nature being what it is, we dug in our heals, dragged our feet and now there is no mandate. Some even have the temerity to criticize the Canadians and Mexicans for actually regulating their own airspace using common sense because it makes it inconvenient to a visiting foreign national such as ourselves. Meanwhile in this country someone will soon be a living (or dead) reminder that you should watch what you wish for. But it may be a while before we find them in the snow. And everyone will blame the government without blushing, no doubt, for failing to do what we all complained about them doing.

Compared to someone not being able to see American Idol until they drag their butt off the couch, brush the chips off their shirt and drive to the nearest Best Buy? Not even close.
 
Last edited:
I can understand why 406 ELT's are the best available option, what I don't understand is why they will (eventually) be mandatory.

It strikes me a bit like helmet and seatbelt laws strike me. If people want to take an informed risk, why not let them?

(oh, and I still use rabbit ears)

Tim
 
They may not be mandatory in this country, in accordance with your logic. Of course, if you crash, perhaps nobody will find you.

They are mandatory in other countries because those governments expect that they'll have to launch SAR assets to find downed airplanes and they'd like to have a decent shot at finding them.
 
Troska said:
I can understand why 406 ELT's are the best available option, what I don't understand is why they will (eventually) be mandatory.

It strikes me a bit like helmet and seatbelt laws strike me. If people want to take an informed risk, why not let them?

Tim
Click to expand...

That is a fair opinion (though I disagree with it), my point is if 121.5 ELT was mandatory, then I see no use crying about the changeover being mandatory. Things change. I suppose we could all still be navigating IFR on NDB's into the next century too, if we all cry enough :frown2: :D

Your opinion and my counter opinion has been discussed ad naseum here and elsewhere. There is a public cost to accidents that justify mandatory mitigation of your risks (IMO.)
 
alaskaflyer said:
There is a public cost to accidents that justify mandatory mitigation of your risks (IMO.)
Click to expand...

Good point. Besides the monetary cost of an extended rescue effort, the longer SAR is out there the greater the risk exposure to others--including the possibility of more loss of life, as has happened before.
 
alaskaflyer said:
That is a fair opinion (though I disagree with it), my point is if 121.5 ELT was mandatory, then I see no use crying about the changeover being mandatory. Things change. I suppose we could all still be navigating IFR on NDB's into the next century too, if we all cry enough :frown2: :D

Your opinion and my counter opinion has been discussed ad naseum here and elsewhere. There is a public cost to accidents that justify mandatory mitigation of your risks (IMO.)
Click to expand...


It's not necessarily my opinion that you disagree with. My opinion isn't formed yet, and I'd like to see some solid (logical) arguments FOR it that counter my (gut) reaction.

To continue, I don't see the logic behind "my point is if 121.5 ELT was mandatory, then I see no use crying about the changeover being mandatory". What I see you saying is "there was a minimum level of SAR alerting required. There is now a better (for everyone, with the sole detriment being cost) option available. There is no need for choice in the matter, even though there is a poor option available, it should be mandated we accept the best option".

Is that correct? - I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm trying to understand the thought behind the belief.

"There is a public cost to accidents that justify mandatory mitigation of your risks"

Hmmm, this statement is what I struggle with. When you draw the obvious line (following this line of reasoning to its conclusion), why do you choose to include 406Mz ELT's?

Perhaps you don't care to elaborate, and that is fine, too.

Tim
 
TMetzinger said:
They may not be mandatory in this country, in accordance with your logic. Of course, if you crash, perhaps nobody will find you.
Click to expand...

The problem is, the government still seems to be expected to try to find you. With 406, the use of gov't resources would be greatly reduced.

I do think it's a bit silly how much we whine about such things. I would be in favor of mandated 406's by a certain date. I think if the changeover had been mandated, maybe manufacturers would have been a bit more motivated to come out with cheap units earlier.

FWIW, we talked about it at the flying club BOD meeting the other night, and we expect to have all of our aircraft 406-equipped by a year from now. It's just common sense.
 
Cool Beans!
So as the Government expects to spend less on the SAR of a downed aircraft due to the 406 ELT's tighter BINGO area why can't they send me a coupon for the difference in price between a new 121.5 and the new 406 ELT?
(just trying to get into the swing of the new Gubberment...):rofl:

And I sell the TV converter boxes. We were "Advised" not to sell them for more than MSRP...(coupon rate). I guess the new 406 boxes cost so much more to make (not) that the $800.00 difference in price is justified.?:mad3:

Everyone can mointer 121.5. Only SAR and Birds can listen to 406. Even at that I know it's a large advance in SAR ability.

My issue (as is most of the pilots I have talked to) is simply price. For a lot of folks a mandatory $900.00 "upgrade" kills the flying budget for a spell...Give 'em an option to buy greater safety at a decent price and watch the reluctance fade.


