February Deadline For Emergency Beacons Approaches

An anonymous reader writes "In two weeks, older emergency locator beacons will no longer be monitored by satellites. USA Today noticed that 85% of private aircraft in the US have not switched to the 406 MHz beacons. I thought I'd send up a flare about this. And this should not be relevant to the airplane which landed in the Hudson River today, as that was a commercial plane and its location was known by a number of bystanders, one of whom helped crash TwitPic."

Comments

Re:Plane crashed YESTERDAY

[An anonymous Frank]

no no!
This is actually the duplicate submission that got there a little too fast.

Have you checked yours?

[Thanshin]

I've re-checked and it's all there.

Right between the emergency eggs and the emergency beer.

Re:Plane crashed YESTERDAY

[morgan_greywolf]

What? Another plane landed in the Hudson today? OMFG! The terrorists are attacking our rivers! Run for your lives!

Oh, wait...I just RTFA. Nevermind. Let this serve as a lesson to all of you to RTFA. :-P

New Becons cost too much

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't like the old ones will not useful. The CAP and the FAA will still listen for the 121.5 beacons. Just the satellites.

If you are flying over really remote areas (northern Montana, etc), then you are silly not to have one of the new beacons. If you are flying within 100 miles of a major city, on nice days on the weekend, it is silly to buy the new ones, if your old one works.

The new ones are about $1200 installed.

I know, "airplanes are rich mans toys", but that isn't true. You can buy a taylorcraft for $15000, and ercoupes for under $20000. Most planes out there can be bought for under $50000.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[Rogan's Heroes]

So if you're already spending 15000, 20000 or 50000 dollars why wouldn't you just top it off with a 1200 dollar beacon? At that point is it REALLY that much more?

Re:New Becons cost too much

[fprintf]

This is really news to me! You mean you can get a fully functional, non-ultralight plan for $15K? That isn't so much a rich mans sport/hobby as it has been suggested. Maybe there is hope for private flight in .thisguys family yet! Thanks for the headsup AC, now on to Google looking for these inexpensive plans you mention... woot!

Re:New Becons cost too much

[adolf]

Would you want the government telling you that you must add a $1,200 safety device to your $15,000, $20,000, or $50,000 car? I mean, honestly: At that point is it REALLY that much more?

Re:New Becons cost too much

[wjsteele]

Actually, it is a big deal. How would you like to go buy your new car and after you get home find out that you needed to spend an additional 5-10% for no reason. The ELTs that we currently have on our aircraft work just fine. Having the satellites stop listening is the problem. The question is why? It's a software issue, nothing more, so why change it? Those satellites are sophisticated enough to listen to both frequencies and alert the appropraite personell when they detect the signal. It makes absolutely no sense why they would discontinue monitoring this important safety device. So what if it is not as accurate as the newer technology, that's a choice we make as owners. I don't fly in remote areas... in fact, most of my flights are withing 200 miles of Cincinnati, so if I go down, I'm within a few miles of a population center. CAP can use their ELT Locators to find me.

We don't need an additional "TAX." In the aviation world, we already pay through the nose for regulations and adding more is just complicating the burden. Once the price of the 406mhz units gets down to around the price of the 121.5mhz units, then the problem goes away. Right now, they cost 12x as much!

Bill

Re:New Becons cost too much

[wjsteele]

You can check out www.barnstormers.com or www.global-air.com for inexpensive planes.

Bill

Re:New Becons cost too much

[ptomblin]

When you've had your plane for a decade, and it's all paid for, do you really want to spend $1200 (and our flying club was quoted more like $2500 installed) at a time when avgas is still at near record highs (currently paying $5.25/gallon), government over-reactions to 9/11 are making it damn near impossible for new pilots to get started and damn near impossible for existing pilots to keep up with the ever changing regulations, and pilots are worried about their jobs? Our club has seen membership decline from around 60 members and 5 planes pre-9/11 to 20 members and 2 planes now. We shelled out $10,000 per plane to put GPSes in the planes because it's getting hard to fly IFR anywhere without one. And now we're being told that because there are air carriers on the same airport as us, all members and potential members will have to pass a TSA background check costing upwards of $250 each.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[russotto]

You mean you can get a fully functional, non-ultralight plan for $15K? That isn't so much a rich mans sport/hobby as it has been suggested.

Yeah, but wait 'till you hear the bills for care and feeding. It's not like you can just leave it parked in your garage.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[afidel]

Most of the 406 EPIRB unit's I'm seeing are in the $350-500 range, is their some reason they are twice as expensive for GA aircraft?

Re:New Becons cost too much

[Hatta]

If you have $15000 to spend on a toy, you are a rich man.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[Vellmont]

If you have $15000 to spend on a toy, you are a rich man.

You really think so?

Plenty of people spend A LOT more on second vacation homes, a boat, or even a sports car. Most of them aren't what anyone would consider "rich". It all depends on what you value. Some people just value being able to fly more than going up to a lake cabin.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[MBGMorden]

Heck I've seen some homebuilt planes for less than that. Functional EAA Biplanes, Sonerai, and a Rans S-9 I've seen under $10,000. Thing is if you weren't the building yourself you a) might have some trust issues with the workmanshp, and b) might have a hard time finding an A&P willing to do an annual on one of these. Probably not the best choice for beginner pilots either (particularly the Sonerai).

Still, there are a lot of options out there, including rental. I still haven't purchased a plane myself, and instead rent by the hour when I want to go up. There's 2 Cessna 150's that I rent (depending on which is available at the time, though I naturally have my preference for one of over the other :)), and they have an STC (basically an FAA approved modification) to run on automotive gas, so they're a lot cheaper than the ones running AVGAS. I currently pay $70/hr for the plane with fuel included.

One thing to be aware of though with old planes like the Taylorcraft, is that they were built many years ago when the average size of an American was . . . smaller, than now. It's a 2 seat airplane but don't expect to fit 2 adults in one if either of them is much over 170 lbs.

FWIW, if I ever to break down and buy a (used) plane I've been really looking at the Grumman Yankee AA-1 as a possible choice. They're relatively inexpensive and look interesting (Cessna's are so common that I'd never buy one).

If I were to put down a little money for a new plane, the Zlin Savage looks interesting (http://www.zlinaero.com/eng/classic.php). Basically a remake of the old Piper J-3 Cub but with some design improvements (front seat solo rather than rear) and modern avionics.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes absolutely no sense why they would discontinue monitoring this important safety device

The page linked in the article quotes a 99.8% false positive rate for satellite detections of these beacons. I.e. they run around trying to find the crashed plane, and 499 times out of 500 it's a faulty electrical appliance or something that is giving off interference (or someone activated the beacon by mistake - unfortunately they don't break down the figures further). 1 time out of 500 it's a real rescue situation.

That seems like a valid reason to say "please upgrade to new beacons that don't suffer from this interference, and which identify you so we can give you a quick phone call to see if you accidentally activated the beacon".

I can see why you're upset though - it's never nice to be told you have to spend that much cash.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[MoonBuggy]

A bit of an odd aside, but the first thing that struck me there was how much those GPS units cost. What makes them so different to normal consumer ones?

Re:New Becons cost too much

[MBGMorden]

Well I'd classify anybody with 2nd vacation home as rich, but yeah, $15,000 on an airplane doesn't make you rich.

Particularly as due to the way the financing works on many of these things, people never really pay that much for them. A lot of the loans for aircraft are structured oddly. They'll set them up for 7 years. Over those 7 years you have a fairly low monthly payment. Mostly just interest with a little principle thrown in. Once the 7 years are up, you get hit with a huge bill for the remaining balance.

Now, the thing to keep in mind is that many used airplanes are 20, 30, or even 60 or 70 years old. They've already depreciated about all they're going to - as long as they're maintained in good condition then they maintain a roughly equivalent value. So, people will buy that $15k or $20k airplane, essentially pay the monthly interest on the loan for 5 or 6 years, and then sell it again just in time to recoup their cost needed to pay off the loan at the end.

When broken into monthly payments like that, it's really not a lot.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[ryturner]

You are probably looking at hand held beacons that you manually activate. An ELT that mounts in your aircraft costs significantly more because it has G sensors to detect a crash and because it is a certified part. Also, installation is not cheap. It cost me $1500 to put one in my C-172. $1000 for the ELT and $500 for labor.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[Thelasko]

When you've had your plane for a decade, and it's all paid for, do you really want to spend $1200 (and our flying club was quoted more like $2500 installed) at a time when avgas is still at near record highs

Perhaps the government could pitch in $40 towards a converter box that makes the old beacons compatible with the new system, but doesn't function nearly as well as purchasing a whole new beacon. This $40 will be in the form of a coupon that can only be used to buy the converter box, and it can't be used towards the purchase of a new, and functionally superior, system.

