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

ELT: 406 vs 121.5

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

RnJCurtis(at)charter.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2014 3:18 pm Post subject: ELT: 406 vs 121.5

I know that there have been some discussions on 121.5 Mhz vs 406 Mhz ELT's. 

My question is, what is the general consensus of opinion as to 

recommendations on a new experimental aircraft?  I don't presently have an 

ELT, but will be purchasing one in the near future.  Also interested in 

initial cost and cost of maintenance ie. batteries.



What are the expectations that the 406 will be mandated, and when?  Does the 

406 have a large advantage?  I know that it can pinpoint location much more 

accurately.



Should I spring for the extra bucks for a 406?  What great advantage do you 

receive when you pay $1800+ as apposed to $600?



That should be enough questions for now!



Roger Curtis

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2014 4:54 pm Post subject: ELT: 406 vs 121.5

At 06:16 PM 8/14/2014, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "R&J. Curtis" <RnJCurtis(at)charter.net>



 I know that there have been some discussions on 121.5 Mhz vs 406 Mhz ELT's. My question is, what is the general consensus of opinion as to recommendations on a new experimental aircraft?  I don't presently have an ELT, but will be purchasing one in the near future.  Also interested in initial cost and cost of maintenance ie. batteries.



 What are the expectations that the 406 will be mandated, and when?  Does the 406 have a large advantage?  I know that it can pinpoint location much more accurately.



 Should I spring for the extra bucks for a 406?  What great advantage do you receive when you pay $1800+ as apposed to $600? 	


   Are you seeing new 121.5/243Mhz ELTs for sale?

   I think part 91 prohibits them as new installations

   after 6-21-95 . . .



 [img]cid:.0[/img]



   Then there is the matter of just how useful the

   older ELT will be in finding your wreck. See:



  http://tinyurl.com/kz93ymy



    I'm seeing ACK 406 ELTs with GPS data

    ports for 500-700 dollars.



 

   Bob . . .

1afd1085.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

91.71 KB

Viewed:

4107 Time(s)

edpav8r(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2014 4:59 pm Post subject: ELT: 406 vs 121.5

$1,800?  The ACK E-04 406MHz ELT new installation kit is $589 at Aircraft Spruce:



http://bit.ly/1lZI2q7



Eric

 	  Quote: 	
		   On Aug 14, 2014, at 4:16 PM, "R&J. Curtis" <RnJCurtis(at)charter.net> wrote:

 I know that there have been some discussions on 121.5 Mhz vs 406 Mhz ELT's. My question is, what is the general consensus of opinion as to recommendations on a new experimental aircraft?  I don't presently have an ELT, but will be purchasing one in the near future.  Also interested in initial cost and cost of maintenance ie. batteries.

 

 What are the expectations that the 406 will be mandated, and when?  Does the 406 have a large advantage?  I know that it can pinpoint location much more accurately.

 

 Should I spring for the extra bucks for a 406?  What great advantage do you receive when you pay $1800+ as apposed to $600?

 

 That should be enough questions for now!

 

 Roger Curtis

dlj04(at)josephson.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2014 1:10 am Post subject: ELT: 406 vs 121.5

First, keep in mind that 406 MHz ELTs are *also* 121.5 MHz ELTs, so 

existing monitoring on 121.5 is not going to go away any time soon. FCC 

announced around five years ago that they were planning to ban 

manufacture and use of 121.5/243 ELTs, but gave up when AOPA and FAA 

asked them not to do that. FCC will not approve any new 121.5/243 MHz 

ELT transmitter designs but existing models can still be made, sold and 

installed.



There are three TSOs that apply to ELTs. The early ones like the 

original Narco ELT-10 meet TSO C91 and have a mechanical G switch that 

was never too reliable, and went off by itself some times. You can 

continue to use one if installed in your plane but you may not make a 

new installation of a C91 ELT. In 1985 the spec was revised to TSO C91a 

which requires a much better G switch. You can still buy and install 

these. The new 406 MHz ELTs meet TSO C126 as well as C91a, and besides 

transmitting to the satellites for a near instant fix on where you are, 

have a still better G switch. Most have the ability for the user to test 

them easily.



If you don't care whether people find your wreck, a used C91a unit is 

probably fine. If I were buying a new one, under $600 for a 406 MHz unit 

is cheap enough, I think.

fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2014 11:56 am Post subject: ELT: 406 vs 121.5

121.5 is no longer monitored via "satelites".  Cross country pilots should

still listen on 121.5 if able, and report.  Airborne searches and ground

crews can still home in on the 121.5.  But if you want to be "saved", and

not just "recovered eventually", you must have 406 with GPS connected.   If

"recovery" is good enough for you but your plane has a passenger seat, your

choice affects them too.



