ELT Upgrade..?? ...or Not...??

A place to relax and discuss flying topics.

Moderators: gahorn, Bruce Fenstermacher

Re: ELT Upgrade..?? ...or Not...??

Postby ghostflyer » Thu Feb 15, 2018 1:22 pm

George is paying for the first shout of beers :lol: what I have been told and believe to a point that the worlds aviation has to Harmoniz with its regulations and structure. I am a big Fan of the FAA system and think the ERASA and CAA ,CASA and so forth should be more inclined towards the FAA system as % 70 of aircraft originated in the USA.
Now getting back to 406 sarga I was under the impression that the 406 units transmission transmit on the 406 frequency as the older units transmitting the 121.5 frequency did wander .
However the 406 freq is monitored in Singapore , England , Australia and Canada. This is due to the satellites position .
User avatar
ghostflyer
 
Posts: 786
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:06 am
Location: queensland ,australia

Re: ELT Upgrade..?? ...or Not...??

Postby TFA170 » Thu Feb 15, 2018 3:01 pm

http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/faq%202.html

http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/satellites1.html

"The system is unique in the way that it is operated and funded, because its use is free of charge to the end user in distress. It is both a service to the public and a tool to help SAR forces do their jobs more efficiently and reduce their costs, although these cost savings are sometimes difficult to quantify.
The cost of implementing and operating the COSPAS-SARSAT system is shared by various member governments, while the cost of buying and maintaining distress beacons is the responsibility of the users, but they pay no fee to access the system. Under the international agreement, the four founding countries provide the LEO space segment and they, as well as several other countries, own and operate ground receiving stations and mission control centres. The administrative costs of the secretariat are shared by all 40 member countries."

--from Commerce in Space: Infrastructures, Technologies and Applications, edited by Phillip Oila

Of note, the US is one of the four founding countries.
User avatar
TFA170
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 3:18 am
Location: 74FL

Re: ELT Upgrade..?? ...or Not...??

Postby c170b53 » Thu Feb 15, 2018 3:33 pm

My unit, a 406 does not have an GPS input but I'm under the impression by its signal, the search would be pinpointed down to several football fields whereas a GPS signal would be down to under a decent 3 point conversion. I would have gone to a GPS unit but unfortunately in Canada they added a regulation that only approve shops can install the GPS units, too bad.
Jim McIntosh..
1953 C170B S/N 25656
02 K1200RS
User avatar
c170b53
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 8:01 pm
Location: Vancouver B.C.

Re: ELT Upgrade..?? ...or Not...??

Postby gahorn » Thu Feb 15, 2018 4:21 pm

David, the 406 unit broadcasts are picked up via satellite and relayed to whichever SAR has jurisdiction in the area of the broadcast, per int'l agreements as Richard pointed out.
The ELT mandate for US owner/operators spring from the loss of a US congressman Hale Boggs*, in Alaska back in 1972. The month-long search for his missing plane, a chartered Cessna 310, involved 50 civilian airplanes, 40 military planes searching over 300,000 sq miles to no avail. After 40 days they finally gave up.

The kneejerk reaction was for congress to call upon the FAA to issue regulations requiring 121.5/243 Mhz ELTs in all airplanes not already served by a networked dispatch system. This allowed Airlines, Military, and other Gov't and a select group of business airplanes to avoid the wasted expense. I have always wondered... Since it was a CHARTERED airplane... why didn't they impose it on CHARTER services alone? (My suspicion: Lobbiests for avionics mfr's jumped on the bandwagon to cast the net wider.)

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Assoc'n fought it heartily pointed out that the statistics indicate that such a system would never recover benefits commensureate with the expense imposed on owners and that such equipment should be optional, not mandatory. In fact, Alaska state statutes already required an ELT at the time of the crash but no signal from the plane was ever picked up. The pilot, Don Jonz, owned a PLB but it was found back at his home field, apparently not taken on the flight.)
(AOPA had previously managed to win for small plane owners in the 1960s when CAA/FAA tried to impose transponders on all aircraft, by arguing that most small airplanes do not operate in the then-crowded airspance being simultaneously-proposed that involved upside-down wedding-cake TCAs. They were successful in that argument to the extent that aircraft not operating in the TCAs would be excluded from the requirement. BTW- at that time transponders typically weighed approx 20 lbs, were sized like a shoe-box, and cost approx $6K...which is more than many airplanes in private hands cost at that time. AOPA has dramatically changed their stance on mandated electronics/equipment as their monetary support has morphed from membership-dues to income from advertising and insurance. Like all things political.... Follow the Money!)

Huge areas of the U.S. were overlaid with UNcontrolled airspace back in the 1960s. That has now changed to the point that finding large areas of uncontrolled airspace is difficult, and so the regulations changed and the majority of all aircraft today, in order to have meaningful utility, are required to have altitude-encoded transponders.