Of course these coupons will become very popular as many people have old beacons that work just fine and can't justify the cost of a new one. The government will underestimate the demand for the coupons and run out of money for the program.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[Hatta]

Yes, if you can afford second home you are rich.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[ptomblin]

What makes them so different to normal consumer ones?

They're a permanently mounted part of the plane, and therefore they have to be certified to the same standard as anything else mounted in the plane. In the case of the ones we mounted (Garmin 530), they also replace one of the communications radios and one of the navigation (VOR, LOC and ILS) radios, so they have to be certified to that standard as well. And then on top of that you have to load in a new database every 56 days or the unit will refuse to let you use it for instrument approaches.

Consider also the consequences of getting it wrong. If your TomTom is off by 100 metres, you park in front of the wrong house. If my Garmin 530 is off by 100 metres, I crash into a mountain side and die.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[GizmoToy]

I imagine it has to do with the airplane-specific map data they use. They likely have detailed information on all the airports in the country, including things like runway orientation, fuel availability, etc.

The market probably isn't that big, so a company or two price the units wherever they want because they have no competition, and the result is a $10k GPS system.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[horatio]

Twice as expensive for general aviation aircraft* as compared to what? Commercial a/c, or consumer-grade land-based devices?

Nearly everything for aviation is more expensive than a land-bound counterpart. I think some of it is markup, but I think that more of it is the much, much lower tolerance for failure. (It is required by the CFRs that, for example, the engine oil is changed when the mfg says to change it, otherwise the a/c is no longer legal (airworthy) to be flown.) Equipment failure in flight can create an immediate, life-threatening situation - depending on what fails. Aviation ELTs also have to be engineered to survive a variety of conditions from severe impacts (otherwise what would be the point?), fire, extreme temperatures, submersion, etc.

From what I can tell, most of us are holding off on purchasing the 406's until the price comes down - which it will as purchase volume increases. But it will still never be as cheap as something you'd take hiking.

(*Apologies if I'm stating the obvious, it seems like maybe you are already familiar with the industry - most folks don't know what "GA" means.)

Re:New Becons cost too much

[Attila Dimedici]

Um, the government already did that, ever hear of airbags?

Re:New Becons cost too much

[ryturner]

It all depends on what you value.

This is the key point. I own 25% of a plane and occasionally get comments about how it must be nice to be rich. But my non-aviation expenses are significantly less than anyone else I work with. I value having a plane more than I value having a nice car, house, being able to eat out frequently, etc.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[chappel]

You can indeed buy a used plane for $15000. However, to use the requisite car analogy, it'd be the equivalent of buying a $500 car - it's a car, and it'll run - mostly. The big difference is YOU can work on a car yourself; the FAA mandates only a certified aircraft mechanic (A&P) work on a certified aircraft, or optionally the original builder if it's experimental. Your drivers license cost about $100 and a couple weeks? A private pilot license will cost about $6000 and take six months if you really get after it; the FAA mandates at least 40 hours in a plane, typically 60, generally at $100+ per hour to rent the plane - note possible savings if you are flying your own - although the insurance coverage could be problematic until you have your license and/or a minimum number of hours total and / or hours in the plane. I would expect insurance to be at least $1000/yr, depending on the hull value of the plane and your experience. You take your car in for an annual inspection (maybe) for $25 - your mandatory airplane annual will be a good $500-$800 - assuming it doesn't uncover any problems. Also note that most aircraft engines have a suggested rebuild schedule at 2000 hours. You'll want to keep your new baby in hanger - expect $50/mo to well over $500/mo depending on how far in the sticks you live. Of course you'll want a good GPS ($2k for a lower-end handheld, $8k-$15k for a 'real' panel-mount IFR one) to let you know when you are approaching some arbitrary, invisible airspace restriction, and pay to keep the database current ($300/yr), and maybe some on-board weather (another $300+/yr - but oh-so-worth it if you fly cross country). I hope you understand why yet ANOTHER $1200 (although I'd heard they were closer to $300-$400 for a basic drop-in replacement) for an upgraded beacon that is renowned for not working when you need it (see: steve fossett) really annoys many pilots.

Depending on your goals, it can be much cheaper and easier to get a 'sport pilot' license (more info at http://www.sportpilot.org/), but there are a number of restrictions - daylight flight only, only in a certified 'sport plane' - limited to 100 hp, two seats, no faster than 130 mph (?). Don't get me wrong - there are some mighty nice sport planes, but since the category is pretty new, you probably aren't going to find a $15000 sport plane (they are generally MUCH cheaper than new 'regular' planes, though)

Having said all that, keep in mind that an airplane is a long-term investment, and buying one is much closer to buying a cabin or other land (or at least it was - haven't checked recently) - you should be able to get a 15-20 yr low-interest loan, and they historically keep their value pretty well due to the rigorous maintenance requirements. If you are truly passionate about flying it's certainly possible to get a pilots license. If you want to fly recreationally look into joining a flying club and distributing the ownership costs, find a busy general aviation airport and start visiting and asking questions, talk to pilots and take some rides, make friends with some mechanics, learn about various models of planes in the price range you are looking at. You'll find many are pretty small if you are a large person, and some will be more comfortable than others, and there are differences in speed, range, weight capacity, operating cost (fuel burn, parts availability and maintenance costs, insurance) that have to be considered.

In summary - flying is awesome, if you have the desire by all means follow your dreams, but don't for a second think that $15000 is going to put you in the air, even if it might buy you a plane (well, it might if you go the flying club route). You don't have to be a millionaire, but you DO have to commit serious time and effort - and a chunk of cash - into it. I can, however, assure you it's worth it.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[GooberToo]

We don't need an additional "TAX." In the aviation world, we already pay through the nose for regulations and adding more is just complicating the burden. Once the price of the 406mhz units gets down to around the price of the 121.5mhz units, then the problem goes away. Right now, they cost 12x as much!

I'm glad you mentioned this. Most people believe pilots and plane owners are the uber wealthy, as that's what is commonly portrayed in TV and movies. As such, most don't give it a second thought when the "rich" get yet another tax. This is simply not true. The majority of commercial pilots make less than $60,000/year. In fact, many new pilots are lucky to make $40,000/year. The majority of private pilots make less than $50,000 year. And the majority of light GA piston owners make less than $80,000/year. Used planes can be purchased for less than the price of many used and new cars and can be financed out to 15 or 20 years. You do not have to be wealthy to own or fly a plane! In fact, most are not wealthy!

Why do I mention this? Because the TSA and if the FAA and airlines have their way, private pilots will be history while forcing more traffic into the major airports which forces additional delays on the air travelling public. Most don't realize how many airports there are in the US. Most do not realize these small airports save the travelling public time and money by traveling elsewhere. Furthermore, most don't realize how much money comes into the local economy from those local airports. Airport closures are on the rise. Every airport closed means lost jobs and lost dollars to your local economy. The people working at these airports are not the uber wealthy.

Also, people don't realize these pilots are an important part of your local emergency and disaster plans. For example, following the recent hurricanes which hit the US, most people don't realize some of the first to both bring supplies in and evacuees out from these areas were private pilots and their owned/rented aircraft. Without pilots and airports these missions are impossible. People widely believe only the Coast Guard and National Guard were there to help. This is simply not true.

Angel Flights serve an important role. If you don't believe me, ask many of the patients who receive critical care which would otherwise not be available to them. Without airports, these types of missions are not possible. Without pilots, these types of missions are not possible.

What's my point? If you've ever been interesting in learning to fly, go get a discovery flight. They typically cost $50 for a 30-45 minute introductory flight. You'll likely get to fly for the first time. Furthermore, if you hear about an airport closing, don't forget to support the airport. They often bring millions of dollars into your local economy and dozens to hundreds of jobs; directly or indirectly. Lastly, don't support additional taxes on pilots, aircraft, airports, and fuel. Pilots are already paying their fair share in taxes, contrary to what the FAA and airlines would have you believe.

Believe it or not, saving airports and helping pilots is actually helping your self and your community. Remember, pilots are your friends and neighbours. They are not the aristocracy portrayed in TV and movies.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't sell as many of them, and thus need to charge more to recoup costs.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[bds1986]

I'm not a pilot, but I believe the cost is due to:
- The increased precision required of aviation units.
- Added features such as standby power that are unique to aviation.
- The fact that they are programmed with all sorts of aeronautical information (positions of beacons, approach patterns, etc). It costs money to license this information and include it in each unit.
- Additional cost to ensure each unit complies with FAA regs.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[wkk2]

The problem with the old analog ELTs is they don't ID. So when there is a false alert, nobody is sure who might be having a problem. A hard landing, painting a boat, and curious passengers all lead to trouble. I think the real problem is the cost. Shock and water proofing shouldn't add so much to a rather simple device. A good faq can be found at http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/faq.html

Re:New Becons cost too much

[Anonymous Coward]

if I go down, I'm within a few miles of a population center. CAP can use their ELT Locators to find me.