Bevan



--

tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2014 3:25 pm Post subject: ELT: 406 vs 121.5

Evidently 406 even without GPS is pretty good, local A&P got a call from a customer. He had been called by the Feds to notify him his ELT was triggered. They were able to tell him where it was parked on the ramp, GPS not connected yet.

Tim



[quote] On Aug 15, 2014, at 12:55 PM, "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> wrote:

 

 

 

 121.5 is no longer monitored via "satelites".  Cross country pilots should

 still listen on 121.5 if able, and report.  Airborne searches and ground

 crews can still home in on the 121.5.  But if you want to be "saved", and

 not just "recovered eventually", you must have 406 with GPS connected.   If

 "recovery" is good enough for you but your plane has a passenger seat, your

 choice affects them too.

 

 Bevan

 

 --

Kellym

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1705
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2014 8:35 pm Post subject: ELT: 406 vs 121.5

Excellent description of the differences. There are some other 

considerations. ELTs were first required in 1973. Satellite monitoring 

did not start until perhaps the mid 1980s, so the loss of sat monitoring 

of 121.5 just means less false alarms pursued. The TSO91a units are far 

and away the least expensive for new legal install, including 

maintenance as most allow usage of standard D cells.

A 406 ELT is 2-3 times more expensive to buy, requires at least double 

the install time IF connecting to a GPS, and requires at least 2 and 

some 3 lithium batteries. The least expensive ACK requires 3 batteries. 

It will come with the main battery, which costs well north of $100 to 

replace, and you will have to buy the other 2 photo type batteries that 

are 10-20 each, which operate the remote panel and the alarm buzzer. All 

3 are good for at least 5 years if not triggered. However, a false alarm 

trip that goes for more than 1 hour will not only get you a phone call, 

but you will get to replace that main battery, at a minimum. Also, not 

entirely clear what recurrent tests will have to be done, as the current 

reg is written to testing 121.5 units. Some have a self test built in, 

but that may not be sufficient.

Also, there is one more expensive 406 unit with its own built-in GPS, 

that incorporates GPS antenna with the transmit antenna, but is 

certified without 121.5. As far as I know only a few CAP aircraft have 

the capability to home in on a 406 only signal, while all can home on 121.5.

On 8/15/2014 2:08 AM, D L Josephson wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 <dlj04(at)josephson.com>



 First, keep in mind that 406 MHz ELTs are *also* 121.5 MHz ELTs, so 

 existing monitoring on 121.5 is not going to go away any time soon. 

 FCC announced around five years ago that they were planning to ban 

 manufacture and use of 121.5/243 ELTs, but gave up when AOPA and FAA 

 asked them not to do that. FCC will not approve any new 121.5/243 MHz 

 ELT transmitter designs but existing models can still be made, sold 

 and installed.



 There are three TSOs that apply to ELTs. The early ones like the 

 original Narco ELT-10 meet TSO C91 and have a mechanical G switch that 

 was never too reliable, and went off by itself some times. You can 

 continue to use one if installed in your plane but you may not make a 

 new installation of a C91 ELT. In 1985 the spec was revised to TSO 

 C91a which requires a much better G switch. You can still buy and 

 install these. The new 406 MHz ELTs meet TSO C126 as well as C91a, and 

 besides transmitting to the satellites for a near instant fix on where 

 you are, have a still better G switch. Most have the ability for the 

 user to test them easily.



 If you don't care whether people find your wreck, a used C91a unit is 

 probably fine. If I were buying a new one, under $600 for a 406 MHz 

 unit is cheap enough, I think.

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD

stuart(at)stuarthutchison
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2014 1:02 am Post subject: ELT: 406 vs 121.5

Worldwide satellite monitoring of 121.5/243.0MHz was disabled in Feb 2009.

The frequency stability spec for 406MHz is much tighter, facilitating more

accurate Doppler analysis for LEO (moving) satellites, but if you have GPS

fix from your ELT, then GPS position is appended to the digital signal and

your location is known to GEO (fixed overhead) satellites in near-real-time.

The HEXID also positively identifies you against the registry database, so

the 95% of false alarms generated by 121.5MHz systems can be resolved and/or

the search area narrowed down very promptly.  It may be legal to install an

analogue, indistinguishable 121.5MHz ELT, but it may take up to 9 hours for

the RCC to determine your position via multiple LEO passes.  $600 over seven

years (until battery replacement time) seems like cheap insurance to be

confident of a chance the USAF/CAP could rescue me before I/we bled to death

or succumbed to exposure. As they say in the SAR world, the first 24hrs is

often the only 24hrs to find survivors.  It's especially unfortunate when

people survive a crash, only to die in the days that followed before they

were found.