The lack of an effective SAR system has contributed to the failure of the ELT system-effectiveness. An ELT can be driven into a cliff-side in a remote area and it will run out of battery-capacity to transmit before it can be found by ordinary DF-driven SAR responders. Also, once-infrequent (pardon the pun) VHF transmissions are so commonplace nowadays that the airways are "smudged" (for lack of a better term) and difficult to isolate in the "fog" of VHF transmissions worldwide... to monitor from earth-orbit, and since no national entities have risen to the task of creating effective SAR-monitoring-plans... it has become evident that space-based/satellite monitoring in the UHF band is a more accurate and timely method to use. The Russians already had a satellite monitoring that band (in order to spy upon U.S. Military communications world-wide which used the same band) and their SAR methods favored the 406 UHF freq. for their purposes. Since "Detente" led to better cooperation between superpowers, the decision to cooperate/coordinate a monitoring system on 406 has resulted. Detente also has resulted in a global-economic environment that has filtered into AOPA and now they are wildly excited about any avionic gizmo that will bring them advertising dollars.

* Anyone who enjoys conspiracy theories should love the Hale Boggs story. One theory endorses the concept that Hale Boggs, a congressman from notoriously-corrupt Louisiana political circles, happened to have served on the Warren Commission... which was the highly-criticised investigation into the JFK assassination. Boggs had vociferously opposed the Lyndon Johnson supported Warren Commission's conclusion. Boggs publicly stated that he found the concept of a "single bullet" and "lone assassin" to be "mysterious" and unbelievable.
Isn't it strange that Boggs later disappears never to be found....

and an ELT likely would not have helped either..... but they made us all install one.

Another conspiracy theory is very curious: Another congressman was on board also but almost never mentioned... Nick Begich (D-AK).
This theory points out that his widow married a Mafia hit-man "Max" Pasley after her missing husband was declared legally-dead. Hmmmmnn.....
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons. ;)
User avatar
gahorn
 
Posts: 17902
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm
Location: Spicewood (Austin), Texas

Re: ELT Upgrade..?? ...or Not...??

Postby The FAA » Thu Feb 15, 2018 7:38 pm

I am watching this thread with great interest.
Last edited by The FAA on Fri Feb 16, 2018 1:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Federal Aviation Administration | Classic Certified Aircraft Compliance Division

6425 Denning Ave
Oklahoma City, OK 73169

"We're from the FAA, and we're here to help"
User avatar
The FAA
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:42 pm

Re: ELT Upgrade..?? ...or Not...??

Postby gahorn » Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:09 pm

The FAA wrote:I am watching this thread with great interest....and am removing N2256D from the Cessna 170B registry.


I can delete you with only a few key-clicks... and I can be bought.

Anyone wishing me to nuke FAA ...send your contributions to me via PayPal. :twisted:


BTW... anyone besides me find the Kannad replacement batteries a bit overpriced? Only $1025.00 at Spruce:
BAT300.jpg
BAT300.jpg (15.33 KiB) Viewed 4927 times


What's wrong with this system? And why can't an Owner Produced Part be made from simple NiCd or LiOn D-cells. (In fact, Batteries Plus will remanufacture virtually any battery brought into them and if specified to "reverse engineer" I cannot see why this battery pack can't be reproduced for less than $30.)
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons. ;)
User avatar
gahorn
 
Posts: 17902
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm
Location: Spicewood (Austin), Texas

Re: ELT Upgrade..?? ...or Not...??

Postby The FAA » Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:56 pm

I’d just spend the $25 in parts to make them myself, Mr. Horn. That Ryan Smith fellow was heavily involved in another segment of people’s lives that have recently fallen into our slithering tendrils, R/C aircraft. We call them small unmanned air systems or drones, but nevertheless, I bet if you invited him down to fly in your 170 with you, he’d volunteer some skills on a soldering iron.
Federal Aviation Administration | Classic Certified Aircraft Compliance Division

6425 Denning Ave
Oklahoma City, OK 73169

"We're from the FAA, and we're here to help"
User avatar
The FAA
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:42 pm

Re: ELT Upgrade..?? ...or Not...??

Postby Ryan Smith » Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:59 pm

Don’t delete that guy, George. He’s on to something.
User avatar
Ryan Smith
 
Posts: 1045
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 4:26 am
Location: Browns Summit, NC

Re: ELT Upgrade..?? ...or Not...??

Postby gahorn » Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:23 pm

I"ve already received twenty contributions.... It'd cost me PayPal fees to return the money.. :!: :lol:
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons. ;)
User avatar
gahorn
 
Posts: 17902
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm
Location: Spicewood (Austin), Texas

Re: ELT Upgrade..?? ...or Not...??

Postby n2582d » Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:44 pm

Good to see “the FAA” has become a member! (S)he might want to consider a new moniker in light of 18 U.S. Code § 912. Or am I being too paranoid?
Gary
User avatar
n2582d
 
Posts: 1892
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 4:58 am
Location: Mariposa, CA

Re: ELT Upgrade..?? ...or Not...??

Postby Bruce Fenstermacher » Fri Feb 16, 2018 12:24 am

n2582d wrote:Good to see “the FAA” has become a member! (S)he might want to consider a new moniker in light of 18 U.S. Code § 912. Or am I being too paranoid?


