Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

406 mhz vs 121.5

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

rv-4

Joined: 03 Apr 2008
Posts: 13
Location: Montréal

Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 1:24 pm Post subject: 406 mhz vs 121.5

Dear Emrath

  

                ''Only 15 years after ELTs 

were mandated  was satellites monitoring introduced. So you revert to the 

status ELTs had  before 1985. If you really believe that being rescued in  

8-12 hours rather than 24 hours is going to make  that big a difference, 

feel free to spend the  money.''

  

                Well I'm old enough and I will spend the money regardless of the fact that the  Canadian MOT has made it compulsory as of Feb 2009.

  

 As an ex-Air Force Search and Rescue crew for many  years I've got to tell you that 8-12 hours vs 24  hours will make a world  of difference if you're down in the bush with your family being injured or  not.

  

 The standard 121.5 ELTs are notoriously know for  being subject to false alarms ( Ask me how many times I had to get airborne in a  hurry to chase what turned out to be a false alarm) or trying to home on a  beacon in the mountains with the signal bouncing off the mountain's  sides....

  

 The 406 MHZ ELTs have 5 times the transmit power,  can be co-located with GPS and have a much better accuracy....

  

 Gentlement, if you are able to afford an airplane,  you sure as hell can afford a much better device that will increase your chances  of being rescue by a factor too great to put a price tag on  it...

  

 If you don't care, ask your family what they  think.....

  

 Regards

  

 Bruno Dionne

 rv4(at)videotron.ca (rv4(at)videotron.ca)

 C-GDBH RV-4

gmcjetpilot

Joined: 04 Nov 2006
Posts: 170

Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:30 am Post subject: 406 mhz vs 121.5

$600 406 mhz ELT? ACK may be out now or just coming out with a $600 406 aviation ELT. See their web site.

   

  http://www.ackavionics.com/

   

  I posted that PLB's (portable personal beacons) go for $600 to $700. They do not qualify as an aircraft ELT. Handy yes but not FAA approved.

   

   

  Most aviation ELT's (406) that I have prices start at just under $1000. 

   

  Artex ME406 under $1000. 

  AmeriKing is $906 on sale. 

  EBC 406 under $1000

  ACK (in market 2008?) $600

  KANNAD (French company) about $2000)



             [quote][b]

pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:04 am Post subject: 406 mhz vs 121.5

gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   $600 406 mhz ELT? ACK may be out now or just coming out with a $600 

 406 aviation ELT. See their web site.

  

 http://www.ackavionics.com/

  

 I posted that PLB's (portable personal beacons) go for $600 to $700. 

 They do not qualify as an aircraft ELT. Handy yes but not FAA approved.

Since the FAA has MANDATED that your A/C have an ELT (121.5 / 243)..... 
	


just keep it.  Since the FAA hasn't mandated anything for the 406 ..... 

yet ..... (it may come anyway) ..... then the $600 PLB would seem to be 

money well spent.

Linn

 	  Quote: 	
		    

  

 Most aviation ELT's (406) that I have prices start at just under $1000.

  

 Artex ME406 under $1000.

 AmeriKing is $906 on sale. 

 EBC 406 under $1000

 ACK (in market 2008?) $600

 KANNAD (French company) about $2000)



 *

 *

gmcjetpilot

Joined: 04 Nov 2006
Posts: 170

Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:47 am Post subject: 406 mhz vs 121.5

Linn not to argue but are you not forgetting that you might die? A ELT in theory could bring help and save your life or your passengers life. A 121.5 Mhz ELT only is pretty useless and even more useless in a few months when 243 Mhz tracking goes away. A PLB cost at least $600, where a ACK aircraft ELT cost $600 and will meet future needs. Just my 0.02 worth, Cheers

  PS the 406 ELT mandate IS COMING, it has to. It cost millions and millions a year to track down false alarms. The good news is 243Mhz satellites are going going gone. 121.5 is not tacked but satellites and has a very short range, so it's unlikely any one will even look for you, saving tax payers money.

  >From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>

 	  Quote: 	
		  Subject: Re: Re:  406 mhz vs 121.5

 	  Quote: 	
		  >gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com wrote:

> $600 406 mhz ELT? ACK may be out now or just coming out with a $600 

> 406 aviation ELT. See their web site.

>  

> http://www.ackavionics.com/

  >just keep it.  Since the FAA hasn't mandated anything for the 406 .....

 	  Quote: 	
		   yet ..... (it may come anyway) ..... then the $600 PLB would seem to 

  >be money well spent.

 	  Quote: 	
		  Linn

             [quote][b]

ronlee(at)pcisys.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:23 am Post subject: 406 mhz vs 121.5

George, satellite monitoring of 121.5 MHz (and 243 MHz) is going  away.

 Aircraft may well monitor that frequency for many years.

  

 http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/Phase-outFinal.pdf

  

 It was reported (not verified by me) that Fossett had a 406 MHz unit.   I have 

 seen nothing to say that 406 MHz units will be more reliable so ELTs in  my

 opinion are mandated dead weight.

  

 I have a 406 MHz PLB and will install an APRS (requires a ham license)  

 someday.

  

 Ron Lee

  

  

  

 [quote]   ---

ronlee(at)pcisys.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:24 am Post subject: 406 mhz vs 121.5

What hard evidence do you have that the FAA will 

 mandate 406 MHz ELTs for retrofit?

  

 Ron Lee

    [quote][b]

Bruce(at)glasair.org
Guest

Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:53 am Post subject: 406 mhz vs 121.5

I doubt if  any type of ELT/PLB/APRS will survive flying onto the face of a  mountain.

