New ELT Requirements

[170C]

How about some of you that enjoy intrepeting the mumbo-jumbo FAA regs explaining how the new rules are going to effect us GA pilots regarding ELT's beginning January 1, 2005? An article I read in Sport Aviation seems to indicate that at least some of our current ELT's will become non airworthy on that date (not sure how to determine which ones will and which ones won't) & that we will have to replace all our ELT's after February 1, 2009. I am sure there is more to it than this brief deal, but maybe some of you know more about how this is going to affect us.

thanks,

[Doug Echelberger]

I had to replace mine last year. Seems my ELT (Alert 50) was just fine, but the battery was obsoleted. Good way to get ya...Anyway I put in the ameriking one, had to dismantle half the overhead and panel to cut in the newly required indicator and "phone" cord. Hope, I don't have to do it all over again in 2005!

Doug

[AR Dave]

I sure hated to buy an ELT battery this past week for ~$27 = $35 S&H. Until I read this article refering to what Ole Pokey was talking about.

Different types of ELTs are currently in use today. There are approximately 170,000 of the older generation 121.5 MHz ELTs in service. Unfortunately, these have proven to be highly ineffective. They have a 97% false alarm rate, activate properly in only 12% of crashes, and provide no identification data. In order to fix this problem, 406 MHz ELTs were developed to work specifically with the Cospas-Sarsat system. These ELTs dramatically reduce the false alert impact on SAR resources, have a higher accident survivability success rate, and decrease the time required to reach accident victims by an average of 6 hours.
Presently, most aircraft operators are mandated to carry an ELT and have the option to choose between either a 121.5 MHz ELT or a 406 MHz ELT. The Federal Aviation Administration has studied the issue of mandating carriage of 406 MHz ELTs. The study indicates that 134 extra lives and millions of dollars in SAR resources could be saved per year. The only problem is that 406 MHz ELTs currently cost about $1,500 and 121.5 MHz ELTs cost around $500. It's easy to see one reason for the cost differential when you look at the numbers. However, no one can argue the importance of 406 MHz ELTs and the significant advantages they hold.
Due to the obvious advantages of 406 MHz beacons and the significant disadvantages to the older 121.5 MHz beacons, the International Cospas-Sarsat Program have made a decision to phase out 121.5 MHz satellite alerting on February 1st, 2009. All pilots are highly encouraged both by NOAA and by the FAA to consider making the switch to 406!

[GAHorn]

Does anyone still doubt the value of lobbyists?

(A corollary to this discussion is the new RVSM rules coming into effect Jan. 2005. Although most of the U.S. has no traffic problems, the new rules will require that anyone wishing to fly above FL290 after 1/05 have expensive new equipment or throw their old airplanes away. Example: Lots of business jets are still economically viable airplanes except for this rule. The result of this arbitarary rule will send thousands of airplanes to the graveyard/scrap-heap. Lobbyists rule!

(If I were making the rules, I'd simply require aircraft that fly the congested eastern seaboard "corridor" above 290 to meet the new RVSM requirements. That way, the rest of the US would still operate according to the old rules. (2K' separations above 290.) Aircraft that are heading into NYC or DCA, etc. wouldn't be penalized because they'd be either on descent or ascent when they enter the corridor area and therefore would be below 290. Only those aircraft wishing to stay within the congested area would have to meet the RVSM rules.)

(For those not familiar, RVSM stands for Reduced Vertical Separation Minima. Until 1/05, aircraft flying above FL 290 have been separated by 2K' vertically. Afterwards, RVSM rules will separate them by only 1K'. This requires very expensive retrofit of altimetry, pitot/static equipment, that many aircraft cannot meet the RVSM certification without spending about $300K! in some cases! But the only place air traffic is so congested that controllers need 1K' separation is along the NYC-MIA corridor. The new rules will make all aircraft meet the new criterial regardless of whether or not they fly the NYC-MIA routes. Europe has already adopted the rules.)

[mvivion]

George,

You spend a lot of time up at 290 with your 170?

As to the ELT issue: Understand that, if your 121.5 beacon activates, and sends a signal to a satellite, which is then linked to RCC, RCC does precisely nothing with that signal for the first "hit". This is due to the extremely high false alarm rate.

So, in that case, your signal would go unanswered for at least 40 minutes till the second "hit" comes in.