Cheers, Stu



F1 Rocket  VH-FLY  www.mykitlog.com/rockfly

--

dalamphere(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2014 2:36 am Post subject: ELT: 406 vs 121.5

I think that the GPS personal locator beacons are a more cost  

effective idea.

They are small, easy to register and easy to use. If you survive the  

crash then you turn it on.

If not, it doesn't matter.



Why do the feds want us to go the expensive route?



Dave

On Aug 16, 2014, at 5:00 AM, Stuart Hutchison wrote:



[quote] 

 >



 Worldwide satellite monitoring of 121.5/243.0MHz was disabled in Feb  

 2009.

 The frequency stability spec for 406MHz is much tighter,  

 facilitating more

 accurate Doppler analysis for LEO (moving) satellites, but if you  

 have GPS

 fix from your ELT, then GPS position is appended to the digital  

 signal and

 your location is known to GEO (fixed overhead) satellites in near- 

 real-time.

 The HEXID also positively identifies you against the registry  

 database, so

 the 95% of false alarms generated by 121.5MHz systems can be  

 resolved and/or

 the search area narrowed down very promptly.  It may be legal to  

 install an

 analogue, indistinguishable 121.5MHz ELT, but it may take up to 9  

 hours for

 the RCC to determine your position via multiple LEO passes.  $600  

 over seven

 years (until battery replacement time) seems like cheap insurance to  

 be

 confident of a chance the USAF/CAP could rescue me before I/we bled  

 to death

 or succumbed to exposure. As they say in the SAR world, the first  

 24hrs is

 often the only 24hrs to find survivors.  It's especially unfortunate  

 when

 people survive a crash, only to die in the days that followed before  

 they

 were found.



 Cheers, Stu



 F1 Rocket  VH-FLY  www.mykitlog.com/rockfly

 --

JOHN TIPTON

Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 239
Location: Torquay - England

Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2014 3:12 am Post subject: ELT: 406 vs 121.5

Yes: we have the McMurdo 'fast find' 



http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/fastfind-220a.php?clickkey=1218506



http://www.transair.co.uk/sp+McMurdo-Fast-find-220-PLB-with-GPS+3181?utm_campaign=Googlebase&utm_medium=organic&utm_source=Googlebase&gclid=Cj0KEQjwgryfBRDn7cvY-pOit4cBEiQAB3nTbokOhCSCFQLHeqmrA3c9yfvcDIW_yZHQlxi7yiZATNoaAm-N8P8HAQ



John (G-BBKZ)



Sent from my iPad



     ----x--O--x----



[quote] On 16 Aug 2014, at 11:34 am, David & Elaine Lamphere <dalamphere(at)comcast.net> wrote:

 

 

 

 I think that the GPS personal locator beacons are a more cost effective idea.

 They are small, easy to register and easy to use. If you survive the crash then you turn it on.

 If not, it doesn't matter.

 

 Why do the feds want us to go the expensive route?

 

 Dave

 

 

> On Aug 16, 2014, at 5:00 AM, Stuart Hutchison wrote:

> 

> 

> 

> Worldwide satellite monitoring of 121.5/243.0MHz was disabled in Feb 2009.

> The frequency stability spec for 406MHz is much tighter, facilitating more

> accurate Doppler analysis for LEO (moving) satellites, but if you have GPS

> fix from your ELT, then GPS position is appended to the digital signal and

> your location is known to GEO (fixed overhead) satellites in near-real-time.

> The HEXID also positively identifies you against the registry database, so

> the 95% of false alarms generated by 121.5MHz systems can be resolved and/or

> the search area narrowed down very promptly.  It may be legal to install an

> analogue, indistinguishable 121.5MHz ELT, but it may take up to 9 hours for

> the RCC to determine your position via multiple LEO passes.  $600 over seven

> years (until battery replacement time) seems like cheap insurance to be

> confident of a chance the USAF/CAP could rescue me before I/we bled to death

> or succumbed to exposure. As they say in the SAR world, the first 24hrs is

> often the only 24hrs to find survivors.  It's especially unfortunate when

> people survive a crash, only to die in the days that followed before they

> were found.