As a CAP search team leader, "thank you" :-)

Re:New Becons cost too much

[chappel]

The problem with the old tech is more than just software - being analog, they alarm on anything that transmits at a given frequency. For some reason pizza ovens are notorious for giving off noise at that frequency, as are other random devices. Well over 99% (from what the CAP says - I can't find a source atm - sorry) of the signals picked up by the satellites are false alarms - either real ELTs set off by accident (dropping one in the shop, or landing too hard), or not even an ELT at all, and the emergency response teams have to try and figure out which are real or not. The new 406 system is digital, and REGISTERED, so they know immediately who to try to contact. It will save a HUGE amount of time and effort, and mean real emergencies will get much quicker responses.

Sure, the CAP will still monitor 121.5, but only when they are flying, and happen to think of it. They will still be able to use it to home in on you if they HAVE BEEN DISPATCHED; it isn't like they just fly around waiting for a crash. An unclosed flight plan, missed arrival, or possibly an eye-witness can initiate a search - eventually. The extra cash just buys you a quicker response (assuming the stupid box survives the crash).

Re:New Becons cost too much

[GooberToo]

A bit of an odd aside, but the first thing that struck me there was how much those GPS units cost. What makes them so different to normal consumer ones?

Liability and certification. That's it. Technologically speaking, owners pay a premium for an inferior, dated product.

The common cliche associated with the FAA; "We're not happy until you're not happy". The common FAA oxymoron, "We're the FAA and we're here to help."

Re:New Becons cost too much

[GooberToo]

Ya, people simply don't realize you can actually own a plane for less a month than what people often pay for a car; and way less than a used fishing boat.

People forget owners of nice fishing boats are likely are better off than many plane owners.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[Shotgun]

$15K, over what time period?

I will spend somewhere in that range building my Dyke Delta over a 7 year period. That comes out to just under $6/day. I know "poor" people that spend more than that in cigarettes. I know high-schoolers that spend MORE than that going to movies. There are a LOT of people reading this forum that could point out $15K of audio-visual and computer equipment that they've bought over just the last few years.

$15K to spend on a permanent hobby in America is middle-class. Granted, by world standards that is still rich, but even the poor in America are rich to most of the world.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[sjames]

But the government did NOT require a retrofit on existing cars. To this day there are used cars for sale that have no airbags (because they never did).

Re:New Becons cost too much

[GooberToo]

For most owners, it doesn't work like that. You're basically asking, why isn't paying 1-10 extra payments, all at once a big deal? Many owners have to critically balance annuals, surprise repairs, oil changes, and normal wear and tear with fuel just so they can fly.

How about you suddenly spit up 10x your current car payment, all in one payment for an optional piece of equipment which has questionable value? The vast majority of light GA piston owners are NOT wealthy people. Rather, they are your lower to upper middle class people who choose to spend their hobby money flying.

Many owners are owners simply because planes are typically not financed like cars. Many planes can be financed as far out as 20 years. Many plane owners spend less in plane payment than many spend for a used car and often far, far, far less than many spend to own a bass boat.

Go tell a bass boat owner he needs to go spend 5x his boat payment on an optional piece of equipment. I bet you'll be wearing some concrete shoes pretty quick.

If you want to compare your typical plane owner with your typical boat owner, you'll find the boat owner is financially much better off.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[drsquare]

We don't need an additional "TAX." In the aviation world, we already pay through the nose for regulations and adding more is just complicating the burden.

Surely anything that encourages less flying in already crowded and polluted skies is a good thing? Flying is one of the most expensive hobbies that exists in this world, to people who fly, the cost of this new beacon is the cost of a typical corporate lunch!

Re:New Becons cost too much

[ryturner]

- The increased precision required of aviation units.

When everything it working, an aviation GPS that is used for IFR approaches is not any more accurate than a consumer grade GPS. But the aviation GPS does more checking to determine if the navigation information can be trusted.

- Added features such as standby power that are unique to aviation.

No, not really.

- The fact that they are programmed with all sorts of aeronautical information (positions of beacons, approach patterns, etc). It costs money to license this information and include it in each unit.

This doesn't increase the initial cost, but it is a pain to constantly be updating the GPS database.

- Additional cost to ensure each unit complies with FAA regs.

This is the big one!

Re:New Becons cost too much

[GooberToo]

- The increased precision required of aviation units.

Doesn't exist unless you're talking about units which support WAAS. Most units do not support WAAS. Besides, extra precision can be had for the cost of an extra GPS-IC; something less than $50 to the total cost of the unit.

- Added features such as standby power that are unique to aviation.

No such thing.

- The fact that they are programmed with all sorts of aeronautical information (positions of beacons, approach patterns, etc). It costs money to license this information and include it in each unit.

The information is government owned and as such, does not require licensing. In fact, it is public information.

- Additional cost to ensure each unit complies with FAA regs.

Bingo! Because it is aviation related, lawyers needlessly cause every component to cost 2x-4x its actual retail cost. Because it's aviation related, the FAA incurs an additional 2x-4x cost. Even then, Garmin is making money hands over fist because at $10,000 per unit, they have some $7,000+ profit per unit.

Don't forget, we live in a world where a $10 clock costs $150 thanks to lawyers and the FAA.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[Anonymous Coward]

A new V6 Accord is about $15000 more than a certified used Civic. Are those rich man's toys?

Re:New Becons cost too much

[Thaelon]

You listed a ton of hidden costs.

Care to do a sum it up for me with a total "buy in" cost for a decent plane (not a $500 car equivalent), GPS, new emergency beacon, pilot's license and a "yearly cost" including maintenance, a rough guess at fuel, and any license renewal shenanigans?

I could pour over your post and do it, but I don't understand this stuff that well and would probably fuck it up. Also, you didn't list the cost a "decent" plane.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[afidel]

Compared to marine units, they are rugged and waterproof. I doubt they are fire proof though (not sure how fireproof the GA ones are either).

Re:New Becons cost too much

[wjsteele]

Those "false positives" are triggered because detection equipment is simply listening for anything broadcasting on 121.5mhz. If you actually listen to the signal, you can quite easily tell if it is a real signal or not becuase aircraft ELTs make a unique repeating tone, microwaves or other electronic devices do not.

Accidental triggers do happen, for example, from "aggressive" landings by student pilots, but they are not all that common. If one is triggered, they don't "run around trying to find the crashed plane" unless they actually can hear the correct signal. If they do, they will usually figure it out pretty quickly and turn if off. In all my years of flying, I've only seen two situations where CAP came looking for a triggered ELT, and both were at the local airport where someone accidently set their unit off. These occurance of these types of incidents would not change if they switched to the new units, because they'd still get set off and someone would still have to come check it out. It's would just make identification easier.

BTW, In our planes, we check our ELTs once a month to determine if they are in working order. We do this by triggering the ELT at the top of the hour (first five minutes) for no more than 3 tone cycles. We listen on our radio for the alert signal. If we hear it, we immediatly turn off the ELT test and set it back to it's normal "colision detection mode" which is triggered by a rapid deceleration event (aka crash.)

Bill

Re:New Becons cost too much

[Skater]

Why do I mention this? Because the TSA and if the FAA and airlines have their way, private pilots will be history...

This statement doesn't make a lot of sense in light of the fact that the FAA recently made it even easier to get a pilot's license. Granted it's limited, but it IS available and requires only half the time and money compared to a traditional pilot's license.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[wjsteele]

Really? Crowded skys? When I'm flying, I only see other aircraft at or near airports. Most of the time, it's me and the wild blue yonder. As for the cost, I fly a Beechcraft Skipper. The plane cost less than my pickup truck, and my truck is a basic GMC model, not a fancy one. My plane get's better fuel mileage than my truck and can get me any place faster. You need to really look into general aviation to understand that it isn't a rich persons hobby, it's everybody's hobby. You can easily buy a plane for under $20,000. In fact, my last plane was a Cessna 150 which I bought for $14,000. Flying is only expensive if you make it expensive.

Bill

Re:New Becons cost too much

[wjsteele]

Actually, it's what you make of it. You CAN leave your plane in the garage if you choose. There are several "trailerable" light aircraft on the market. You can also leave the plane at the airport for a monthly tiedown fee. My fee is currently $35 per month. My light plane (a Beechcraft Skipper) has to have an anual inspection every year at roughly $1000. Fuel is currently very high, in the ~$3.50 to $4.00 range. (Some places are higher due to taxes, etc.) But my plane gets better mileage than my pickup truck does.

If I budget about $200 per month, I can enjoy flying all year long. I don't consider that too expensive for a fun hobby.