On the other hand, upon receiving a 406 hit, RCC immediately starts resolving the situation, by contacting the contact numbers you have on your registration. If they call your home, and your spouse answers and says "no, they are out flying", it will precipitate initiation of a search with no further ado.

Finally, the 121.5/243 satellites are going away. These things do not have an infinite life. As they run out of gas, they are replaced with more modern 406 beacons.

The 406 system has proven it's effectiveness on the north slope of Alaska, where it's been in use for years. It's a much better system.

Once more than one manufacturer starts building 406 beacons, the prices will come down, I hope.

In the meantime, I wouldn't replace any ELT with a non 406 beacon. Its good money after bad.

Mike

[GAHorn]

George,
You spend a lot of time up at 290 with your 170?
Mike

I suppose that was a joke, Mike?
The purpose of the RVSM discussion was as an example of how some types/business lobbyists can drain our pocketbooks.
When ELT's (which sound like a good idea) were sold to the public (forced upon general aviation) they were promoted by the ELT industry to congress as a "vitally necessary to the public safety" item on aircraft. The only people who had to buy/install them were general aviation airplane owners. Airliners and business jets were not req'd to install them.
No matter that the "public" mostly travelled on airliners. No matter that general aviation opposed them. No matter there was no provision in the legislation for any search/rescue coordination to use their radiated signals.
It was a knee-jerk reaction to the death of a congressman in a private plane in an accident that an ELT would have made no difference whatsoever. (As I recall he died on impact...not exposure.)
Sales were still dismal, so cheaper (read poorly constructed) ELT's were offered and finally the majority of GA complied, even though many still took refuge in regulatory loopholes.
So after thirty years of ELT mfr's selling expensive ELT's that required expensive, proprietary batteries,...someone came out with the brilliant idea to make an ELT that used ordinary alkaline flashlight batteries.
Oops. That killed the proprietary battery market.
The Russians (Soviets actually) had lofted a satellite that could locate a 121.5/243 mHz Elt (to the embarrassment of the U.S.) and most ELT triggers were located by them and word was passed to the U.S., who passed it to the volunteer force over at C.A.P. ...who ultimately (now going on 48 hours) would lauch a search.
So, instead of fixing the system, mfr's have come up with the brilliant idea to legislate a requirement for an entirely new system! Throw the old one out, and start all over....and include business jets too! That will allow them to price the things way up there. And it's the rest of us that really need rescue..from the lobbyists, in my opinon.
(RVSM is an example of another boondoggle, in the U.S. at least....in my opinion....and that's why I used it ...in order to illustrate that sometimes such regulations are simply an example of how the sytem is desgined to SELL things....not necessarily make things safer.) IMHO
At least this time around they've considered how to actually implement the signals. But have they allocated resources to actually fund a better equipped/staffed search-rescue effort? Of course not.

[ak2711c]

I have to wonder how the FAA plans on us installing the new system. Are these manufacturers going to get an STC for every aircraft type out there? Or are the feds going to grant field approvals because this might fit into there agenda. In the past though the feds could careless if a mod made an aircraft safer they still would not field approve it. It is a sad situation how difficult and expensive the feds have made it to keep an aircraft in recent years. I know many old timers up here that have said the heck with them and built an airstrip at there house, they quit trying to maintain the log books, they install what ever mods they want (legal or not), they quit getting annuals, they quit getting there medicals and bi-annuals, and they just never go into a public airport. I'm not saying this is the answer or that this is safe but this is a very common cenerio up here.
Shawn

[GAHorn]

It will probably be installed similarly to the old system....the ELT's will be TSO'd and they will be installed according to the TSO just like any other (TSO'd) avionics installation.
(Which brings up another point of irritation in my view: My ELT antenna has a metal radiator with a coil built into it. It was orginally chromed, and the flexing in flight has made the chrome flake off and now it's got tiny little ugly rusting spots on it. I want to replace it, preferably with one of the other mfr's antennas that have a rubber sleeve on the radiator which keeps it from rusting. But that is a problem becaue my present antenna is part/parcel of my ELT's TSO. So to use another antenna, ...even one specifically tuned to 121.5/243 mHz for ELT use, will require either an STC or field approval. Grrr.

[mit]

It will probably be installed similarly to the old system....the ELT's will be TSO'd and they will be installed according to the TSO just like any other (TSO'd) avionics installation.
(Which brings up another point of irritation in my view: My ELT antenna has a metal radiator with a coil built into it. It was orginally chromed, and the flexing in flight has made the chrome flake off and now it's got tiny little ugly rusting spots on it. I want to replace it, preferably with one of the other mfr's antennas that have a rubber sleeve on the radiator which keeps it from rusting. But that is a problem becaue my present antenna is part/parcel of my ELT's TSO. So to use another antenna, ...even one specifically tuned to 121.5/243 mHz for ELT use, will require either an STC or field approval. Grrr.

\

Looks like a minor alteration to me.

[GAHorn]

Ordinarily I'd agree with you Tim.
If it were an antenna for a comm radio, then yes, because that antenna may not require a TSO.
But an ELT antenna is part of the TSO.

[mvivion]

George,

I submitted a response to your comments this morning, but it apparently got dissappeared somewhere in cyberland. My comment regarding operating your C 170 in the flight levels was, indeed, an attempt at humor. Reduced RVSM has no relationship to the past or present history of the ELT situation. Two very different topics, driven by two very different groups. Sorry, but your paranoia is showing.

The Congressman who dissappeared stayed dissappeared, even to this day they've never been found. That was the genesis of the ELT program to start with. His name was Hale Boggs. It happened somewhere in Alaska, we presume, though it could have been Canada. They were never found, which was, in fact, the point that the CONGRESS of the United States, not a bunch of business people, pushed to enact a requirement to carry ELT's in every GA airplane in the US. This wasn't an industry lobby group, cause at the time there WAS no ELT industry. This was Congressional intervention, not industry intervention.

Secondly, Air Carrier aircraft were exempted from the requirement to carry an ELT simply because, when operating in the continental US, air carrier aircraft are almost never outside radar coverage. What would be the point of carrying an ELT in a positive control radar environment? Business jets were also excluded under the same presumption, but lately, some business jets have been operating rather differently, as in VFR.

Thirdly, the Russian COSPAS system for tracking ELT hits via satellite came on line much LATER than the US based SAR-SAT system of satellites. Nowadays, COSPAS and SAR-SAT share data, so we have the best of both worlds. Nonetheless, there was no embarrassment on the part of the US as to advanced technology for tracking ELT's, we've always led the pack on that front.

The 406 beacons are superior to the 121.5/243 beacons. Period. There is no doubt that they are superior technology in many ways. They have been running in a test program on Alaska's north slope for almost ten years now, and they have proven time and again that they are far superior to the older style beacons. For one thing, 406 beacons offer much better precision in triangulating satellite hits, but there are many other reasons that these beacons are superior.

It isn't lobbyists who are driving this conversion. The testing has been going on for ten years now in one of the most demanding "laboratories" on the planet. The technology works, and it's better. And I'm not a lobbyist for the 406 beacons, by the way. They work better. Period.

I am convinced that the prices will come down as more companies get into the production business.

For what it's worth.

And, I don't know anything about RVSM, and I don't care about it either. I simply cant' get that high in anything I fly. Which doesn' t mean its not important.

Mike

[GAHorn]

Thanks for the reminder about Hale Boggs. And yes, the 406 beacons are better. I never said otherwise. (That fact doesn't diminish the foolishness of foisting thousands of cheap, unreliable older ELT's upon general aviation, which was the reason I began my rant.)
And the Soviets had the first ELT satellite detection long before the U.S. SARSAT or their own later development, COSPAS.) The other things you've said are not correct. Airlines were excluded because they had a powerful lobby which argued that since the airlines operated a dispatch system which had intracompany communications networks, supervising aircraft on known routing that an ELT was not likely to be useful. In fact the airlines operated over vast areas that at the time had no radar coverage. (I flew for just such an airline at the time.) "Business jets were also excluded under the same presumption..." You trying to convince us that business jets only flew in radar back then also? --not true, Mike. Business jets also had a powerful lobby (NBAA) which was successful in getting them exempted. ELT's were nothing new and had been around for a number of years, they just hadn't been applied to civil aviation and the mfr's wanted a piece of that market.
RVSM may not interest you. It may not interest too many other 170 owers either. But it's place in this conversation is it's relevance with regard to lobby activities. The RVSM market is huge, not only for the avionics purchases required to comply with the rules, but also for all the new expensive business jets that will have to be purchased to replace all the older equipment that can't afford to comply. Or haven't you noticed that bizjet mfr's, after a prolonged downslide, are proclaiming a huge jump in sales next year (when RVSM goes into effect). Cessna alone has announced an expected hiring of 600 to produce their jets next year.) The bizjet lobby and the avionics lobby has been hard at work. (Congress doesn't drive very many new technologies, Mike. They're hard pressed to keep up with them. When Beechcraft 18's developed a wing-spar problem and one lost a wing and killed a congressman... did you see Congress mandate fixes for the problem, or legislating new airplane mfr'ing efforts? Of course not. There was no lobby pushing for it because 18's were obsolete with no reason to expect anyone to make a bunch of money modifying them. (Yes, some companies modified them, but relative to the market it was a pittance To comply with a Beech AD all that was necessary was increased inspections.) Did Congress do anything at all about it? Of course not. There was no business interest in it. Follow the money. That's what motivates Congress more often than not.
Just because RVSM (or any other subject) doesn't particularly interest you is no reason to criticise it's mention here in context with aviation product promotions. There are lots of activities and subjects that influence what it costs you in order to participate in aviation, and I think it's wise to know how the system works.

[FredM]

I think the newer elts are garbage. I work on Bombardier CRJs. The elt costs over $3000 and is a piece of junk. It is supposed to tramsmit on 121.5, 243 and 406mhz and transmits an id code that lets the Faa know your tail number as well. the only problem is they never work when they are supposed too. They have to have the G switch tested regularly and they never seem to work. You end up removing the ELT sending it out for repair and flying the plane without it. What good is that. I know of at least six instances where the aircraft was struck in the tail by a baggage cart near the ELT mounting position in the tail and the ELT did not go off. One time the ELT was knocked out of it's mount which is supposed to be rated at 9 g's and it still didn't go off. Another time the tail was hit so hard it left a large hole in the tail, not a peep out of the ELT . It is supposed to be safer to ship also. It is made so that it will not activate without the cannon plug connected. Two of the cannon plug pins are shorted together activating the ELT. With it removed the ELT is impossible to activate. that is great unless the cannon plug comes off in flight. NO chance of it doing anything for you then. It looks like they have solved all of the false alert problems. Most of which were probably occuring in shipping anyway. Now they have a new Problem , They don't work at all when you need them.

[GAHorn]

I wish we'd known about the $3K ELT you mentioned, Fred. It cost us $6200 to stick one in the Citation.
RE: lobby-ists: A quote from Thomas Hale Boggs, Jr. himself during an interview with The Center for Public Integrity (with regard to the size of the lobby at the time of his dad vs now: "Boggs: Oh, it’s totally different. The reason you had sixty-some-odd lobbyists in the late ’60s is because you had about ten people who ran the government. Each of them had about six friends, which is why you had about sixty-some lobbyists. Now you have 535 Congressmen who think they run the government and you have 14,000 lobbyists. The system is totally different."
Another example of how they run the cost of aviation up is their promotion on behalf of cockpit voice recorders. Either we had to remove a sixth pax seat from the airplane, or we had to install a CVR to the tune of $18,000! (In one customer's case the potty had to be removed because it had a seat-belt attached.)
I'd like someone to tell me how a 6 seat airplane has a sudden need for recording the cockpit conversations over a 5 seat airplane. (And if anyone flys one of them doesn't erase the thing before takeoff and again upon touchdown....then all they're doing is giving the lawyers a reason to sue you.) The mfr's lobbies won this for them... if anything goes wrong they can always blame the crew. It will have virtually no effect of improving aircraft safety, in my view, because they record nothing about the aircraft flight data.

[Mike Smith]

George,
I agree with you that the lobby activities are the real way that things get done on the hill. But on the issue of RSVM, well, as much as it pains me to say so, it seems to be coming like a distant freight train (i.e. we can't stop it). At my airline our domestic only airplanes are being retrofitted with RVSM and there is no intention of sending them over water! In my experience, the airlines seldom spend money unless it's absolutely necessary to make more money.

So, I see the "above FL290 issue" as the same thing that happened with the Class B airspace. The FAA will just schrug it's shoulders at us and say, "you gotta have this equipment to play in our sandbox". Just like the transponder and radio in Class B, the RVSM will be the rule above FL290.

These are some of the reasons I pay dues to the AOPA and the EAA. They have lobbies that look out for general aviation in the more aggregate sense.

In closing, George, I feel your pain brother

Fly Safe,