> 

> Cheers, Stu

> 

> F1 Rocket  VH-FLY  www.mykitlog.com/rockfly

> 

> 

> --

stuart(at)stuarthutchison
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2014 5:48 am Post subject: ELT: 406 vs 121.5

Principally, I suspect, because the SAR effort often puts numerous searchers' lives and platforms at significant risk in adverse weather and/or high terrain, and is astronomically expensive to conduct (which your taxes pay for).

As you say, you may already be dead, but the searchers don't know that until you are found, which may otherwise take days or even weeks. Do you want to put your family through that grief? It's like looking for a needle in a haystack where finding the haystack is a welcome start.

I have a Kannad 406 hardwired and an MT406G handheld. If I ditch, I would certainly want a 406mHz PLB attached to me. Having spent 18hrs overnight in a liferaft 5nm to sea, I can say with confidence that you would too!  If a PLB is all you have, then be sure to write it into your emergency procedures to activate the PLB before you reach the ground/water.

Kind regards, Stu

Sent from my iPhone

 	  Quote: 	
		   On 16 Aug 2014, at 20:34, David & Elaine Lamphere <dalamphere(at)comcast.net> wrote:

 I think that the GPS personal locator beacons are a more cost effective idea.

 They are small, easy to register and easy to use. If you survive the crash then you turn it on.

 If not, it doesn't matter.

 Why do the feds want us to go the expensive route?

 Dave

> On Aug 16, 2014, at 5:00 AM, Stuart Hutchison wrote:

> 

> 

> 

> Worldwide satellite monitoring of 121.5/243.0MHz was disabled in Feb 2009.

> The frequency stability spec for 406MHz is much tighter, facilitating more

> accurate Doppler analysis for LEO (moving) satellites, but if you have GPS

> fix from your ELT, then GPS position is appended to the digital signal and

> your location is known to GEO (fixed overhead) satellites in near-real-time.

> The HEXID also positively identifies you against the registry database, so

> the 95% of false alarms generated by 121.5MHz systems can be resolved and/or

> the search area narrowed down very promptly.  It may be legal to install an

> analogue, indistinguishable 121.5MHz ELT, but it may take up to 9 hours for

> the RCC to determine your position via multiple LEO passes.  $600 over seven

> years (until battery replacement time) seems like cheap insurance to be

trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2014 8:05 am Post subject: ELT: 406 vs 121.5

Dave

Don't forget that you can survive the crash but not in condition to turn anything on!

In that case you will need the Feds to find your ELT.



Carlos



Enviado do meu iPhone



No dia 16/08/2014, às 11:34, David & Elaine Lamphere <dalamphere(at)comcast.net> escreveu:



[quote] 

 

 I think that the GPS personal locator beacons are a more cost effective idea.

 They are small, easy to register and easy to use. If you survive the crash then you turn it on.

 If not, it doesn't matter.

 

 Why do the feds want us to go the expensive route?

 

 Dave

 

 

 On Aug 16, 2014, at 5:00 AM, Stuart Hutchison wrote:

 

> 

> 

> Worldwide satellite monitoring of 121.5/243.0MHz was disabled in Feb 2009.

> The frequency stability spec for 406MHz is much tighter, facilitating more

> accurate Doppler analysis for LEO (moving) satellites, but if you have GPS

> fix from your ELT, then GPS position is appended to the digital signal and

> your location is known to GEO (fixed overhead) satellites in near-real-time.

> The HEXID also positively identifies you against the registry database, so

> the 95% of false alarms generated by 121.5MHz systems can be resolved and/or

> the search area narrowed down very promptly.  It may be legal to install an

> analogue, indistinguishable 121.5MHz ELT, but it may take up to 9 hours for

> the RCC to determine your position via multiple LEO passes.  $600 over seven

> years (until battery replacement time) seems like cheap insurance to be

> confident of a chance the USAF/CAP could rescue me before I/we bled to death

> or succumbed to exposure. As they say in the SAR world, the first 24hrs is

> often the only 24hrs to find survivors.  It's especially unfortunate when

> people survive a crash, only to die in the days that followed before they

> were found.

> 

> Cheers, Stu

> 

> F1 Rocket  VH-FLY  www.mykitlog.com/rockfly

> 

> 

> --

fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:00 am Post subject: ELT: 406 vs 121.5

--

kenryan

Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Posts: 429

Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2014 10:31 am Post subject: ELT: 406 vs 121.5

Also, people are killed conducting searches. If you want to be found, and it you want to minimize risk to search and rescue personnel, get a 406.

  On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 8:58 AM, B Tomm <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net (fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net)> wrote:

[quote]  --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net (fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net)>

 

 

 

 --

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-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