 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jump2(at)sbcglobal.net
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 6:47 pm Post subject: ELT and ELT antenna placement |
 |
|
| Quote: | That's exactly why I quit working on other people planes. You become God, who knows all. You do not have the right to take other people lives in your hands because you think, I don't like a antenna there,it costs me 1/2 mph or it looks cool with out it. You may wish you had it,god forbidding you have an accident and that elt might ,just might save you if it was install according to the way the engineers wanted them to be. Give me data that says the elt works Barried in the tail. Then I'll say ok. Until you have engineering data I'll continue to fight about putting it in the tail.
|
Just my two cents.
Yes I have been in a couple of high impacts, wear seat belts & shoulder harness it's not a fun time when you need them.
Excuse me.
Sent from my iPad
| Quote: | On Jun 14, 2017, at 5:32 PM, Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> wrote:
You are absolutely correct. Not to mention that you can change anything you want as soon as the DAR leaves the premises.
> On 6/14/2017 2:29 PM, Bob Turner wrote:
>
> Hey guys,
> I think we need to take it a bit easier with the DARs. After all, they are direct or indirect FAA employees, and their job is to see to it that the rules are obeyed. The rules say the ELT has to be TSO'd, and the TSO details antenna mounting. I certainly wish the rules all ended with, "...but use common sense or good judgement....". But that is certainly not the FAA way. So complain - but the complaints should go to the FAA.
> Not to change the subject, but I hope everyone has noted the latest FAA craziness: If you now are flying under BasicMed you may act as PIC; but you may not act as a required safety pilot if the PIC is under the hood. Where's the logic in that?
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
> Read this topic online here:
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=470131#470131
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kelly McMullen
Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 1188
Location: Sun Lakes AZ
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:18 pm Post subject: ELT and ELT antenna placement |
|
|
I'm not sure who is convinced that the TSO approvals make the ELT any better a transmitter installed as directed than some other way. Engineering data? Who says there is anything behind the TSO than that was how they chose to test it? Has anyone any reliable data on ELT antenna integrity after crashes? Whether the antenna was positioned for maximum effectiveness? We do know that aircraft with first generation ELTs are still legal to use them, in spite of a record of high 90% false alarming. Not to mention G switches that frequently fail to activate. Second generation ELTs are still 121.5/243.0 only and legal to install in any aircraft. Neither frequency is satellite monitored anymore.
All data shows 406 ELTs give better position information than the previous generations, but no mandate to use them. Sure, vertical works better if you know the antenna will be in that position after the crash. If a plane plants its nose in soft dirt, the vertical antenna will be horizontal, for a sub-optimal transmission.
I personally knew a forum member who crashed and most of his family survived overnight in freezing/snowy conditions until found 12 hours later, due to crappy 121.5 unit bouncing signals off mountains..but all but a few kids died from exposure. A 406 unit might have saved them.
However, there are a lot of other factors.
Accusing someone of putting others at risk....there is the huge warning that it is an experimental plane and the big Experimental label telling the passengers that the aircraft does not meet federal standards. Does it matter whether the ELT is perfect when you have an engine that isn't certified, combined with a prop that isn't certified, etc. etc? We could require air bags, survival packs, life jackets, rafts, etc.
-sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Patrick Thyssen <jump2(at)sbcglobal.net (jump2(at)sbcglobal.net)> wrote:
| Quote: | --> RV10-List message posted by: Patrick Thyssen <jump2(at)sbcglobal.net (jump2(at)sbcglobal.net)>
> That's exactly why I quit working on other people planes. You become God, who knows all. You do not have the right to take other people lives in your hands because you think, I don't like a antenna there,it costs me 1/2 mph or it looks cool with out it. You may wish you had it,god forbidding you have an accident and that elt might ,just might save you if it was install according to the way the engineers wanted them to be. Give me data that says the elt works Barried in the tail. Then I'll say ok. Until you have engineering data I'll continue to fight about putting it in the tail.
 Just my two cents.
Yes I have been in a couple of high impacts, wear seat belts & shoulder harness it's not a fun time when you need them.
Excuse me.