Bill

Re:New Becons cost too much

[Hatta]

A brand new car is a rich mans toy, yes. Poor people drive 10 year old beaters.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[Anonymous Coward]

A-fucking-men. AIrplanes are pricey, it's true, but compared to sports cars, boats, vacation homes, Starbucks, or Apple computers, it's a pretty moot point. Most GA pilots aren't up there flying brand new planes, either; lots of these planes are sixty years old.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[GooberToo]

You can indeed buy a used plane for $15000. However, to use the requisite car analogy, it'd be the equivalent of buying a $500 car - it's a car, and it'll run - mostly.

Not true at all! The analogy isn't even in the ballpark.

The big difference is YOU can work on a car yourself; the FAA mandates only a certified aircraft mechanic (A&P) work on a certified aircraft

Again, not true at all. Preventative maintenance can be performed by an aircraft owner. Additional work can be performed under the supervision of a certified A/P. Many A/Ps are more than happy to do this. And supervision doesn't mean babysitting. It means someone knowledgeable to talk to, periodically verify the work, and sign off the work was performed properly when completed. If you have a good relationship with your A/P, many will do this gratis for most non-major work.

A private pilot license will cost about $6000 and take six months if you really get after it

Again, mostly not true. Price varies greatly depending on the part of the country your in, the airport you train out of, the type of plane you train in, and how often you fly to obtain your license. A license can be had for $2500-$3000 if you really work at it, fly an older C172 or especially an older 150/152, and train out of a smaller, less busy airport. If you must train in a brand new C172SP, at a larger, busy airport, especially at places near New York or Washington DC, expect a $6000 bill.

your mandatory airplane annual will be a good $500-$800 - assuming it doesn't uncover any problems.

Price varies greatly depending on the plane and quality of care given to it between annuals. Expect $300-$1500 per annual. Owner assisted annuals are commonly done. These typically cut the cost of an annual in half or two thirds.

You'll want to keep your new baby in hanger - expect $50/mo to well over $500/mo depending on how far in the sticks you live.

Those prices are accurate yet many planes are not hangared. It really depends on the part of the country your in. If you live in a hail prone area, a hangar is strongly advised.

Of course you'll want a good GPS ($2k for a lower-end handheld,

Simply not true in the least. GPS is absolutely NOT required. In fact, primary training you're taught to fly using WWII technology and simple maps. High quality, large display, having excellent aviation features, GPS units can be had for less than $500. Smaller display units can be had for less than $300. You want high end bells and whistles (weather radar, forecasts, lightning, etc, then you're talking about a couple thousand, plus a monthly XM Satellite subscription.

In fact, my Lowrance 2000C GPS is a fraction of the overpriced Garmins and provides superior situation awareness and has a terrain/obstacle database. There are plenty of quality hand held GPS options so long as you're willing to not be a GPS snob. Despite having a 530, I always use my 2000C to compliment it. Simply put, no need to be a Garmin snob. Better units with equal or better features are available for the same, if not less than the high end Garmins. Much of what you buy with Garmin is the name.

I do agree a $15,000 plane isn't going to be a coast to coast machine, but plenty of good aircraft can be had in the $15,000 - $30,000 range. Avionics make up a significant portion of any plane purchase. If you're willing to cruise at 100-125mph with one or two old radios, one VOR and maybe a DME, no auto pilot, or perhaps an original wing leveler, with one or two passengers, and a range of 400 miles or less, there are plenty of good, older planes to be had in the above price range.

That being said, one needs to think long and hard about the type of flying they want to do. Brush flying? Tooling around near your airport? Flying to see family 500 miles away on a regular basis? Flying alone? Flying with family? Need much luggage? What type of weather is common in your area? Will you need to commonly leave and arrive in IMC (poor visibi

Re:New Becons cost too much

[JCSoRocks]

Consider also the consequences of getting it wrong. If your TomTom is off by 100 metres, you park in front of the wrong house. If my Garmin 530 is off by 100 metres, I crash into a mountain side and die.

So what you're saying is - all terrorism could be fixed by just making sure the terrorists have lousy GPS systems? That sounds like a cheaper solution than all this TSA crap.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[zippthorne]

Then you should absolutely not be relying on the GPS for instrument flight. The government might be in the habit of announcing selective availability zones beforehand but suppose you're in a zone where they need to use it quick?

Re:New Becons cost too much

[GooberToo]

This statement doesn't make a lot of sense in light of the fact that the FAA recently made it even easier to get a pilot's license.

The FAA has actively been lying to Congress, in cahoots with the airlines, to force private pilots to pay the airline's share of taxes (literally) while also increasing fuel taxes paid by piston pilots. Furthermore, the FAA has been lying to Congress so as to force private pilots to pay a per use fee for entering airspace, receiving weather briefings, obtaining flight following (VFR service), filling a flight plan (VFR and IFR), activating a flight plan, or flying an instrument approach. This effectively prices many pilots out of the game while simultaneously increasing risk to all aircraft in the sky.

At the same time, the FAA is trying to convince Congress they would be better funded (their own numbers show this to be a lie) by increasing taxes and per use fees while being out from under Congress' oversight, in turn allowing them to better develop a relationship with the airlines. In other words, the airlines would run the FAA, private pilots would pay much the airline's taxes, and the pilots who continued to fly would often do so without official briefings and without separation services so as to save money. This in turn likely means many more illegal instrument approaches which increases the chances of mid airs or crashes into houses, buildings, towers, and mountains. This in turn means vastly increased chances of weather accidents, mid air collisions, and increased dangers of commercial airlines from them calling the regulatory shots with the FAA - with Congress no long having any oversight.

Made worse, the FAA is unable to account for some 20 million dollars yet they are demanding Congress let them control their own books, make their own rules, and squeeze funding (which has independently shown to make far, far less than existing funding measures) from pilots who are already paying their fair share.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[Reziac]

Most of the people I know who own light aircraft have a cheap model -- used single-engine planes go for about the same as the concurrent cheapest new car on the market, and a plane's expected lifespan is about 10 times longer than the similarly-priced car. A lifespan of 40 to 70 years is not at all unusual.

Most of the people I know who own light aircraft do so because they need it, not because it's a toy. Cropdusters make their living with their planes. A lot of ranchers use them to keep an eye on remote grazing areas, and to get to town when the roads are snowed in or sunk in spring mud and NO wheeled vehicle can get through. State legislators in the vast midwest use them to quickly commute to the state capital for their often rather calendar-scattered legislative sessions -- otherwise they lose up to two days on the road each time, and not everyone can afford that (several times a month for several months of the year).

Yeah, a few people do just buy 'em as toys. But that's no different from someone who buys a Ferrari instead of a Ford, or (to put it in terms a basement dweller can more-readily grok) an Alienware instead of an eMachine.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[Reziac]

Just curious, what can you expect to spend nowadays on GA hangar space and a mechanic? (Given that planes need to pass ADs hence have a forced maintenance schedule)

It can't be all that much in rural areas (given some of the scruffy types I've seen flying cropdusters), tho I expect it's rather a lot higher at metro airports.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[Reziac]

Geez, these light aircraft seem to be a good investment, if you bought 'em back when they were relatively new... Some of the oldies (1950s models) are going for 3 times the price they were 25 years ago, and I suspect that was already as much or more than they cost new.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[chappel]

You listed a ton of hidden costs.

Care to do a sum it up for me with a total "buy in" cost for a decent plane

I can sum up MY costs, but without knowing YOUR end goal, it's pretty tough to come up with what it would cost YOU.

I found myself working a long-term contract out-of-town, making a ton of cash and trying to see my family 1x-2x a month. It is a 13 hour drive, or about 9 hour door-to-door commercial flight (90 minute drive to airport on each end, plus waiting through checking, and a lay-over enroute). My goals were: fast (200mph) IFR cross-country plane, monthly budget of $1200 for about 300 hours a year. I normally traveled alone, so cargo capacity wasn't important. I initially was looking at an older Mooney - 4 passenger, retractable 'sports car' of planes. After I started flying lessons one of the guys at the airport suggested I consider an experimental Vans RV-8 - 200mph (more or less), two seat (lower insurance), fixed-gear (lower insurance and maintenance) - more the 'crotch-rocket' of planes. I found one loaded with full IFR instrumentation (garmin 430 gps, autopilot), 180+ hp engine w/ fuel injection and electronic ignition, and a constant-speed prop (lets you select 'power' setting for climbing and 'cruise' setting for faster/more efficient cruising) - $115000. I coughed up $1500 earnest money, 10% down ($12k, about) for the financing, $2600 first year insurance, about $8k sales tax ("use" tax - the state (MN, in my case) hoses the 'rich' that buy planes and yachts, even if used), about $350 annual 'registration' fee. The database for the GPS is about $350/yr, but optional (until you start flying IFR). It cost me about $6k for my private pilot license - about 65 hours in a rented 172 (I'm 6'5" and just don't fit in the cheaper 152 trainers). The FAA exam is $200-$300 depending on the examiner, plus you'll probably want your own headset ($100-$1000 depending on what you get), and have to buy some books and incidentals - probably another $200. Fuel was about $2.50-$3.00 then; now it's at least $4.50 - $6.00. I burn 9 - 12 gph depending on the conditions, and get about 150 (low altitude / bad headwind) to 230 mph - so it's about 18-25mpg(?), although since you don't have to follow roads I trim a good 30% of the distance off most cross-country trips. I burn less fuel in the RV on a trip home than I do in my subaru impreza (which gets about 25 mpg) - although the fuel costs more. Since it's 'business travel', I deduct the mileage from my taxes (federal private aircraft rate is something like $1.50/mile - it works for me, but if you have a more expensive rig many guys put it in a separate corporation for tax purposes - I could, but I hate paperwork and accounting, and as far as I could tell it would be a wash). I got lucky with maintenance - since I got the plane the local mechanic recommended (and he loves it - who wouldn't - it's fully aerobatic) and I added him to the insurance as a pilot and let him borrow it whenever, he does all the maintenance for free. I've put up a mental block about how close I come to the $1200/mo budget; I'm not sure I want to know for sure, but it's probably a bit closer to $1500/mo ($850 or so for the bank note, $200 for insurance, hanger, fuel.... mental block kicking in.....

Even with that, since I've had it (4.5 years? - about 1000 hours flight time) I've: upgraded the GPS to WAAS for $5500, fixed/upgraded the autopilot for $2000, replaced/upgraded the directional gyro with an experimental efis for $3500, replaced the electronic ignition (and upgraded to a impulse coupled mag starter), and replaced a mag / bought a spare - about $2800, bought a hand-held back-up gps (garmin 396) with XM satellite weather for $2200 / $350/yr, replaced the comm panel and got some panel wiring fixed - $2000, got the vacuum gyro attitude indicator rebuild - $450 (just sent the check), sent in and had the 2nd radio checked (nothing wrong, now it works??) - free- the mechanic offered to pick that up for use of the plane, bought 2

Re:New Becons cost too much

[Reziac]

And don't forget the venerable Trade-A-Plane -- do they still publish a print edition?

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/
(PS. site doesn't like older browsers)

Re:New Becons cost too much

[Anonymous Coward]

I know, "airplanes are rich mans toys", but that isn't true. You can buy a taylorcraft for $15000, and ercoupes for under $20000. Most planes out there can be bought for under $50000.

Err. If you can spend FIFTY THOUSAND BUCKS on something just for fun, you ARE a rich man (or woman).

Not that there's anything wrong with that, mind you, or that you shouldn't spend 50 grand on a toy if you can. By all means, do it - you only live once, and you can't take your money with you after you die, anyway.

But if you think you aren't rich when you can do this, think again. (And yes, we all know that there are still people who are considerably richer than you are. That's pretty much always the case unless you're Warren Buffett or so.)

Re:New Becons cost too much

[bogidu]

My "new car" better come with the newest equipment. Now if I bought a used car, I'd expect to pay for a couple upgrades.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[Hatta]

Most of the people I know who own light aircraft do so because they need it, not because it's a toy.

Same here. Plenty of working class people own planes, but they are tools, not toys. If you own a plane, and it's not making you money, then you're either rich or financially irresponsible.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[space_hippy]

Surely anything that encourages less flying in already crowded and polluted skies is a good thing? Flying is one of the most expensive hobbies that exists in this world, to people who fly, the cost of this new beacon is the cost of a typical corporate lunch!

Corporate lunch huh. You are wrong.
I'm currently working to obtain my private pilot certificate. I sure as heck have better things to do with $1200 than lunch.... I'm not sure I spend $1200 on lunch a year.

Please don't stereotype private pilots and light sport pilots based on what you see on TV. We are not all CEOs and Doctors. Most of the pilots I know are middle class people who scrape and save to fly because they like to do it and it is satisfying to accomplish the training. Less than half my ground school class was what I would consider upper middle class in income, less than $50k a year. One woman was a student that probably makes less than $15K a year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_middle_class#Income

Most planes are co-owned. So multiple people split the cost and flight time of one aircraft. Which can get the monthly cost to an amount below the cost of a typical used car in the US. http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/ownership/co-ownership-navigating-airplane-partnerships.html

Re:New Becons cost too much

[vijayiyer]

Clearly, you do not fly. Most of us pilots who fly as a hobby are ordinary, middle class citizens. It's becoming very expensive partially because of excessive regulation and a prevailing attitude in America which uses ignorance to turn our populace into a boring, hobbyless crowd where watching TV all day is considered acceptable, but "crowding the skies" is not.
A new beacon is a few thousand dollars. That's not pocket change for a pilot who makes $70k.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[vijayiyer]

IFR certified GPSs have RAIM:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAIM

Re:New Becons cost too much

[element-o.p.]

The ELTs that we currently have on our aircraft work just fine.

Not really. Part of the reason for the switch to 406MHz is because the new units provide two important pieces of information that the 121.5MHz units don't: GPS position information and the registered N-number for the airplane in which the ELT is installed. This means that when an ELT signal is "heard", emergency services don't have to initiate a search to find out if it is a real emergency, if it is in an airplane that was bumped on the ramp or if a pilot or mechanic accidentally hit the "on" switch on an ELT while loading or working on an airplane. Ask any CAP member how many times they've had to run out to the airport to do a ramp search because someone accidentally set off an ELT, and you'll quickly find out why this is a good idea.

It's a software issue, nothing more, so why change it?

Again, not exactly. It *is* a software issue in that the big difference between a 406MHz ELT and a 121.5MHz ELT is the frequency they operate on. However, the 406MHz ELT has the additional hardware to receive a GPS signal, and the hardware to encode the GPS position information in the broadcast signal. And, as any savvy network geek can tell you, the amount of information that can be broadcast in a given carrier signal is a function of the frequency of the carrier. As the carrier frequency increases, so does the amount of data that the radio signal can carry. I don't know how much data the new 406MHz units are supposed to carry, but according to an Air Force search and rescue guy who gave a talk at the local EAA meeting this summer, that is part of the reason for the switch -- the 121.5MHz units didn't have the bandwidth to carry the data tags.

So what if it is not as accurate as the newer technology, that's a choice we make as owners. I don't fly in remote areas... in fact, most of my flights are withing 200 miles of Cincinnati, so if I go down, I'm within a few miles of a population center. CAP can use their ELT Locators to find me.

That's great for you, but there are a number of pilots who *do* fly in remote areas, and the simple fact is that the new ELTs allow SAR personnel to respond more quickly, more easily more effectively and with less risk -- especially to false alarms. It is *much* better for an Air Force Rescue Coordination Center to get a hit on a 406MHz ELT and be able to look up the N-number and therefore telephone number for the owner of the ELT that is going off. Then they can call the owner and have them go shut off the ELT if it is a false alarm, or they can dispatch a rescue mission when they speak to the owner's spouse and find out that the owner was really out flying when the ELT went off.

We don't need an additional "TAX..."Right now, they cost 12x as much!

Yes, but right now, the FAA isn't requiring that we replace our 121.5MHz units, either. The USAF is retiring the satellites that monitor 121.5MHz, but if you don't want to switch, you don't have to! Just be aware that, unless you file a flight plan, it could be awhile before anyone goes looking for you because the satellites won't pick up your ELT. However, since you've already stated that most of your flights are "...within a few miles of a population center" that shouldn't really be a big deal for you, right?

FWIW, I have a 121.5MHz unit installed in my airplane, and I don't plan to upgrade to 406MHz until prices drop a bit. However, I am very seriously looking at the personal locater transmitter beacons as a stop-gap. Some (most?) of them use the same system and signalling as the 406MHz ELTs, and they are much more competitively priced. I could easily carry one in the survival vest I wear when flying outside of my local area. The only downside is that you have to manually activate them, so if I crash and am unconscious, the 121.5MHz ELT is all I have. That's a risk I can live with until the 406MHz ELTs come down a bit in price, however.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[sdwormley]

Actually, I'm one of those volunteers who look for the emergency beacons when they go off(Civil Air Patrol) right now 100% of my 40 or so finds are false positives. Of those, 1 was a boat EPIRB in a storage warehouse, 1 was a broken FAA transmitter and all the rest were actual aircraft ELTs. Of those, probably 30 were on airports in aircraft which had not crashed. Some were hard landings, some were a mechanic accidentally hitting the switch, some were just going off because the contacts shorted out due to moisture. A couple others people had taken home or were in salvage yards. In most cases a 406 would have let someone call the owner directly and tell them to drive to the airport and turn off their beacon. For the remaining 121.5MHz beacons my life will be much more difficult, right now satellites get us usually within 10 miles or so. Without that, an airliner at 10-30k feet reporting an ELT will give us a HUGE area to search, and if we can't launch planes due to weather it's going to take us a very long time to find the source. In addition, if multiples are going off in an area, we may locate the one at the airport and not know until it's turned off that there was a second real crash somewhere else when we get another report of an ELT still going off. So, please upgrade if you can, and especially if you're going to be away from civilization.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[whizbang77045]

We managed to get along without any beacons for many years. Suddenly, around 1972, when a couple of government officials were killed in a crash, Congress, not the FAA, decreed we should all have beacons.