Chris
 
One issue is that there are one or two new ELTs coming on the market "soon" that provide the full benefit of 406 MHz plus GPS position transmission for less than one fourth the price of existing products. Making something mandatory before there are competitive products on the market makes no sense to me at all. The only ones who stand to benefit from that would be the manufactures of the overpriced stuff available now. Even the soon to be released unit is a bit of a ripoff in that the parts likely cost around $30 and the street price is over $500. I suspect that a significant part of the true cost is a direct result of FAA certification, something the FAA could offer for free on something who's sole purpose is enhanced safety.
 
lancefisher said:
One issue is that there are one or two new ELTs coming on the market "soon" that provide the full benefit of 406 MHz plus GPS position transmission for less than one fourth the price of existing products. Making something mandatory before there are competitive products on the market makes no sense to me at all. The only ones who stand to benefit from that would be the manufactures of the overpriced stuff available now. Even the soon to be released unit is a bit of a ripoff in that the parts likely cost around $30 and the street price is over $500. I suspect that a significant part of the true cost is a direct result of FAA certification, something the FAA could offer for free on something who's sole purpose is enhanced safety.
Click to expand...
Hmmm.... I was about to make a post like this, but you beat me to it. The 406, coupled with GPS, is a TREMENDOUS advance! However, it shouldn't come at the significant increase in price that seems to be tied to it.
 
I plan on installing an ACK-04 when they are available and interfacing it to my GPS. That having been said, the SARSAT decision to drop monitoring 121.5 has little effect on the chances of me being found with my existing 121.5 ELT. The system was so ineffective (more than 99% false rate) and so slow, that IMHO with or without SARSAT monitoring 121.5 is virtually irrelevant. They wouldn't have been likely to assist in a rescue or aircraft crash location before and after they stop monitoring, nothing will change from a practical point of view.

Maybe you aren't aware, but homing using the existing 121.5 ELT signal will still be used as a means of locating the exact crash site location by a SAR team, as the digital signal is useless for this purpose. With 406, knowledge of activation is within a minute, but a rough position using the low earth orbit SARSAT can take more than an hour or two and is still only capable of 5 KM precision. Then, 121.5 is used to home to the exact position.

Adding GPS input improves the situation greatly, position accuracy improves to 100 meters and time to generating an alert reduces to 5 minutes. Since the system uses geostationary satellites as well, there is no need for a low earth orbit satellite. This can be particularly valuable in a water landing. If I realized I was being forced down and had time, I would activate the ELT in the air and not depend on a crash forces to activate the unit. Because of the position changes being reported every minute, they could track my final flight path and have a good indication of my final location.
 
Troska said:
It strikes me a bit like helmet and seatbelt laws strike me. If people want to take an informed risk, why not let them?
Click to expand...

I follow this same mentality. I fully intend on upgrading to a 406 MHz ELT with GPS in the Aztec. I also wear a seat belt when I drive and I look like a storm trooper when I'm on my motorcycle.

I have no problem with leaving others alone to not do these things. If they choose not to and suffer ill consequences as a result, that's their problem, not mine. Nothing says that because I've taken these precautions that I'm immune from anything happening to me, it just seems to me it might reduce my risk.

(oh, and I still use rabbit ears)
Click to expand...

So do I. :)

Ted's Facebook Profile said:
Favorite TV Shows: I have a 52" TV that has a DVD player and rabbit ears attached to it.
Click to expand...
 
TMetzinger said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyingcheesehead
The problem is, the government still seems to be expected to try to find you. With 406, the use of gov't resources would be greatly reduced.

Completely agree.
Click to expand...

The problem as I see it is that mandating 406 MHz ELTs now would mean most airplanes would be equipped with units that didn't have a GPS interface and that feature is worth more than the move from 121.5 to 406 MHz from a SAR cost perspective.

I also believe that mandating safety equipment because it reduces SAR expenses is never going to be cost effective. Take the cost of equipping every airplane with a new ELT (around $1500 times the number of aircraft not already so equipped) and you'd pay for a lot of SAR. Insisting this must be done because the SAR is a public cost misses the point that it's the "public" that forces the SAR effort in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Troska said:
It's not necessarily my opinion that you disagree with. My opinion isn't formed yet, and I'd like to see some solid (logical) arguments FOR it that counter my (gut) reaction.

To continue, I don't see the logic behind "my point is if 121.5 ELT was mandatory, then I see no use crying about the changeover being mandatory". What I see you saying is "there was a minimum level of SAR alerting required. There is now a better (for everyone, with the sole detriment being cost) option available. There is no need for choice in the matter, even though there is a poor option available, it should be mandated we accept the best option".

Is that correct? - I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm trying to understand the thought behind the belief.

"There is a public cost to accidents that justify mandatory mitigation of your risks"

Hmmm, this statement is what I struggle with. When you draw the obvious line (following this line of reasoning to its conclusion), why do you choose to include 406Mz ELT's?

Perhaps you don't care to elaborate, and that is fine, too.

Tim
Click to expand...

Just saw this. Mostly been answered by others.

In my comments I wasn't considering the merits of the whole Cospas-Sarsat change to 406mhz - that was partly out of the US hands, since it is an international system. My comments were intended to convey my thoughts about what to do now that it is a done deal.

So, in answer to your question: My thoughts were 121.5 ELT's provided a baseline of 'SAR alerting' as you put it. As of next month they will no longer meet that baseline. 406mhz units will put you back to where you were, with the added benefit that it is actually a better 'system' even if you don't choose a GPS-enabled model.

The second point I thought spoke for itself. There is a public cost for every so called "accident" that those who wish to be left alone don't/won't/can't account for. In terms of the seatbelt argument, they may be tax dollars spent for EMS response. Unpaid medical bills. Lawsuits. Injuries to passengers who weren't controlling the car. INcreased insurance costs for the rest of us. Etc. Speaking in terms of the ELT issue, it is the length - and depth - of SAR response with vs. without an accurate signal. And yes I realize they are not infallible.

When ELT's were originally mandated this was a very different countryside. It has been built up a lot since then, but in every state in the nation there are spots where you can go down and not be found for weeks or even years.

Anyway, just some of my disjointed thoughts :redface:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I think if the changeover had been mandated, maybe manufacturers would have been a bit more motivated to come out with cheap units earlier.
Click to expand...
Au contraire. The mandate would raise the price by creating forced demand. Voluntary compliance could lower the price by forcing the manufacturers to convince consumers the upgrade is worth whatever price premium might exist, which clearly it is not now.

The original ELT law was bad public policy. That hasn't changed, IMO.
 
John Collins said:
Maybe you aren't aware, but homing using the existing 121.5 ELT signal will still be used as a means of locating the exact crash site location by a SAR team, as the digital signal is useless for this purpose. With 406, knowledge of activation is within a minute, but a rough position using the low earth orbit SARSAT can take more than an hour or two and is still only capable of 5 KM precision. Then, 121.5 is used to home to the exact position.
Click to expand...
My handheld 406 PLB broadcasts on 406 and 121.5 as you state. It is almost mandatory for a prompt SAR save if the GPS position is not transferred successfully to the 406ELT for any reason.

-Skip
 
So when are they making this 406 switch mandatory? Gonna have to start saving up. $900 a piece??? :yikes::yikes:
Perhaps I can move it from the Cessna to the Stinson, depending on which one is being flown......

Maybe I'll just get me one of them SPOT/GEOS units that hikers and such carry. Hell of a lot cheaper and from a SAR perspective, they work pretty darn good (had a climber fall out on a glacier in the Cascades, SPOT unit plotted him almost to the inch of where he was.)

Just a matter of pressing the button before you crash.....or get knocked out. Besides, if you crash and you're DRT, who cares how long it takes to find you? :D


PS: I don't get broadcast TV at my house even if I had rabbit ears, and I ain't gonna be wasting any money on no stupid converter box.
 
Last edited:
Ken Ibold said:
Au contraire. The mandate would raise the price by creating forced demand. Voluntary compliance could lower the price by forcing the manufacturers to convince consumers the upgrade is worth whatever price premium might exist, which clearly it is not now.

The original ELT law was bad public policy. That hasn't changed, IMO.
Click to expand...

The pressure hasn't changed, either.

That USA Today article (above) is another in the "MAKE THE (selfish, reckless) RICH PILOTS BUY IT!!!!!!!" It would have been nice if AOPA had told them that pilots do carry portable PLBs which do the same thing for $3000 less.

They should try a similar article on something like making the owners of pre-1990s cars install air bags.
 
lancefisher said:
I suspect that a significant part of the true cost is a direct result of FAA certification, something the FAA could offer for free on something who's sole purpose is enhanced safety.
Click to expand...

You seem to think you have to PAY the FAA for a certification. This is not EASA, I'm not aware of a fee. The cost is in the engineering and administrative time to develop a cert plan and execute it. What you would need to do is have the FAA (or any branch of government) provide a grant to the companies working to certify these items.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
So do I. :)
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Ted's Facebook Profile
Favorite TV Shows: I have a 52" TV that has a DVD player and rabbit ears attached to it.


And live in an area where there are ZERO channels that you can pick up on rabbit ears.
 
Missa said:
Originally Posted by Ted's Facebook Profile
Favorite TV Shows: I have a 52" TV that has a DVD player and rabbit ears attached to it.


And live in an area where there are ZERO channels that you can pick up on rabbit ears.
Click to expand...

that does explain why Ted is habitually on POA chat at night...
 
Not true. I can pick up 4 channels with my rabbit ears. None of them happen to be channels I want to watch. It's just been about a year since I last tried to actually watch any of those 4 channels.

I'm not a big TV person. If I had cable, I wouldn't get nearly as much done as I do presently. Plus, that $50 a month I'd be paying covers at least starting and warm-up when I fly the Aztec... once. It might even cover until I pull the gear lever up. I have, however, become a fan of watching House on fox.com.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top