Sent from my iPad
> On Jun 14, 2017, at 5:32 PM, Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com (kellym(at)aviating.com)> wrote:
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com (kellym(at)aviating.com)>
>
> You are absolutely correct. Not to mention that you can change anything you want as soon as the DAR leaves the premises.
>
>> On 6/14/2017 2:29 PM, Bob Turner wrote:
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)>
>> Hey guys,
>> I think we need to take it a bit easier with the DARs. After all, they are direct or indirect FAA employees, and their job is to see to it that the rules are obeyed. The rules say the ELT has to be TSO'd, and the TSO details antenna mounting. I certainly wish the rules all ended with, "...but use common sense or good judgement....". But that is certainly not the FAA way. So complain - but the complaints should go to the FAA.
>> Not to change the subject, but I hope everyone has noted the latest FAA craziness: If you now are flying under BasicMed you may act as PIC; but you may not act as a required safety pilot if the PIC is under the hood. Where's the logic in that?
>> --------
>> Bob Turner
>> RV-10 QB
>> Read this topic online here:
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=470131#470131
>
>
>
====================================
-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
====================================
FORUMS -
eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
====================================
WIKI -
errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
====================================
b Site -
     -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
====================================
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor
KCHD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jump2(at)sbcglobal.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:43 am Post subject: ELT and ELT antenna placement |
|
|
I'll stand by my previous statement.
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 14, 2017, at 10:17 PM, Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com (apilot2(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | I'm not sure who is convinced that the TSO approvals make the ELT any better a transmitter installed as directed than some other way. Engineering data? Who says there is anything behind the TSO than that was how they chose to test it? Has anyone any reliable data on ELT antenna integrity after crashes? Whether the antenna was positioned for maximum effectiveness? We do know that aircraft with first generation ELTs are still legal to use them, in spite of a record of high 90% false alarming. Not to mention G switches that frequently fail to activate. Second generation ELTs are still 121.5/243.0 only and legal to install in any aircraft. Neither frequency is satellite monitored anymore.
All data shows 406 ELTs give better position information than the previous generations, but no mandate to use them. Sure, vertical works better if you know the antenna will be in that position after the crash. If a plane plants its nose in soft dirt, the vertical antenna will be horizontal, for a sub-optimal transmission.
I personally knew a forum member who crashed and most of his family survived overnight in freezing/snowy conditions until found 12 hours later, due to crappy 121.5 unit bouncing signals off mountains..but all but a few kids died from exposure. A 406 unit might have saved them.
However, there are a lot of other factors.
Accusing someone of putting others at risk....there is the huge warning that it is an experimental plane and the big Experimental label telling the passengers that the aircraft does not meet federal standards. Does it matter whether the ELT is perfect when you have an engine that isn't certified, combined with a prop that isn't certified, etc. etc? We could require air bags, survival packs, life jackets, rafts, etc.
-sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Patrick Thyssen <jump2(at)sbcglobal.net (jump2(at)sbcglobal.net)> wrote:
| Quote: | --> RV10-List message posted by: Patrick Thyssen <jump2(at)sbcglobal.net (jump2(at)sbcglobal.net)>
> That's exactly why I quit working on other people planes. You become God, who knows all. You do not have the right to take other people lives in your hands because you think, I don't like a antenna there,it costs me 1/2 mph or it looks cool with out it. You may wish you had it,god forbidding you have an accident and that elt might ,just might save you if it was install according to the way the engineers wanted them to be. Give me data that says the elt works Barried in the tail. Then I'll say ok. Until you have engineering data I'll continue to fight about putting it in the tail.
Just my two cents.
Yes I have been in a couple of high impacts, wear seat belts & shoulder harness it's not a fun time when you need them.
Excuse me.
Sent from my iPad
> On Jun 14, 2017, at 5:32 PM, Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com (kellym(at)aviating.com)> wrote:
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com (kellym(at)aviating.com)>
>
> You are absolutely correct. Not to mention that you can change anything you want as soon as the DAR leaves the premises.
>
>> On 6/14/2017 2:29 PM, Bob Turner wrote:
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)>
>> Hey guys,
>> I think we need to take it a bit easier with the DARs. After all, they are direct or indirect FAA employees, and their job is to see to it that the rules are obeyed. The rules say the ELT has to be TSO'd, and the TSO details antenna mounting. I certainly wish the rules all ended with, "...but use common sense or good judgement....". But that is certainly not the FAA way. So complain - but the complaints should go to the FAA.
>> Not to change the subject, but I hope everyone has noted the latest FAA craziness: If you now are flying under BasicMed you may act as PIC; but you may not act as a required safety pilot if the PIC is under the hood. Where's the logic in that?
>> --------
>> Bob Turner
>> RV-10 QB
>> Read this topic online here:
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=470131#470131
>
>
>
====================================
-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
====================================
FORUMS -
eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
====================================
WIKI -
errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
====================================
b Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
====================================
|
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2017 1:28 am Post subject: ELT and ELT antenna placement |
|
|
Gentleman
When I started this thread, I did forget to say that I didn't want to start the ELT wars, so please, you don't need to keep going on.
Just answer my initial questions, where did you install your ELT, if any, and the ELT antenna.
You may add the reasons why.
Thanks to all who already answered.
Carlos
Enviado do meu iPhone
No dia 15/06/2017, Ã s 09:39, Patrick Thyssen <jump2(at)sbcglobal.net (jump2(at)sbcglobal.net)> escreveu:
| Quote: | I'll stand by my previous statement.
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 14, 2017, at 10:17 PM, Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com (apilot2(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | I'm not sure who is convinced that the TSO approvals make the ELT any better a transmitter installed as directed than some other way. Engineering data? Who says there is anything behind the TSO than that was how they chose to test it? Has anyone any reliable data on ELT antenna integrity after crashes? Whether the antenna was positioned for maximum effectiveness? We do know that aircraft with first generation ELTs are still legal to use them, in spite of a record of high 90% false alarming. Not to mention G switches that frequently fail to activate. Second generation ELTs are still 121.5/243.0 only and legal to install in any aircraft. Neither frequency is satellite monitored anymore.
All data shows 406 ELTs give better position information than the previous generations, but no mandate to use them. Sure, vertical works better if you know the antenna will be in that position after the crash. If a plane plants its nose in soft dirt, the vertical antenna will be horizontal, for a sub-optimal transmission.
I personally knew a forum member who crashed and most of his family survived overnight in freezing/snowy conditions until found 12 hours later, due to crappy 121.5 unit bouncing signals off mountains..but all but a few kids died from exposure. A 406 unit might have saved them.
However, there are a lot of other factors.
Accusing someone of putting others at risk....there is the huge warning that it is an experimental plane and the big Experimental label telling the passengers that the aircraft does not meet federal standards. Does it matter whether the ELT is perfect when you have an engine that isn't certified, combined with a prop that isn't certified, etc. etc? We could require air bags, survival packs, life jackets, rafts, etc.
-sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Patrick Thyssen <jump2(at)sbcglobal.net (jump2(at)sbcglobal.net)> wrote:
| Quote: | --> RV10-List message posted by: Patrick Thyssen <jump2(at)sbcglobal.net (jump2(at)sbcglobal.net)>
> That's exactly why I quit working on other people planes. You become God, who knows all. You do not have the right to take other people lives in your hands because you think, I don't like a antenna there,it costs me 1/2 mph or it looks cool with out it. You may wish you had it,god forbidding you have an accident and that elt might ,just might save you if it was install according to the way the engineers wanted them to be. Give me data that says the elt works Barried in the tail. Then I'll say ok. Until you have engineering data I'll continue to fight about putting it in the tail.
Just my two cents.
Yes I have been in a couple of high impacts, wear seat belts & shoulder harness it's not a fun time when you need them.
Excuse me.
Sent from my iPad
> On Jun 14, 2017, at 5:32 PM, Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com (kellym(at)aviating.com)> wrote:
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com (kellym(at)aviating.com)>
>
> You are absolutely correct. Not to mention that you can change anything you want as soon as the DAR leaves the premises.
>
>> On 6/14/2017 2:29 PM, Bob Turner wrote:
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)>
>> Hey guys,
>> I think we need to take it a bit easier with the DARs. After all, they are direct or indirect FAA employees, and their job is to see to it that the rules are obeyed. The rules say the ELT has to be TSO'd, and the TSO details antenna mounting. I certainly wish the rules all ended with, "...but use common sense or good judgement....". But that is certainly not the FAA way. So complain - but the complaints should go to the FAA.
>> Not to change the subject, but I hope everyone has noted the latest FAA craziness: If you now are flying under BasicMed you may act as PIC; but you may not act as a required safety pilot if the PIC is under the hood. Where's the logic in that?
>> --------
>> Bob Turner
>> RV-10 QB
>> Read this topic online here:
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=470131#470131
>
>
>
====================================
-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
====================================
FORUMS -
eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
====================================
WIKI -
errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
====================================
b Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
====================================
|
|
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bob(at)thelefflers.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2017 1:57 am Post subject: ELT and ELT antenna placement |
|
|
I installed my antenna on top just in front of the vertical stabilizer per the manufacturer's plans. The ELT is mounted to the sidewall just behind the baggage bulkhead.
My reasoning is that nobody can predict the state of the aircraft once it's back on the ground. It may be upside down, right side up, or any position in between. It may be whole, or it may be torn apart upon impact. I am of the belief that speculation on the final state is an exercise in futility.
With that said, as soon as I declare an emergency, I'm hitting that little red button to set off the ELT. My hopes that whatever time left, it's transmitting my location all the way to the ground. Having it installed per the manufacturere's instructions should yield the most gain out of the antenna so that the signal has a better chance of being heard.
Get Outlook for iOS
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com <owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com> on behalf of Carlos Trigo <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 5:27:36 AM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Re: ELT and ELT antenna placement
Gentleman
When I started this thread, I did forget to say that I didn't want to start the ELT wars, so please, you don't need to keep going on.
Just answer my initial questions, where did you install your ELT, if any, and the ELT antenna.
You may add the reasons why.
Thanks to all who already answered.
Carlos
Enviado do meu iPhone
No dia 15/06/2017, às 09:39, Patrick Thyssen <jump2(at)sbcglobal.net (jump2(at)sbcglobal.net)> escreveu:
| Quote: | I'll stand by my previous statement.
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 14, 2017, at 10:17 PM, Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com (apilot2(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | I'm not sure who is convinced that the TSO approvals make the ELT any better a transmitter installed as directed than some other way. Engineering data? Who says there is anything behind the TSO than that was how they chose to test it? Has anyone any reliable data on ELT antenna integrity after crashes? Whether the antenna was positioned for maximum effectiveness? We do know that aircraft with first generation ELTs are still legal to use them, in spite of a record of high 90% false alarming. Not to mention G switches that frequently fail to activate. Second generation ELTs are still 121.5/243.0 only and legal to install in any aircraft. Neither frequency is satellite monitored anymore.
All data shows 406 ELTs give better position information than the previous generations, but no mandate to use them. Sure, vertical works better if you know the antenna will be in that position after the crash. If a plane plants its nose in soft dirt, the vertical antenna will be horizontal, for a sub-optimal transmission.
I personally knew a forum member who crashed and most of his family survived overnight in freezing/snowy conditions until found 12 hours later, due to crappy 121.5 unit bouncing signals off mountains..but all but a few kids died from exposure. A 406 unit might have saved them.
However, there are a lot of other factors.
Accusing someone of putting others at risk....there is the huge warning that it is an experimental plane and the big Experimental label telling the passengers that the aircraft does not meet federal standards. Does it matter whether the ELT is perfect when you have an engine that isn't certified, combined with a prop that isn't certified, etc. etc? We could require air bags, survival packs, life jackets, rafts, etc.
-sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Patrick Thyssen <jump2(at)sbcglobal.net (jump2(at)sbcglobal.net)> wrote:
| Quote: | --> RV10-List message posted by: Patrick Thyssen <jump2(at)sbcglobal.net (jump2(at)sbcglobal.net)>
> That's exactly why I quit working on other people planes. You become God, who knows all. You do not have the right to take other people lives in your hands because you think, I don't like a antenna there,it costs me 1/2 mph or it looks cool with out it. You may wish you had it,god forbidding you have an accident and that elt might ,just might save you if it was install according to the way the engineers wanted them to be. Give me data that says the elt works Barried in the tail. Then I'll say ok. Until you have engineering data I'll continue to fight about putting it in the tail.