Despite all claims to the contrary, they have never worked very well. They've been known to go off when a strong wind moves an aircraft against its tie downs. They've all too frequently been known to not go off when aircraft crash.

As the respondent above says, pilots are not all rich. In fact, most of us aren't. Expecting us to run out and spend $1,200, plus installation costs, for a new gizmo of debatable that Big Brother thinks is a really keen idea, is extremely naive.

Non-pilots simply don't appear to understand: there are other things in the $1,200 range that would have a lot more value. But I'm sure the radio manufacturers think this is a great idea, and that we should all run out and but one.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[BarefootClown]

If you have $15000 to spend on a toy, you are a rich man.

Two words: "bass boat."

Re:New Becons cost too much

[Tisha_AH]

Some of the problems with the old 121.5 MHz and 243.0 MHz beacons is that they only tranmitted the "wheep-wheep-wheep" signal and it was damned difficult to find an aircraft sitting in a hangar that had it's beacon accidentally activated.

Having been on that "hunt" before (to find an accidentally activated beacon at a small, general aviation airport) it diverts a tremendous amount of resources to drive around and triangulate the transmitter. When the plane is sitting in a hangar or on a parking spot at an airport you can waste an hour or so trying to find what particular plane is guilty.

The new 406 MHz beacons also transmit the plane tail number, serial number, owners name, etc... There will be maritime and personal emergency beacons that will eventually use the same system. Some systems will also transmit the GPS coordinates of where the beacon is located.

At the higher frequencies a satellite fix will be able to give better fix (instead of saying "somewhere in northeast Nebraska"). The beacons are registered to the owner at the time they are sold or installed, giving a record of exactly what is going off.

Right now, if a 121.5 beacon goes off it can be anything from a single passenger private aircraft where some owner disconnected the wrong wire, up to a large commercial jet that has crashed into a mountain.

Aircraft will continue to monitor the "guard" frequencies (121.5 and 243.0). A search of the internet will find an MP3 of the F-117 Stealth Fighter that was shot down over Bosnia. If you listen to the audio, you can hear the pilot on 243.0 calling out that he has ejected and then you will hear the alert beacon tones.

A common phrase heard in Vietnam was "beeper beeper come up voice" as an aircraft went down. Every other aircraft for miles around would suddenly work together to triangulate where the downed crews were.

During the war, the majority of Helicopters did not have beacons. The army crews would beg borrow and steal beacons and survival vests from the air force so if they went down, there was some chance of being found in a big ass jungle.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[cheier]

Because the aeronautical information is public information doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't cost. Jeppesen is one of the primary providers of aviation databases and is used in pretty much all Garmin handheld and panel mount GPS units. I can't say that it justifies cost as much as FAA certification, but the databases alone do cost every 56 days should you choose to update them that frequently.

I don't necessarily fly that often, but I have a $1200 handheld GPS that costs about $50 to update the Jeppesen aviation database, an additional $50 to update obstacle databases, and $150 to update the terrain database (which is not anywhere near as often as the others). For IFR GPS units, I think it is about $150 to update the Jeppesen database.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[GooberToo]

Jeppesen is one of the primary providers of aviation databases and is used in pretty much all Garmin handheld and panel mount GPS units.

Jeppesen is paid to maintain the data and certifies it is IFR quality.

The data is/was publicly available at one point. Some of the map makers bitched and moaned about how unfair it was public data was available to the public. There was intent to charge a fee for the data but I'm not sure what happened. Regardless, the data is publicly held.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[element-o.p.]

These occurance of these types of incidents would not change if they switched to the new units, because they'd still get set off and someone would still have to come check it out. It's would just make identification easier.

No, they wouldn't have to come check it out. The data tag encoded in the 406MHz units include registration information which, IIRC, includes a telephone number so that rescue services can call the owner before starting a ramp search.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[wjsteele]

Hanger space varies by location. I have one in Richmond, Indiana, that is $145 per month, with electric and an automatic door. In Cincy, they're about $350 per month without the electric.

Mechanics run about $65 per hour. By the way, ADs do not mean a forced maintentance schedule. Mandatory schedules are only for commercially used aircraft. Private planes only have the yearly anual "inspection" which does not require the work to be done. It's just an inspection to find problems or ones that may be developing. Now, some of those problems can be big and will require fixing to be airworthly, but the owner can "elect" not to perform some maintenance. Usually AD searches are done during the annual inspection process as well. Some are required and some simply add another item to check during the inspection process. Most small planes rarely have ADs to deal with, and even less have expensive ones.

Like I said in another message, I only budget $200 per month for expenses on my plane. The insurance costs me about $750 per year and I set back an additional $20 per hour for maintenance. But that is used mostly to fund a new (or rebuilt) engine every 15 years or so.

I do my own routine maintenance, like oil changes, etc.

Bill

Re:New Becons cost too much

[DerekLyons]

I know, "airplanes are rich mans toys", but that isn't true. You can buy a taylorcraft for $15000, and ercoupes for under $20000. Most planes out there can be bought for under $50000.

$15k for a toy is about as firmly in the category of "rich mans toys" as you can get.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[element-o.p.]

I have had the ELT accidentally go off on an airplane I was flying. In my case, a loose bushing in the nosewheel caused the nosewheel to shimmy violently enough to activate the ELT during takeoff. Fortunately, I was taking off from an airport that had a flight service station on the field, they detected the ELT and had the radio direction finding equipment that could follow the ELT signal as I circled the airport, and I was able to land and shut off the ELT before it registered on a satellite. From my own personal experience as a flight instructor (and the example above), I suspect that most false alarms fall into this category: a pothole, nosewheel shimmy or hard landing triggers the ELT, but the pilot didn't notice (tune 121.5 on your aircraft radio before shutting down to prevent this). I doubt very many false alarms are caused by interference.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[TooMuchToDo]

I think the problem is that ELTs are easy to set off on a hard landing and not know they're going off. Perhaps a better indicator to the pilot would fix the problem.

/pilot, KDPA

Re:New Becons cost too much

[TooMuchToDo]

What kills me is that the federal government handed out a huge amount of cash for the DTV upgrade so people could watch TV but didn't subsidize ELT upgrades at all.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[TooMuchToDo]

The TSA is also working to make life harder on GA pilots operating under Part 91 flight rules, making them deal with the same security rules as commerical carriers:

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/gasecurity/gasecuritybrief.html

The issue

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) proposes to apply commercial air carrier security measures to general aviation aircraft weighing more than 12,500 pounds, regardless of the type of operation. The proposal is burdensome and costly, calling for crewmember criminal record checks, watch list matching of passenger manifests, biennial third party audits of each aircraft operator, and new airport security requirements.
Why is this important?

The proposal fails to recognize the inherent differences that exist between private and commercial aviation and attempts to impose costly and unnecessary security regulations without justification.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[TooMuchToDo]

I also suggest people who a) Fly GA or b) Love to fly GA join AOPA.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[element-o.p.]

The government isn't requiring a retrofit to existing airplanes, either. The USAF won't monitor 121.5MHz after February, but it is still legal to fly with a 121.5MHz ELT.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[Reziac]

So other than hangar space, not really any worse the average car's expenses (plus garaging if you had to rent that for your car).

Thanks for the clarification on ADs vs private aircraft. I haven't even thought about this stuff in years and a lot of details have fallen out of my brain, if they were ever there to begin with. :)

Re:New Becons cost too much

[Anonymous Coward]

And they didn't require everyone with a car to take out our old airbags that were working fine, and put in new ones of a different color.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[BlueStrat]

A brand new car is a rich mans toy, yes. Poor people drive 10 year old beaters.

Actually, poor people don't drive. Period. They walk, ride a bike, or take a city/metro bus, if they're lucky enough to live where there's public transportation available. It's the working-poor that can afford to own & maintain a vehicle. This situation is getting worse due to increased costs of owning/maintaining a vehicle, along with simultaneous reductions in public transportation coverage areas & schedules, and increased fares.

I don't own a car because I can't afford to keep one plated & insured, along with all the other incidental expenses. I'm on SSD (Social Security Disability) because of arthritis. My disability income is approximately $900/month. Between rent, utilities, and essential services (garbage, water, etc) about $650-$750 of that $900 is effectively gone before I get it.

