Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Home-made 406 MHz alternatives?

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

Home-made 406 MHz alternatives?

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

rv7(at)b4.ca
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:12 pm Post subject: Home-made 406 MHz alternatives?

On 12:46 2008-01-14 "Larry James" <larry(at)ncproto.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Our intent has nothing to do with meeting FAA regs; it is simply a

 tool that lets me (or us) let loved ones know where we are and that

 we are safe; and has the likelihood of being more useful than

 currently available ELT and PLB devices in an emergency.  Our Super D

 has the FAA legal ELT in it to meet regs.


	


Someone else brought up the point that the Spot doesn't meet FAA

requirements for a locating device... Your email prompted me to reply, and

create a new thread on this, as it's something i've been wondering for a

long time...



The Spot doesn't meet FAA requirements for a locating device, but is there

any reason that a similar, home-made, device couldn't meet the

requirements?  We're flying around in airplanes that we're frequently told

"do not meet standards for factory built aircraft".  At least, in Canada we

have to have a sticker prominently visible to the passenger telling them

that (in both English *and* French, no less!).  So why can't our location

device also "not meet standards"?  Why couldn't we start with a (cheap)

406Mhz PLB, rig up our own GPS interface, and our own inertial or manual

trigger?



Technically, there's nothing stopping any of us from doing this, it's

really not rocket science.  The question is, why isn't it acceptable, if

the plane is experimental in the first place?



Discuss... 



-Rob

acepilot(at)bloomer.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:52 pm Post subject: Home-made 406 MHz alternatives?

Technically, here in the states we have a pesky problem to get around 

called the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) that regulates any 

and all transmitters.  Most must be type certified by the FCC.  One 

exception to type certification is amateur (ham) radio stuff, but 406 

MHz is not in a ham band...



Scott

http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/

Gotta Fly or Gonna Die

Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)



Rob Prior wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  



  

Technically, there's nothing stopping any of us from doing this, it's

really not rocket science.  The question is, why isn't it acceptable, if

the plane is experimental in the first place?



Discuss... 



-Rob

rv7(at)b4.ca
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:25 pm Post subject: Home-made 406 MHz alternatives?

On 14:52 2008-01-14 Scott <acepilot(at)bloomer.net> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Technically, here in the states we have a pesky problem to get around

 called the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) that regulates any

 and all transmitters.  Most must be type certified by the FCC.  One

 exception to type certification is amateur (ham) radio stuff, but 406

 MHz is not in a ham band...


	


True, but that's a regulatory issue too, not a technical one.  And i'm not

advocating designing your own transmitter, far from it.  I'd like to see

someone rig up a "hack" to an existing 406 MHz PLB, that would make it do

all the things an aircraft-certified one would, at 1/10th the cost.



I'm just continually amazed that it costs so much to get a certified

aviation-quality 406MHz ELT into an airplane, when you can buy a

technically superior unit (the Spot) for so little.  All it's missing is a

G-switch.



-Rob

ceengland(at)bellsouth.ne
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:38 pm Post subject: Home-made 406 MHz alternatives?

Rob Prior wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 On 12:46 2008-01-14 "Larry James" <larry(at)ncproto.com> wrote:

> Our intent has nothing to do with meeting FAA regs; it is simply a

> tool that lets me (or us) let loved ones know where we are and that

> we are safe; and has the likelihood of being more useful than

> currently available ELT and PLB devices in an emergency.  Our Super D

> has the FAA legal ELT in it to meet regs.

 Someone else brought up the point that the Spot doesn't meet FAA

 requirements for a locating device... Your email prompted me to reply, and

 create a new thread on this, as it's something i've been wondering for a

 long time...

 The Spot doesn't meet FAA requirements for a locating device, but is there

 any reason that a similar, home-made, device couldn't meet the

 requirements?  We're flying around in airplanes that we're frequently told

 "do not meet standards for factory built aircraft".  At least, in Canada we

 have to have a sticker prominently visible to the passenger telling them

 that (in both English *and* French, no less!).  So why can't our location

 device also "not meet standards"?  Why couldn't we start with a (cheap)

 406Mhz PLB, rig up our own GPS interface, and our own inertial or manual

 trigger?

 Technically, there's nothing stopping any of us from doing this, it's

 really not rocket science.  The question is, why isn't it acceptable, if

 the plane is experimental in the first place?

 Discuss... 

 -Rob

I think I suggested this earlier, but it might have been on another 

list; this topic is hot on 3 different lists right now. You'd still be 

legally required to carry at least the 121.5 unit (that requirement is 

outside the homebuilt rules) but there's no reason not to rig a G-switch 

on a PLB. (They've already got the manual trigger.)

Charlie

acepilot(at)bloomer.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:52 pm Post subject: Home-made 406 MHz alternatives?

Well, I won't split hairs too much, but by "hacking" an existing 

transmitter that I presume is type certified, it WON'T be type certified 

after the hack and the operator would be subject to FCC enforcement on 

this side of the border. That said, a regular ELT is STILL required over 

here so adding a 406 transmitter is just additional cost.  The FCC does 

allow the use of "any means possible" to communicate in an emergency, 

but, assuming you survive the wreck, they may send you (sorry, us U.S. 

citizens) an offical invitation to respond in writing to their questions 

as to the nature of the emergency...do not archive

Scott

http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/

Gotta Fly or Gonna Die

Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)

Rob Prior wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

On 14:52 2008-01-14 Scott <acepilot(at)bloomer.net> wrote:

>Technically, here in the states we have a pesky problem to get around

>called the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) that regulates any

>and all transmitters.  Most must be type certified by the FCC.  One

>exception to type certification is amateur (ham) radio stuff, but 406

>MHz is not in a ham band...

>    

>

True, but that's a regulatory issue too, not a technical one.  And i'm not

advocating designing your own transmitter, far from it.  I'd like to see

someone rig up a "hack" to an existing 406 MHz PLB, that would make it do

all the things an aircraft-certified one would, at 1/10th the cost.

I'm just continually amazed that it costs so much to get a certified

aviation-quality 406MHz ELT into an airplane, when you can buy a

technically superior unit (the Spot) for so little.  All it's missing is a

G-switch.

-Rob

John.Morrissey(at)csiro.a
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:10 pm Post subject: Home-made 406 MHz alternatives?

Unless you live in New Orleans



John Morrissey



--

ceengland(at)bellsouth.ne
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:22 pm Post subject: Home-made 406 MHz alternatives?

Remember, the 'hack' doesn't have to be internal. Take a look at some of 

the older 121 ELTs. The G switch is just a hinged weight next to an off 

the shelf miniature toggle switch. All you need is the right amount of 

weight hanging behind the activation switch, & a mount for the PLB in 

the correct orientation so a crash swings the weight into the switch.



Charlie



Scott wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 Well, I won't split hairs too much, but by "hacking" an existing 

 transmitter that I presume is type certified, it WON'T be type certified 

 after the hack and the operator would be subject to FCC enforcement on 

 this side of the border. That said, a regular ELT is STILL required over 

 here so adding a 406 transmitter is just additional cost.  The FCC does 

 allow the use of "any means possible" to communicate in an emergency, 

 but, assuming you survive the wreck, they may send you (sorry, us U.S. 

 citizens) an offical invitation to respond in writing to their questions 

 as to the nature of the emergency...do not archive

 

 Scott

 http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/

 Gotta Fly or Gonna Die

 Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)

 

 

 

 Rob Prior wrote:

 

> 

>

> On 14:52 2008-01-14 Scott <acepilot(at)bloomer.net> wrote:

>  

>

>> Technically, here in the states we have a pesky problem to get around

>> called the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) that regulates any

>> and all transmitters.  Most must be type certified by the FCC.  One

>> exception to type certification is amateur (ham) radio stuff, but 406

>> MHz is not in a ham band...

>>   

>

> True, but that's a regulatory issue too, not a technical one.  And i'm 

> not

> advocating designing your own transmitter, far from it.  I'd like to see

> someone rig up a "hack" to an existing 406 MHz PLB, that would make it do

> all the things an aircraft-certified one would, at 1/10th the cost.

>

> I'm just continually amazed that it costs so much to get a certified

> aviation-quality 406MHz ELT into an airplane, when you can buy a

> technically superior unit (the Spot) for so little.  All it's missing 

> is a

> G-switch.

>

> -Rob

ronlee(at)pcisys.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 5:38 pm Post subject: Home-made 406 MHz alternatives?

Why the problem.  If you need a G-switch to activate it then you may

be dead.  Mount it where you can push the one 911 button when you need it. 



Ron Lee

sportav8r(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:05 pm Post subject: Home-made 406 MHz alternatives?

On Jan 14, 2008 6:52 PM, Rob Prior <rv7(at)b4.ca (rv7(at)b4.ca)> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   --> RV-List message posted by: "Rob Prior" <rv7(at)b4.ca (rv7(at)b4.ca)>

On 14:52 2008-01-14 Scott < acepilot(at)bloomer.net (acepilot(at)bloomer.net)> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Technically, here in the states we have a pesky problem to get around

 called the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) that regulates any

 and all transmitters.  Most must be type certified by the FCC.  One 

 exception to type certification is amateur (ham) radio stuff, but 406

 MHz is not in a ham band...


	




True, but that's a regulatory issue too, not a technical one.  And i'm not

advocating designing your own transmitter, far from it.  I'd like to see 

someone rig up a "hack" to an existing 406 MHz PLB, that would make it do

all the things an aircraft-certified one would, at 1/10th the cost.



I'm just continually amazed that it costs so much to get a certified 

aviation-quality 406MHz ELT into an airplane, when you can buy a

technically superior unit (the Spot) for so little.  All it's missing is a

G-switch.

-Rob



 	
C'mon, somebody... make the G-Spot joke that Rob is begging for...

 

  [quote][b]

gmcjetpilot

Joined: 04 Nov 2006
Posts: 170

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:24 am Post subject: Home-made 406 MHz alternatives?

 	  Quote: 	
		  "Technically, there's nothing stopping any of us from 

doing this"
	


 

Yes there is. Nice try but ELT's are one device that 

MUST meet strict specifications regardless of type of 

aircraft its mounted to. Not saying you can't make a 

homemade ELT, but it would be illegal and break FAA, 

FCC and international SAR regulations. The ELT and 

transponder are two devices that must be "certified" 

even if in an experimental aircraft.

   

  Fork over $1000 for a Artex 406ME, be done, 

  and also get a $600 PLB.

 

 	  Quote: 	
		  From: "Rob Prior" <rv7(at)b4.ca (rv7(at)b4.ca)> 

Subject: Home-made 406 MHz alternatives? 

 
	


Why couldn't we start with a (cheap) 406Mhz PLB, rig 

up our own GPS interface, and our own inertial or 

manual trigger? 

 

Technically, there's nothing stopping any of us from 

doing this, it's really not rocket science.   The question 

is, why isn't it acceptable, if the plane is experimental in 

the first place?

  Discuss...  -Rob



        Be a better friend, newshound, and   [quote][b]

ronlee(at)pcisys.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:56 am Post subject: Home-made 406 MHz alternatives?

My suggestion for the below comment is get the GPS enabled 406 MHz ELT  

 and the Spot unit for everyday notification of your position.

  

 The most important thing is don't make stupid decisions about  piloting.

  

 Ron Lee

  

  

 Fork over $1000 for a Artex 406ME, be done, 

 [quote]   and also get a $600 PLB.

[b]

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