Gary, you make the mistake of thinking this FAA moniker stands for Federal Aviation Administration.
CAUTION - My forum posts may be worth what you paid for them!

Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email:
N7A '49 170A -More original than most making folks GREEN with envy
N42532 '45 J-3 Clipped Wing Cub
User avatar
Bruce Fenstermacher
 
Posts: 9307
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 11:24 am
Location: Telford, PA Based at UKT

Re: ELT Upgrade..?? ...or Not...??

Postby Ryan Smith » Fri Feb 16, 2018 1:33 am

It probably stands for something cool like “Freakin’ Awesome Aviator”.
User avatar
Ryan Smith
 
Posts: 1045
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 4:26 am
Location: Browns Summit, NC

Re: ELT Upgrade..?? ...or Not...??

Postby gahorn » Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:03 pm

Bruce Fenstermacher wrote:
n2582d wrote:Good to see “the FAA” has become a member! (S)he might want to consider a new moniker in light of 18 U.S. Code § 912. Or am I being too paranoid?


Gary, you make the mistake of thinking this FAA moniker stands for Federal Aviation Administration.


The signature states it: :wink:
Federal Aviation Administration | Classic Certified Aircraft Compliance Division

6425 Denning Ave
Oklahoma City, OK 73169



But the slogan/motto is the giveaway/defense-to-prosecution:
"We're from the FAA, and we're here to help

I tend towards their other: "We're not happy unless You're not happy."
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons. ;)
User avatar
gahorn
 
Posts: 17902
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm
Location: Spicewood (Austin), Texas

Re: ELT Upgrade..?? ...or Not...??

Postby TFA170 » Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:54 pm

c170b53 wrote:My unit, a 406 does not have an GPS input but I'm under the impression by its signal, the search would be pinpointed down to several football fields whereas a GPS signal would be down to under a decent 3 point conversion. I would have gone to a GPS unit but unfortunately in Canada they added a regulation that only approve shops can install the GPS units, too bad.

Without GPS, the 406 transmission cannot be pinpointed any more accurately than the 121.5 or 243.0. However, what 406 has going for it is a complete lack of "competition" on the frequency. Pretty much ONLY 406 ELTs are transmitting on that frequency, so there is no "clutter" to listen through, unlike 121.5 and 243.0 which are both also used as voice frequencies, even for non-emergencies, and have high-use channels adjacent to them. Consequently, the satellites will pick up a 406 beacon quicker and assign it priority sooner...and yes, it's probably an area of a few football fields of accuracy, which may or may not allow a quick recovery, depending on the specifics of each scenario, terrain, or incident.
User avatar
TFA170
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 3:18 am
Location: 74FL

Re: ELT Upgrade..?? ...or Not...??

Postby bagarre » Fri Feb 16, 2018 5:11 pm

TFA170 wrote:
c170b53 wrote:My unit, a 406 does not have an GPS input but I'm under the impression by its signal, the search would be pinpointed down to several football fields whereas a GPS signal would be down to under a decent 3 point conversion. I would have gone to a GPS unit but unfortunately in Canada they added a regulation that only approve shops can install the GPS units, too bad.

Without GPS, the 406 transmission cannot be pinpointed any more accurately than the 121.5 or 243.0. However, what 406 has going for it is a complete lack of "competition" on the frequency. Pretty much ONLY 406 ELTs are transmitting on that frequency, so there is no "clutter" to listen through, unlike 121.5 and 243.0 which are both also used as voice frequencies, even for non-emergencies, and have high-use channels adjacent to them. Consequently, the satellites will pick up a 406 beacon quicker and assign it priority sooner...and yes, it's probably an area of a few football fields of accuracy, which may or may not allow a quick recovery, depending on the specifics of each scenario, terrain, or incident.


Since 2009, the 121.5 frequency is no longer being monitored by satellite but even when it was, 406 had a higher degree of precision even without GPS.
Along with frequency dual use (voice and signal on 121.5), 406 is much more precise of a signal permitting more precise triangulation.

121.5 transmits a tone at 0.1watt while 406 transmits a burst at 5 watts. Satellites can narrow the location of a 406 ELT to 1 to 3 miles average while 121.5 ELTs were 12 to 15 miles using doppler because the 406 frequency is more precise. Without GPS, both are picked up and triangulated at the same rate ( 45 minutes for initial detection and another two hours or more to triangulate the signal as the satellites pass over and relay the info to the ground).

406 is also monitored by GEOSAR which can detect the signal instantly as they are geosynchronous. Without GPS you still have to wait hours for the lower satellites to triangulate via doppler however authorities can start calling people based on registration information while triangulating - 121.5 is anonymous so you have no such info.

There really is no comparison between the old 121.5 boxes and the new 406 boxes even when you don't hook up GPS.

But Im sure the REAL reason behind phasing out 121.5 is the systematic destruction of American companies or whatever other rants that have been posted in this thread.
bagarre
 
Posts: 2620
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 11:35 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Pilot Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests