Comments on: Heresy on 406 ELTs

By: Lawrence Stalla

Lawrence Stalla — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 03:01:52 +0000

Bruce, I bought and installed an Artex GPS NAV-enhanced 406 MHz ELT almost exactly 12 years ago (in fact, I believe mine was the first “long format” — alternate beacon ID + GPS location — U.S. ELT registered with COSPAS-SARSAT), so I have some experience relative to your original post and some of the other comments. First, under TSO C126, this ELT comes with both an in-cockpit activation switch, and an indicator light to warn of inadvertent activation. As a backstop to the G-switch, I’ve resolved to throw the in-cockpit switch if an off-airport crash appeared inevitable. I’ve never had an inadvertent activation, but it’s nice to know the indicator light (plus a buzzer in the tailcone) will warn me of one. Second, I’ve participated in several annual 91.207(d) checks, and never has the G-switch failed to properly activate at about 9 forward Gs. Third, the inner workings of the ELT were encased inside a pair of hard Lexan shells that I’m confident will let them survive any crash that my passengers and I could. As you noted, though, my one criticism of this ELT at the time of original purchase was that it came “standard” with a rod antenna that I doubted could have withstood as many forward Gs as I can without snapping off. So, I bought the more robust low-profile tri-band blade antenna as a $750 option — a much more crashworthy choice. My total cost, through installation, for all of this search-and-rescue peace-of-mind was about $8,000 in 1998 (the price has dropped since then). Yep, eight large, but then, you get what you pay for.

By: Troy Hamon

Troy Hamon — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 05:26:15 +0000

Bruce, thanks for writing this. I’ve been unable to talk myself into being excited about the new 406 ELTs. They cost a fair bit but provide no benefits to the pilot or aircraft compared to an accurate tracklog from a GPS. Since Spot has figured out how to send a tracklog, other vendors are getting into the game. Any of those devices, or perhaps the ADS-B option, would allow a very targeted search or perhaps even a pinpoint location. The ELT might be able to do the same, if they can ever figure out how to make a device that actually works in a crash. Perhaps the inertial trigger would need to be in the panel instead of the device. Anyway, it seems odd that we have a certified requirement for something that amounts to an ongoing failed experimental product, while more capable technology in use in all facets of travel are not approved or, apparently, approvable.

By: Bruce Landsberg

Bruce Landsberg — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:20:07 +0000

Pete…

Regarding the low and slow crowd, that’s one of the challenges of ADS-B and AOPA has voiced concern to FAA about that. My understanding is that battery powered low cost ( whatever that means) equipment is in testing so that all aircraft could potentially be seen.

It does have the potential to reduce midair collisions between VFR aircraft pretty much anywhere. The capstone project in AK was doing some testing on this.

By: Michael Fisher

Michael Fisher — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:42:32 +0000

Don’t forget the Manual Activation switch.
All 406 ELTs have to be installed with a manual activation switch, so you don’t need to wait for the crash to begin transmitting.
In my flying experience, if you suffer engine failure you first try a restart. If that doesn’t work you pick a field and make your preparations. That’s a good time to flick the switch on the ELT so even before you’ve landed it is transmitting your emergency to the 406 satellites – the only true global emergency rescue system.

By: Bradley Spatz

Bradley Spatz — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 20:49:52 +0000

I agree with you Mr. Landsberg. I’m favoring the PLB for my personal approach.

As another data point, we just had a local pilot (N444WH) ditch at night 17 north of Key West about a week ago. Since the aircraft sank in 40′ of water quickly, the ELT provided no benefit even if it did activate (who knows).

By: Charlie Branch

Charlie Branch — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 22:02:37 +0000

It looked like the impact force was insufficient to trigger the ELT, since the willows and other shrubs absorb a great deal of the impact. I adhere to the notion that what you carry on your body (inc. a PLB) is survival gear, and everything else is camping equipment. ELTs also lose signal once they sink below fifteen feet, so a PLB on one’s person would be much more valuable than a fixed mount on the aircraft. Isn’t it taught that we should use the airframe to save the passengers, and forget about trying to save the airplane?

By: Pete Pesaresi

Pete Pesaresi — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 19:43:33 +0000

I fly a Cub. Low & slo and use it for cross country trips. How am I going to put in ADS-B? Does requiring ADS-B mean the end of my flights? Pete Pesaresi

By: Carl Simons

Carl Simons — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:19:40 +0000

Bruce,I’ve been bugging AmSafe about putting airbags in my 310 for years now,and the response has always been the same”no STC for the 310 yet from the FAA”!Is the FAA really concerned about safety?
Carl Simons

By: John Trail

John Trail — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 16:44:19 +0000

I find it interesting that only 1 comment mentioned flight plans. Our company always uses a flight plan, though it is usually a “company” plan. It’s simple, just make a phone call when you arrive at the destination and another before you start home.
We have the “406″ ELTs installed in company planes, and it did work when we lost a Cessna 207 in June 2009, we had a phonje call from the Rescue Communications Center within 10 minutes of the crash. We are also considering SPOT, but haven’t made the move yet although some of the locals have.
Good article, and good comments !

By: John Townsley

John Townsley — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:26:34 +0000

Like Chuck Decker who commented this morning at 06:53, I believe in redundancy. I carry a PLB registered and also have a 406 ELT installed in my aircraft. What’s more, I also file flight plans and (when available) use flight following for VFR flights.

My take on 406 technology is that it’s a heck of a lot better than 121.5 mhz. However, unless there is continuous monitoring of a signal, initiation of SAR is still dependent upon unit activation. Let’s look at the activation failure before we discard the 406 mhz concept!

You’ve probably heard the Navy Seal dictum: Two is one, and one is NONE! With just one emergency notification tool (the 406 ELT) the unfortunate occupants of the Otter in Alaska were reduced to “NONE” for immediate options. Sure a “SPOT” or PLB would have been nice (SPOT is an interesting concept, but far from the panacea the marketing would have us believe) – but the reality is they didn’t have a backup. No redundancy. Let’s not get political with the 406 debate. It’s not helpful in the short run, and it really isn’t helpful in the long run.