Just my two cents.
Yes I have been in a couple of high impacts, wear seat belts & shoulder harness it's not a fun time when you need them.
Excuse me.
Sent from my iPad
> On Jun 14, 2017, at 5:32 PM, Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com (kellym(at)aviating.com)> wrote:
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com (kellym(at)aviating.com)>
>
> You are absolutely correct. Not to mention that you can change anything you want as soon as the DAR leaves the premises.
>
>> On 6/14/2017 2:29 PM, Bob Turner wrote:
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)>
>> Hey guys,
>> I think we need to take it a bit easier with the DARs. After all, they are direct or indirect FAA employees, and their job is to see to it that the rules are obeyed. The rules say the ELT has to be TSO'd, and the TSO details antenna mounting. I certainly wish the rules all ended with, "...but use common sense or good judgement....". But that is certainly not the FAA way. So complain - but the complaints should go to the FAA.
>> Not to change the subject, but I hope everyone has noted the latest FAA craziness: If you now are flying under BasicMed you may act as PIC; but you may not act as a required safety pilot if the PIC is under the hood. Where's the logic in that?
>> --------
>> Bob Turner
>> RV-10 QB
>> Read this topic online here:
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=470131#470131
>
>
>
====================================
-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
====================================
FORUMS -
eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
====================================
WIKI -
errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
====================================
b Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
====================================
|
|
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johngoodman
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 530
Location: GA
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2017 4:45 am Post subject: Re: ELT and ELT antenna placement |
|
|
I put mine where it's supposed to be - 406 ELT on a bulkhead behind the baggage compartment, and the antenna directly above it. Photo (hopefully) attached.
John
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
74.07 KB |
| Viewed: |
9964 Time(s) |
|
_________________
#40572 Phase One complete in 2011 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2017 5:19 am Post subject: ELT and ELT antenna placement |
|
|
I replied to Kelly off-line not wanting to get into the ELT antenna debate and here's his reply to me. I'm not taking sides here ..... there is no 'wrong' choice in this discussion, but I think it's a good discussion to have. No matter which orientation you go for, I hope nobody has to find out whether it works or not!!!
Linn
On 6/15/2017 9:02 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
| Quote: | I think the list would benefit from that information, especially since the only meaningful monitoring for 121.5 is by airliners at 40,000 ft. Thanks for sending it.
The ELT requirement was written long before satellite monitoring, and was deficient from the start, because it was a Congressional over-reaction to the disappearance of two Congressmen in Alaska while flying between campaign stops.Â
-sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com (flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | It's been a long time since I thought technically about antennas ......
I'm guessing that the antenna mounting orientation for ELTs is included in the TSO .... written before satellite technology was available ..... and the FAA is slow to change .... anything.Â
The vertical whip has a radiation pattern to the sides like a donut
[img]cid:part2.21766FDE.7C643610(at)cfl.rr.com[/img]
although the groundplane will reflect some lobes out to the side .... which becomes visible to the satellite. The original whip worked really well since everything was ground-based like your coms .... the system just sucked.Â
So, mounting the antenna horizontally gives the satellite a better signal ..... if it stays that way.
Linn
Â
|
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
14.11 KB |
| Viewed: |
9962 Time(s) |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim Olson
Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2878
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2017 5:31 am Post subject: ELT and ELT antenna placement |
|
|
I'm not sure if you will agree with me on this, but I agree
with you on your position. My position on ELT's is that
the FAA *should* be mandating a switch to 406Mhz. I
believe that if tax dollars are to be spent on search
and rescue operations, we should be doing our part to
make those rescue operations as successful and timely
as possible. I would prefer to see 121.5 ELT's banned
after a maybe 2 year timeframe, and require 406. These
days you can buy them for $500 which while a lot of
money, is still in reach if you own an airplane.
Many will argue that a 406Mhz PLB is all they need,
but I disagree. You need something that you can
easily activate in flight, and will automatically
activate on crash. THEN you can also carry a PLB.
If I go down some day, I'll have the 406Mhz ELT,
a 406Mhz PLB to carry with me, ADS-B, and APRS all
providing data on where to look. I was just thinking
last night how I'm not overly concerned with my daughter
being able to land at a remote strip like Johnson Creek
Idaho...she has the skills. But what really raises my
back hairs is what will I do if I were to watch her
go down in the mountains over Idaho. Sure, I can provide
emergency radio calls and position reports, but if the
choppers have to come, I would want that GPS position to
be transmitted as quickly as possible to the proper
authorities, and have them start making their way there
a.s.a.p. And, while I will be thankful for the services
we get from our government in such cases, I also want to
be a responsible steward and not cause any additional
tax burden to everyone else for an extended search.
So going with 406Mhz ELT's is just part of my
job.
Regarding antenna placement, I think Kelly has it right
that you can't predict how the airplane will be when it hits.
When mounting my antenna, I used that theory myself and
put it under the tail fairing. My GPS works great that's
under there for my APRS tracker, so I suspect the ELT
will too...because I've had them on-field be picked up
inside metal airplane hangars without issue.
That said, if you really want to do the best that you can
do, I think it's hard to argue with Bob Leffler.
Installing per design, with the antenna mounted
externally, is the best that you could do, and if it's
back by the vertical stab, perhaps it will best survive
the crash. One thing that is very important is that
the ELT be mounted in an area near enough to the
antenna that the crash wouldn't rip the antenna free
of the ELT. This is partly why I have it mounted on the
bulkhead attached to the same area as where my ELT is
mounted. And with it under the fairing, it's probably
less likely to be broken in a flip-over incident also.
If we could predict the crash position better, we
could do the best thing for ourselves, but we don't
have that luxury. That and many other reasons are
why I also have a PLB carried within reach in
the cockpit.
Tim
On 6/15/2017 12:17 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
| Quote: | I'm not sure who is convinced that the TSO approvals make the ELT any
better a transmitter installed as directed than some other way.
Engineering data? Who says there is anything behind the TSO than that
was how they chose to test it? Has anyone any reliable data on ELT
antenna integrity after crashes? Whether the antenna was positioned for
maximum effectiveness? We do know that aircraft with first generation
ELTs are still legal to use them, in spite of a record of high 90% false
alarming. Not to mention G switches that frequently fail to activate.
Second generation ELTs are still 121.5/243.0 only and legal to install
in any aircraft. Neither frequency is satellite monitored anymore.
All data shows 406 ELTs give better position information than the
previous generations, but no mandate to use them. Sure, vertical works
better if you know the antenna will be in that position after the crash.
If a plane plants its nose in soft dirt, the vertical antenna will be
horizontal, for a sub-optimal transmission.
I personally knew a forum member who crashed and most of his family
survived overnight in freezing/snowy conditions until found 12 hours
later, due to crappy 121.5 unit bouncing signals off mountains..but all
but a few kids died from exposure. A 406 unit might have saved them.
However, there are a lot of other factors.
Accusing someone of putting others at risk....there is the huge warning
that it is an experimental plane and the big Experimental label telling
the passengers that the aircraft does not meet federal standards. Does
it matter whether the ELT is perfect when you have an engine that isn't
certified, combined with a prop that isn't certified, etc. etc? We could
require air bags, survival packs, life jackets, rafts, etc.
-sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kelly McMullen
Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 1188
Location: Sun Lakes AZ
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2017 5:48 am Post subject: ELT and ELT antenna placement |
|
|
Tim,
I agree with 99% of what you said. However, I would just suggest that rather than banning 121.5, just require 406 by some date and withdraw approval of 121.5 only units after that date. I think that is what you meant, because AFAIK, only one brand of 406 is 406 only. All the rest broadcast both frequencies, to enable homing on the unit to get from the 1 or 2 mile radius the 406 gave. I believe only the CAP has equipment that can home on 406, because it is a pulse transmission, not a sweep. Everyone can home on 121.5. While GPS connection to 406 is desirable, I would leave that to the individual, given that it can add an hour or two to the install by avionics shop when you consider the factory built aircraft. I suspect cost would come down if the sales volume increased to a couple hundred thousand.
I also don't want to see anything like the FCC proposal a few years ago to actually take away the 121.5 frequency, as it serves a very valid purpose for emergency communications.
-sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 6:30 AM, Tim Olson <Tim(at)myrv10.com (Tim(at)myrv10.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
I'm not sure if you will agree with me on this, but I agree
with you on your position.  My position on ELT's is that
the FAA *should* be mandating a switch to 406Mhz. I
believe that if tax dollars are to be spent on search
and rescue operations, we should be doing our part to
make those rescue operations as successful and timely
as possible. I would prefer to see 121.5 ELT's banned
after a maybe 2 year timeframe, and require 406. These
days you can buy them for $500 which while a lot of
money, is still in reach if you own an airplane.
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor
KCHD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim Olson
Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2878
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2017 6:02 am Post subject: ELT and ELT antenna placement |
|
|
Ah, good point. Yes, that's what I think would be best. It's
not that I don't want 121.5 to be broadcast, just that I want
406 to be required. It's fine to broadcast 121.5 side by side
as it is a handy way to see if your ELT is active.
Regarding the GPS connection, I was able to buy a GPS puck for
I think $30 that is mounted under the same tailcone fairing
that feeds NMEA-0183 GPS right into the ELT, and to my APRS,
and even my autopilot on one plane as a backup source.
As long as the FAA doesn't go wacky and require a fully
approach certified TSO'd GPS source and understands that
a simple GPS is better than nothing, and field approvals
for such situations should be simplified, it would make
adding GPS to an ELT install not be too terribly bad.
Certainly a simple thing for a homebuilder, while less so
for a bonanza driver.
Tim
On 6/15/2017 8:48 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
| Quote: | Tim,
I agree with 99% of what you said. However, I would just suggest that
rather than banning 121.5, just require 406 by some date and withdraw
approval of 121.5 only units after that date. I think that is what you
meant, because AFAIK, only one brand of 406 is 406 only. All the rest
broadcast both frequencies, to enable homing on the unit to get from the
1 or 2 mile radius the 406 gave. I believe only the CAP has equipment
that can home on 406, because it is a pulse transmission, not a sweep.
Everyone can home on 121.5. While GPS connection to 406 is desirable, I
would leave that to the individual, given that it can add an hour or two
to the install by avionics shop when you consider the factory built
aircraft. I suspect cost would come down if the sales volume increased
to a couple hundred thousand.
I also don't want to see anything like the FCC proposal a few years ago
to actually take away the 121.5 frequency, as it serves a very valid
purpose for emergency communications.
-sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 6:30 AM, Tim Olson <Tim(at)myrv10.com
<mailto:Tim(at)myrv10.com>> wrote:
I'm not sure if you will agree with me on this, but I agree
with you on your position. My position on ELT's is that
the FAA *should* be mandating a switch to 406Mhz. I
believe that if tax dollars are to be spent on search
and rescue operations, we should be doing our part to
make those rescue operations as successful and timely
as possible. I would prefer to see 121.5 ELT's banned
after a maybe 2 year timeframe, and require 406. These
days you can buy them for $500 which while a lot of
money, is still in reach if you own an airplane.
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tsts4
Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Posts: 167
Location: Tampa, FL
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2017 4:03 pm Post subject: Re: ELT and ELT antenna placement |
|
|
I installed mine just like Bob Leffler did. For the ELT I used the mount Van's sells and placed it about a foot behind the baggage bulkhead on the pilot's side.
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
75.65 KB |
| Viewed: |
9934 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
160.92 KB |
| Viewed: |
9934 Time(s) |
|
_________________
Todd Stovall
aka "Auburntsts" on EAA and VAF
RV-10 N728TT -- Flying |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Turner
Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 885
Location: Castro Valley, CA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 3:51 pm Post subject: Re: ELT and ELT antenna placement |
|
|
For the OP: my ELT is behind the baggage area bulkhead, attached to structure. And the antenna is above it, external and vertical.
Now my question: Does anyone know how many people are really saved by ELTs in a year? I mean really saved. If the person subsequently dies in a hospital, it doesn't count. If the CAP homes in on an ELT and finds the pilot sitting on the wing, talking to his wife via cell phone, it doesn't count. Now how many people in the CAP die each year while looking for ELT signals? Is the net difference a positive number? I don't know but I am curious.
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