That only leaves about $150-$250/month for all other living expenses. I regularly go without medication and medical care because I can't afford the co-pays and incidental costs not covered by Medicare/Medicaid.

If it weren't for me playing an occasional gig for the odd $35-$50/man/night in the blues band I'm in, plus an occasional $50-$100 from doing a guitar amp repair, I'd be living at a homeless shelter, or most likely I'd be on the streets, as the single homeless shelter here has far too little room for the numbers of needy.

I may yet end up on the streets, as with the worsening economy people are putting off repairs and live music is dying as club/bar owners cut costs. The Section-8/low-income housing programs here are severely under-funded. The waiting lists are now over 3 years and lengthening, and they've long-ago stopped accepting new applications.

It's much easier for a government to control a population that's dependent on the government for survival, and that can't travel. Keeping large numbers of people too poor to afford to travel/have vehicles is a nice work-around to Constitutional restrictions on the governments' power to restrict free travel.

Cheers!

Strat

Re:New Becons cost too much

[PalmKiller]

The USAF will still monitor the 121.5 band, only the satellites will stop monitoring them.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[PalmKiller]

I think its because the 121.5 cause too many false positives (football stadium scoreboards, etc). So now they are gonna just have the ability to be monitored by planes and boats in the area, so if you file a flight plan its not a big issue cause they have a general idea of where to look and can listen for the older beacon.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[conureman]

My Dad doesn't fly any more, but he takes his old beacon with him when he drives in the mountains. Just in case.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[cwebster]

Also, the article poster's example is pointless. aircraft operated under part 121 (airlines) are not required to carry ELTs of any sort, 121.5 or 406MHz. They are flight followed by dispatchers on the ground who know where the plane is at all times, as well as in this case, being radar identified by the new york tracon (N90).

Re:New Becons cost too much

[Anonymous Coward]

As a CAP member who has tracked down a lot of signals on 121.5 on SAR missions...

1) All but one were false alarms. The other was a crashed airplane, but had crashed on the runway so the ELT wasn't needed.

2) Almost all of the signals WERE from ELT's or aircraft transmitters (notoriously, Luke AFB's remote 121.5 station frequently), not spurious signals. Many were set off by mechanics. Some were on Huey's and went off when the door was slammed. A number had been discarded (one was in a bin in a hazardous waste dump). Some were in people's houses - the kid got hold of it, or it fell and the g-switch set off the alarm.

I don't expect the EPIRBs to be any better on the accidental triggering aspect. However, since they send a registered ID, the first check can be a phone call rather than a SAR mission.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[joe_frisch]

There are a lot of ways to spend money to improve safety when you fly. 20 hours of flight training may be a better safety win for many pilots than a better ELT. Whether the new beacons are worth it depends on how much and where you fly.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't like the old ones will not useful. The CAP and the FAA will still listen for the 121.5 beacons. Just the satellites.

If you are flying over really remote areas (northern Montana, etc), then you are silly not to have one of the new beacons. If you are flying within 100 miles of a major city, on nice days on the weekend, it is silly to buy the new ones, if your old one works.

The new ones are about $1200 installed.

I know, "airplanes are rich mans toys", but that isn't true. You can buy a taylorcraft for $15000, and ercoupes for under $20000. Most planes out there can be bought for under $50000.

The coverage will be next to none - just like before the satellites. CAP will 'listen' when they are flying, and at the occasional meeting. The FAA usually has the guard transmitters (the 121.5 MHz radios) with the volume turned down so the ELT sweeps don't interfere with their conversations.

The old ELT's have a false activation rate of over 90%. In California (where I have chased and secured over 1000 ELT/EPIRBS) the false activation rate is closer to 99%. Thats a lot of sleepless nights for CAP volunteers, finding and securing them; and a lot of accidental activations that can certainly cover up the occasional REAL activation.

I'd rather take my chances with an old beacon in Montana than a crowded area - at least an airliner might actually be monitoring 121.5 and could get a search incident case started. Not likely though: The FAA will require several corroborating reports before they contact the Air Force Rescue Control Center and initiate a search case.

And the transition has been planned for close to ten years now. It's not like it's a sudden surprise. For the cost of 4 or 5 tanks of avgas, it's good insurance.

Oh, and BTW: Those 1000+ ELT/EPIRB's I found? Not one was attached to a crashed airplane. The actual crashes I've found were from visual search from the air, and the ELT's were destroyed on impact. The crashes were not survivable for the people, either.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats what you accept (good or bad) when you purchase an aircraft. Just like when you buy a brand-new Cessna (or any aircraft brand) and discover when you get home an AD that requires you to spend a few thousand dollars to confirm that the builders did what the FAA told them to do - and then to do it correctly.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[ErikZ]

How much do you spend on insurance?

I was looking into building a kit plane, but getting pilot's insurance drove me off. I didn't consider buying part of a plane.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[FractalZone]

Mod this up, please.

GooberToo makes some very good points. The last plane I flew was owned by an automotive repair instructor at a community college (read: not rich). Gentrification is a term used to label the process whereby rich folks raise the price of living in old domiciles on what is now increasingly valuable real estate. When taxes force the less wealthy to leave, the wealthy take the space over.

There is a similar reason for the pressure to shut down small airports (Meigs Field in Chicago, anyone?), and to force aircraft owners to buy expensive new ELTs that work on a different frequency. It is the equivalent of gentrification. The airspace, air control time/effort, and radio frequencies in question are highly desirable and the big kids are doing their best to shove the little kids out of the park.

As any of my many far left-liberal friends can tell you, I'm a Libertarian (large and small "l" apply), and have absolutely nothing against those who become wealthy. I just don't like bullies.

Re:New Becons cost too much

[FractalZone]

Anyone interested in this topic should pay special attention to the field of study known as "Law and Economics" and also Google the term "liability tax".

Re:New Becons cost too much

[GooberToo]

Thanks, I forgot to address the TSA aspect.

Not likely, either

[ptomblin]

It's not likely that those 121.5 MHz ELTs will be replaced any time soon, either. The 406 MHz ones cost way more, and are very expensive to install. I expect that the only replacements will happen because people need to fly to another country that requires them, or because their old ELT crapped out and they can't get replacement parts any more.

Re:Not likely, either

[Beer_Smurf]

Only the satellite monitoring is changing, the regular ELT monitoring is staying the same for traditional ELTs.
The 406 ELTs are great but are still in a "REV A" condition in such as they are expensive but are quickly getting smaller and less expensive.
Soon they will be competitive in price and will take over the market naturally.

Re:Not likely, either

[legirons]

Does this change mean that you won't be able to hear other people's emergency beacon transmissions without a special receiver? I understand that at the moment, anybody can pick them up on a normal aviation radio.

(related: does anyone actually monitor that frequency while they're flying?)

Flare

[SebaSOFT]

You tough you'd send a flare about this and it turned up to seed the sky with chaff

Timezones

[CarpetShark]

Thankfully, due to timezones, yesterday can be today, today can be tomorrow. Possibly (although I'm not sure) tomorrow can also be yesterday. This is also the case when abusing drugs, which is not surprising, considering that the guy who invented timezones was probably doing said abuse.

Re:Timezones

[Anonymous Coward]

By the time this was posted, it was yesterday everywhere.

Re:Timezones

[value_added]

Thankfully, due to timezones ... possibly (although I'm not sure) tomorrow can also be yesterday.

I believe that phenomenon is often expressed as "same shit, different day".

This is also the case when abusing drugs, which is not surprising, considering that the guy who invented timezones was probably doing said abuse.

Is that the guy who invented longitude, or the guy who made the earth into a sphere and decided it should rotate around the sun? Either way, I wouldn't get too worked about it. Just do what I do and rely on your sundial. The young whippersnappers among us can opt for the new digital versions.

Re:Timezones

[JasterBobaMereel]

When it's 01:30AM on Friday in Kiribati it might be only 23:30PM on Wednesday in Palau

Re:Timezones

[m.ducharme]

The guy who invented time zones is this guy.

Re:Timezones

[Alzheimers]

But what time is it in Djibouti?

Party Time!

Re:Timezones

[Anonymous Coward]

It was downed by a cell of Al-Quaida terrorists from Canada, that go under the name of Jihad Geese.

Re:Timezones

[residieu]

Dick Tracy: I'm on duty.

Breathless Mahoney: What's your day off?

Dick Tracy: Sunday.

Breathless Mahoney: It's a big world... must be Sunday somewhere.

Re:Timezones

[Critical Facilities]

You could ask Sheik Yerbouti, he'd probably know.

Re:Timezones

[CarpetShark]

Thanks :)

EPIRB on aircraft?

[hohokus]

i wasn't aware that aircraft were required to have EPIRB's. boats, yes.. but aircraft? plausible, i guess, but i'd rather they stay in the air where they belong.

