406 MHz ELT

Do you have a 406 MHz ELT

  • Total voters
    79
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.
 
I had one in my last aircraft, installed to comply with rules to fly in Mexico. But they backed off on that idea (until June 30, 2018), so I haven't installed one in the new bird yet. In the meantime, it's 121.5, SPOT, and a cell phone.
 
Stewartb said:
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.
Click to expand...

1) Pilots are cheapskates with regard to unessential (from the legal perspective) upgrades.

2) Flightschools even more so. So the students are learning that 121mhz equipment is OK.
 
Stewartb said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Eastern states, Western states, doesn't matter; a single engine GA airplane rolled into a ball is hard to find. It. Is. Small. You can go missing in NJ, MD, PA, MA, NC, GA and never be found. Miles and miles of woods. I spent more than a week on a search near Camp David; crash was on a wooded steep slope, and Verizon cell engineers gave us the triangle. A stones's throw to a major road, town in plain sight. Pretty day, VFR, no one saw or heard him go in. ELT destroyed on impact. Still took a week to find him.

My rambling point is either go with 406, or not, but make your call based on realism; flying in the East isn't a reason to stick with 121.5. You aren't gonna be any easier to find in the East than out West.

406 is superior technology, but then the old 121.5 was only slightly better than a loud whistle, anyway. The ROI on those was a "fail".
 
Stewartb said:
121.5 ELTs had the same structural installation requirement for many years, FWIW.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Stewartb said:
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.
Click to expand...

"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
 
a dual channel 406/121.5 MHz is part of the avionics upgrade currently in progress on our 81 Skyhawk
 
Dan Thomas said:
"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
Click to expand...

A 406 ELT sent resuers directly to the site of an inverted and partially submerged 182. Fact, not fiction. http://m.ktuu.com/news/troopers-rescue-crews-respond-to-crashed-plane-near-kaltag/26287460

SPOT's a toy. InReach is a little better. Spidertracks is far and away superior to both for aircraft use. The devices are available for those who choose to use them.
 
A 406 ELT's initial data burst is sent 50 seconds after activation. If GPS enabling is included the GPS coordinates go out in that initial burst. Subsequent bursts are repeated every 50 seconds at 5w output. I can't say why the 50 second delay is there but it allows users to test their units monthly from the panel switch, a requirement for most 406s, and allows silencing of unintentional alerts, which I also have experience with. Elimination of false alarms was a key component of the 406 concept.
 
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 :rolleyes2:
 
Dan Thomas said:
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
Click to expand...


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.

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1441128394.115396.jpg
 
Last edited:
Silvaire said:
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 :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

I suppose it's like buying a handgun in a neighborhood that has a low crime rate. I don't expect someone to buy a gun when there are other safety measures in place. I don't expect all pilots to buy 406 ELT when other safety measures (flight plan, FF, cell phone, 121.5) are in place. Roughly 7 accidents per 100,000 flight hours. Odds are in your favor that 1) you won't be in an accident and 2) a 406 ELT won't be the difference between life and death in that accident.

Should we all equip our aircraft with the latest safety upgrades? Sure, when time and finances allow. We owe that to our passengers. Until that time, I'll concentrate on the myriad of other airworthiness factors to give my passengers a safe ride.
 
Stewartb said:
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.
Click to expand...

Concur. 406 >>> 121.5
 
NoHeat said:
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
Click to expand...

This is what I was thinking as well. It should be a matter of a quick query to find the last position broadcast by a specific aircraft. While I know that gives some people the creeps, it is also very nice in the case of finding an airplane that is overdue but didn't file a plan and wasn't on FF or making regular position reports (lots of cases of this).

In the past, CO Wing of CAP we had people doing very complex NTAP searches on aircraft squawking 1200, often to no avail due to mountains.

I know Mode ES broadcasts a unique identifier for my aircraft and I think UAT does too, no? So ADS-B should be a big improvement for searches even if other means fail.
 
Last edited:
I was with CAP for about 14 years, until recently; was involved in a few real searches, and I probably would not spring for a 406. That's just my personal risk tolerance speaking.

To be worth the $$$ to me, 1) I have survive the crash 2) The 406 has to survive 3) The speedier response (assuming it is speedier) has to matter.

I'm good with a cell phone; might add a PLB this year. If someone gets to you within minutes of the crash, it's probably not gonna be a result of your 406 or 121.5 ELT signal. More likely someone saw or heard you smack. And if it takes hours (or days), you might not care.

I did want to reiterate that the location can be narrowed quite a bit, and it can STILL be a bear to put eyes on a crash. In the week long event I mentioned earlier, I think one of the ICs figured crews had flown over (or very close) to the crash site about 18 times or so.

But not knocking those who want one, and if the money weighs less than the piece of mind, why not?
 
You know I'm a little miffed about the whole 406 ELT thing now! Until I read this thread I had no idea about the 50 second/one minute delay on the device! I bought one and had it installed in my plane and all I heard was-

"It's so much more accurate!"
"With in blah, blah, blah..."
"GPS coordinates, blah, blah, blah..."
"Nobody is listening to 121.5, blah, blah, blah..."
"It talks to satellites, blah, blah, blah..."

Nothing about one minute delays!!! What effin' bull ****!!! Maybe I can understand an initial 50 second delay to help eliminate false positives, but after that it should be continuous! Oh well, my monies are already spent and it still is better than the 121.5 units. Do the PLBs work the same??
 
406 ELT's also put out a constant 121.5 signal. Why would a 50 second delay bother you? It only takes one signal to relay your identity and coordinates, they aren't going to be changing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top