  

  

  

Bruce 

www.Glasair.org 

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =  "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

 [quote]   

   --

ronlee(at)pcisys.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:48 pm Post subject: 406 mhz vs 121.5

But an APRS (or Spot) will leave position reports that will provide far  better 

 info to rescue/recover someone than an ELT.

  

 One article stated (not verified) that ELTs do not activate in a large  number

 of crashes (maybe it was 50% or more).  Or maybe it was over  70%.  I

 do not recall.  Regardless, that is a poor value that further supports  my

 opinion that an ELT is just mandated dead weight.

  

 I have a better chance of recovery/rescue using flight following.

  

 Ron Lee

 [quote]   ---

gmcjetpilot

Joined: 04 Nov 2006
Posts: 170

Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:39 am Post subject: 406 mhz vs 121.5

Ron Fossett flew straight into the side of a mountain. Type of ELT? I have not seen it was a 406Mhz. Even if it was installed properly, it likely (I am guessing) would not have survived the straight in accident. That is way they say install (as required) ELT's in he most aft end of the plane. 

   

  Even so you are right ELT's do's make unsurvivable accidents survivable, I concede the point. 

   

  The specs of the 406Mhz, battery and they technology ARE WAY BETTER. That is not debatable. 5 watt burst on 406Mhz that can pinpoint to a relatively small area with ID of plane and owner is WAY WAY Better. Why the resistance. Is it really the lousy $600 or $1000. Gosh I burn 8ga/hr or $40 hour. 25 hours of flying will pay for a new ELT.

   

  (I have a Ham ticket so I know what you are talking about.) "SPOT" is a good deal if you don't mind the subscription fee. Also you have  to have some one know you have SPOT or APRS and knows to look for you.

   

  OLD FASHION STUFF

   

  As I taught my students when I was an active CFI, FILE A  VFR flight plan in detail and fly the flight plan exactly. Open it accurately and close it properly. That can make a big difference. 

   

  Fossett was probably just joy riding and no one knew his plans. That is OK in flat lands with population, but fly over rugged remote unpopulated terrain, bye bye. Ironically they found a plane crash from the 1960's that was never found till they where looking for Fossett. 

   

  Cheers fly safe

   

  

 	  Quote: 	
		  From: "Ron Lee" <ronlee(at)pcisys.net>

Subject: Re: Re: 406 mhz vs 121.5


	


 	  Quote: 	
		  It was reported (not verified  by me) that Fossett had a 406 MHz unit.

I have  seen nothing to say that 406 MHz units will be more reliable so ELTs in

my opinion are mandated dead weight.



I have a 406 MHz PLB and will install an APRS (requires a ham license) 

someday.


	




           [quote][b]

gmcjetpilot

Joined: 04 Nov 2006
Posts: 170

Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 9:03 am Post subject: 406 mhz vs 121.5

No HARD evidence. It is my opinion Mr. Ron Lee after 23 years in aviation dealing with the FAA in certification and in operations of aircraft, including Boeing, Airline pilot and building homebuilts. It will be a matter of time. I promise you the first famous person, politishian or family that dies 5 days after a crash, in a remote area because they could not find their old 121.5 Mhz elt, the new 406 Mhz will be mandated so thereafter. (Fossett was considered an adventurer and risk taker so it did not strike a cord with the public.)

   

  WHEN? I don't predict but it is moot. MY POINT was simple, why be a cheapskate and resist superior ELT technology. Even AOPA says after 2009 your old ELT will be blind to satellites. The new ELT's are more affective.

   

  The superior technology is not debatable it is a fact, Pos ID, more power, better batteries.....smaller search area with GPS augmentation  pinpoint location. 

   

  Where do you see they will not mandate it.  Mexico and Canada will require it. Personally I think people are being foolish for the sake of a petty amount of money out of ignorance, stubborness or both. 

   

  However I agree if you are a flat lander flying around your airport solo, you don't even need a ELT at all (per the FAR's) much less a new one. 

   

  AOPA has fought the new ELT's on economics only, but they do recommend it be phased in. I forgot their propaganda lobbyists position, I recall over the next 5 or 10 years, some thing like that. This is more AOPA recomendations/info.

   

  http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/080904elt.html

   

   

  We can agree to disagree. Cheers do as you like. Just my opinion.  Don't be mad because I disagree with you. However I have no problem with your PLB / tracking deal. For most people it will be easier to buy a ACK $600 406Mhz ELT and forget about it for 5 years when the battery needs to be replaced. Just opinion and worth every penney you paid for it.

   

  Fly Safe George

   

   

   

  >From: "Ron Lee" <ronlee(at)pcisys.net>

 	  Quote: 	
		  Subject: Re: Re: 406 mhz vs 121.5



What hard evidence do you have that the FAA will 

mandate 406 MHz ELTs for retrofit?



Ron Lee


	


           [quote][b]

bifft(at)xmission.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 1:16 pm Post subject: 406 mhz vs 121.5

Another thought on this issue, we are required to have 121.5 ELTs in

our aircraft, so the cost of going with the 406 MHz or not is really only

the difference between the 121.5 and the 406 MHz.  Checking over on

Aircraft Spruce, I see about $450 difference.  Not cheap, but I agree it

will probably be mandated eventually.  Might as well have it in the plane

from the beginning.



  Brian Huffaker, DSWL (bifft(at)xmission.com)

  RV-8A 80091  Mounting landing gear.

  1/4 Starduster II N23UT flying

ronlee(at)pcisys.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 2:37 pm Post subject: 406 mhz vs 121.5

Valid cost reasoning for NEW installations.



Ron Lee



---

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum