Emergency Locator Transmitter

Cole5Oh5 · #1 06-22-10, 08:53 AM

I notice that the FCC has submitted a NPRM that would require all 121.5 MHZ ELT units to be removed from service. Conversely, the FAA requires an ELT on all aircraft. The function of the FCC rule would be to force all airplanes that do not have 406 Mhz ELT's to immediately upgrade, or be grounded.

I looked, extensively, for the NPRM. I can not find it. Normally, there is a comment period associated with all NPRM's, and I certainly would like to comment. I like the comment on AVWEB, which I am quoting, "This is the epitomy of dumb-ass lack of communication between government departments who actually have a lot in common and should know better. In that case, this should be fixed up very soon."

In any event, does anyone know where comments can be submitted.

In a separate, but related tone, what about GPS enabled ELT's? What is the advantage of those? As I understand it, if you crash, and the ELT goes off (only 80% of the time, BTW), within an hour, a satellite picks up the signal and forces start heading for you. This would mean that every hour, a signal would be picked up by a satellite, and not the same one, so they should have your location pretty much spot on. The new ELT gets encoded with your name, aircraft number, etc., so they know who they are searching for.

Now, I can see the GPS enabled ELT saying, "HEY, HERE I AM", with GPS coordinates. Especially helpful if, instead of CFIT, you actually have time to turn it on manually. However, when you turn it on manually, you presumably have some forward motion, resulting in you not being where you were when you turned it on.

Anyone have some thoughts they would like to share, especially an place to submit comments? BTW, in case you missed it, this rule goes into effect on August 15, 2010. Means the sale of 100LL will dive after that date. Unless, of course, we can change it.

Cole5Oh5 · #2 06-22-10, 09:06 AM

What is involved in interfacing the ELT with existing GPS installations??
Is this a huge (expensive) job?

WebMaster · #3 06-23-10, 09:00 AM

I am surprised. This has been in every aviation online thing I see, and yet no one has any answers for Cole.

While I don't have an airplane, I can imagine a bunch of folks are trying to figure out what to do. If you figure it out, how about sharing with the rest of us?

jchronic · #4 06-23-10, 09:22 AM

I confess I haven't looked yet, having just heard about this, but I'd hope AOPA is jumping on it. A completely mindless bureaucratic decision by somebody; can't imagine what the point is. Are they trying to reclaim 121.5 for other uses in the spectrum? Not likely. It's just going to drive people to flying without them, or more simply, ignoring the law. My old pappy allus' said, "Don't make rules you know people are just gonna ignore."

Joe

hharney · #5 06-25-10, 12:42 AM

According to the report attached from Aviation Consumer, the big expense of the GPS coupled 406 ELT's is the labor to make the connection from the ELT to the GPS. Looking at Spruce on-line there are several units that claim GPS outputs and some list connection options. The ACK unit looks the price is right unit but apparently they are still waiting approval of some kind. Spruce has them listed but no inventory. It list a street price of $582.00 and has a direct replacement for the ACK 121.5 for $542.00. It also will connect to your GPS but this is where some labor comes into the picture.

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalo...ges/elt406.php

Craig at Griswold has already installed several of the Amrei-King 451 and has some very happy customers. If you already have the ACK 121.5 then by far this is the way to go with just the replacement unit. But if you are like me and still have the older 121.5 units without the remotes, this Ameri-King may be a good direction to go. The basic unit is $759.00 and they are approved and ready to ship. Like most of these new 406 units you buy a portable antenna so that you can take the unit with you away from the scene and still transmit the signal. This unit comes with a GPS interface for panel mount GPS.

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalo...ngpackages.php

All the new 406 units require a remote switch. Usually purchased as a separate kit.

WebMaster · #6 06-25-10, 08:52 AM

The 451 transmits on 121.5, as well as 243, and 406. The FCC NPRM says no transmitting on 121.5. That would seem putting in a unit that transmits on 121.5 a problem. When this gets ironed out, you may have to remove that unit that transmits on 121.5. It seems the FCC wants 406 only.

Ernie Martin · #7 06-25-10, 10:41 AM

The ACK unit also transmits on 121.5 to aid local search. It's a very low power signal (100 Mw vs. 5 watts at 406 Mhz) which may satisfy the FCC.

Ernie

jchronic · #8 06-25-10, 10:36 PM

None of which explains why the FCC all of a sudden got hot to ban 121.5 ELTs when it will still remain a 'guard' frequency, and the FAA's silence on the issue so far. The 121.5 homing feature in the new ELTs would appear to present a non sequiter to the proposed rule. AOPA is, in fact, getting on it.

Joe

Cole5Oh5 · #9 06-26-10, 03:50 PM

The actual NPRM was posted in 2009. It hasn't been published as law yet.
It's become a big deal, because people finally noticed it.

The rule says units that transmit on 121.5 will be illegal. That would make all the dual/triple frequency units illegal. Like Mexicans.

Pay attention people. It will become law, and probably not be enforced. Like so many things. There are units that can not ship, and the manufacturers are probably firing up their lobbyist, like AOPA, to keep you from spending money you should have spent a year ago.

The units that hook up to your GPS sound cool. If you crash, and all the power goes out, what kind of GPS information will your ELT transmit?? Duh, NONE. So, go spend the bucks to have it coupled to your GPS, and unless you turn it on in the air, you just flushed your money down the tube. Your better off buying a package of life savers. Carry them in your pocket.

Learjetter · #10 08-12-20, 07:33 PM

Thread bump:

Discovered a Pointer 3000 series (121.5/243.0 MHz) ELT installed in the aircraft.
Read about how all the cool kids are getting into the 406 MHz ELTs. Looked at a couple on aircraftspruce, then thought I’ll ask this group what they’re using.

What ELT did you install, if any?

-J

cartrm · #11 08-13-20, 10:23 AM

Mine has an Artex ME406. I bought my airplane from a commercial operator, and Canada already requires 406 ELTs in commercial aircraft. The requirement for 406s in private aircraft has been passed, but not yet brought into force.

My last airplane had an ACK 406 in it, and we had nothing but problems with it. Had to go back to the factory for repair, they screwed up the repair so it didn't work when we got it back. Sent us a replacement part, sent the wrong part. Had to go back to the factory again. Seems there's a reason they're priced cheap.

JAG · #12 08-13-20, 11:47 AM

I just installed the ACK E-04. Decision to go ACK was partly price and my history with brand. I have installed ACK's in other aircraft in the past and they have stood up well, easy to install and batteries are not expensive. Testing is all done in the field. I have heard that they may not be as high quality, but I have never had issue with them, and personally, I only have an ELT to be legal. I think ELT's are useless pieces of kit; majority of accidents they become disconnected from antenna (the brackets for all of them are useless), are consumed by fire or go underwater. I know I might be stirring a hornets nest here, but I have done years of research on them and lost friends to accidents where the ELT did not function. Save your money on the purchase of your ELT, and invest the money you save in a satellite tracking device for emergencies and flight following.
Jeff

Kim Geyer · #13 08-13-20, 11:14 PM

Artex 345. Looked at the ACK but they needed to many batteries. 1 for the ELT, 1 for the remote, and 1 for the buzzer