Re:EPIRB on aircraft?

[hohokus]

ok.. so, there's my confusion. article linked to a coast guard site on EPIRBs, but we're really talking about ELTs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPIRB

Call Obama!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he'll push it back...

Ah, I guess not. Grey's Anatomy and Seinfeld reruns are more important.

Re:Plane crashed YESTERDAY

[fubar1971]

"....helped crash TwitPic"

His servers couldn't handle the traffic of people trying to get the pictures, now you have succesfully /.'ed the thwitpic.com website.

Still Being Monitored in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

121.5 MHz will still be monitored in the US but you can't even fly an aircraft into Canada without a 406 MHz ELT. A personal locator beacon will not suffice for Canada. A lot of aircraft are switching over to a dual band unit so that they can be monitored anywhere.

If you never leave the US, it isn't a big deal.

What the...

[astrodoom]

Three stories in one summary?!? I just don't know what to respond to...brain melting...AAIIIIIGH!

Re:What the...

[Dan541]

Your problem is that you try to read the article.

The correct /. procedure is

1. Article appears.

2. Someone make the "First" post.

3. Everyone follows the "First" post and respond only to other users, the original topic is often forgotten.

4. Retards AKA "mods", who never participate, (hence their ability to use the points they are given) arrive and try to fuck everyone over.

5. Fights break out with people picking on spelling or posting "Mod parent up" (As if they expect to get thru to people of lower intellect.)

Re:What the...

[conureman]

Funny, and insightful. Thanks.

More hype than necessary.

[Nobo]

Yes, the existing ELT (Emergency Location Transmitter) beacons are no longer monitored by satellite. That does not mean they become useless. They broacast an audio tone on a radio frequency all civil and military aircraft can tune to.

Many pilots fly with their second radio continually tuned to this frequency, and I have been on flights in a general aviation flight where we have picked up beacons and reported them to ATC. More often than not, it's a hard landing that trips the beacon and the aircraft is parked on the ramp.

Finally, when your aircraft does go missing, these beacons are deliberately tuned by authorities doing search and rescue work, such as the Civil Air Patrol. Aircraft listen for and locate the general location of the beacon, and ground personnel locate the beacon with good directional antennas.

The (relatively) recent Fossett crash is a prime example of this -- His aircraft was not equipped with a ELT beacon at all (in violation of law) and had he been ELT equipped, he would have been found within a day.

The big thing that changes here is that, with the sattelites no longer monitoring, ATC will not get an automatic alert when a beacon turns on. This tech is spotty at best, however, and of course, 90% of ELT activations are false alarms anyways.

The new 406 Mhz beacons include a GPS reciever and actively transmit their location, such that rescue units simply get a waypoint on their GPS where the transmitter is downed. They are a far better technology, but the existing system does work well.

Overall, more hype than needed.

Re:More hype than necessary.

[MoonBuggy]

The (relatively) recent Fossett crash is a prime example of this -- His aircraft was not equipped with a ELT beacon at all (in violation of law) and had he been ELT equipped, he would have been found within a day.

I hadn't heard this before, but my first thought now is WTF?!

What kind of reasons would there be for him doing something like that?

Re:More hype than necessary.

[falcon5768]

likely not installed. The aircraft he flew was home built from a kit. From what I remember hearing it was the first time he had ever flown it any distance beyond takeoffs and landings, and his intention was to only be taking a 20-30 min flight and head back as a sort of long range test.

Re:More hype than necessary.

[ryturner]

Not many of the new 406 ELTs contain a GPS receiver. Some are able to accept GPS information from a separate GPS receiver, but they are more expensive and installation is also more expensive. When I had a 406 ELT installed, I did not get the GPS option. The shop that did the work, said that only about 10% of his customers have gone for the GPS option.

Re:More hype than necessary.

[Nobo]

The ELT is on the aircraft's MEL (Minimum equipment list), a set of equipment required for lawful operation of the aircraft. If an item on that list breaks, say, a radio, you're required by law to fix it before you fly again.

If your driver's seat belt in your car tore, it's illegal for you to operate it until you fix it. That said, there's nothing that keeps you from doing so, until you get pulled over and a cop notices. Much the same in the aircraft, except 'ramp checks' as they're called, are very uncommon, typically only administered as added pain after you already got caught for screwing up for other reasons.

ELTs are maintained yearly as part of the required annual inspection. If it fails, you might be tempted to fly for a while without it until you get it sorted, and then just forget and let it go. Stupid, but sometimes things get missed. Bravado might have had something to do with it too.

Re:More hype than necessary.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please quote the specific FAA regulation that requires a single pilot in a single plane to have an ELT. http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFar.nsf/daa4c54debeb6dca86256f3400626ab0/0ca5c0070bd29144862569cf005f1030!OpenDocument

I have an ELT and an EPIRB in my plane. The EPIRB does not have a G switch and will not go off on impact. If I am ditching or survive the crash, I will manually activate it myself.

Re:More hype than necessary.

[Anonymous Coward]

And then mr Fosset would be less dead?
How often did the ELT save a live anyway?

Re:More hype than necessary.

[Shotgun]

The (relatively) recent Fossett crash is a prime example of this -- His aircraft was not equipped with a ELT beacon at all (in violation of law) and had he been ELT equipped, he would have been found within a day.

First, it isn't against the law unless he was carrying passengers. The plane he was flying did not fall under those regs.

Second, the plane would only be found IFF the ELT was activated by and lived through the crash. Historically, the odds are about even that this will not be the case.

The big thing that changes here is that, with the sattelites no longer monitoring, ATC will not get an automatic alert when a beacon turns on. This tech is spotty at best, however, and of course, 90% of ELT activations are false alarms anyways.

The new 406 Mhz beacons include a GPS reciever and actively transmit their location, such that rescue units simply get a waypoint on their GPS where the transmitter is downed. They are a far better technology, but the existing system does work well.

For some value of "well". The current system is a congressionally mandated hack, rushed into production in the 70's when some congress-critter went missing while flying over Alaska. It barely works at all, and, due to the excessive amount of false alarms, it is debatable if it is better than nothing.

Overall, more hype than needed.

Granted. I've added the ELT to my 4-place Dyke Delta (search for it on Yahoo groups, I don't want my wimpy server slashdotted). They're cheap right now. I *might* add a 406Mhz beacon at some point in the future, but right now I'm thinking that APRS (http://www.vansairforce.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=104) is a better technology for the type of flying I'm likely to be doing.

Re:More hype than necessary.

[Kyaphas]

Um, no. It was a Bellanca Super Decathlon, not a homebuilt. Hit up the wikipedia article for more details. What you heard was completely wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Fossett#Death

AvWeb confirmation;
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/SteveFossett_MissingAviator_SuperDecathlonWreckageFound_198901-1.html

Re:More hype than necessary.

[Nobo]

14 CFR 91.207 - Emergency locator transmitters.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, no person may operate a U.S.-registered civil airplane unless-- ...
[An ELT is installed and maintained as described] ...
(f) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to-- ...
(9) Aircraft equipped to carry not more than one person; ...

If your aircraft has a second seat installed, you need an ELT. Occupancy of the seat is irrelevant.

Re:More hype than necessary.

[chappel]

Fossett was flying a Super Decathlon; not a home-built. you must be confusing this with some other incident (maybe the guy who crashed his just-completed plane in Vegas recently?) From the FAA report (http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20081007X17184&key=1):

"The airplane, a Super Decathlon, was a single engine, propeller-driven, tail-wheel fixed landing gear, two seat airplane, which was manufactured by Bellanca Aircraft Corporation in 1980. Its maximum takeoff gross weight was 1,800 pounds. It was powered by a Lycoming AEIO-360-H1A, reciprocating, air cooled, fuel injected engine. Annotations in the airplane's maintenance records indicated that its last annual inspection was performed on April 8, 2007. The airframe and engine each had 1,072 hours of flight time at the time of inspection.

"no ELT signal was received" - no mention of it having had it removed.

Re:More hype than necessary.

[Nobo]

The (relatively) recent Fossett crash is a prime example of this -- His aircraft was not equipped with a ELT beacon at all (in violation of law) and had he been ELT equipped, he would have been found within a day.

First, it isn't against the law unless he was carrying passengers. The plane he was flying did not fall under those regs.

14 CFR 91.207 states that you need an ELT unless you fly an "aircraft equipped to carry not more than one person". The Decathalon having having the second seat installed requires the ELT. Occupancy of the seat is irrelevant.

Past that, agreed with all you say.

Re:More hype than necessary.

[Anonymous Coward]

The aircraft he flew was home built from a kit.

You are incorrect. It was built in a factory.

It was a Bellanca Super Decathlon, which is a variation of the Bellanca Citabria which has inverted oil and fuel systems which make it better suited to aerobatics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Champion_Decathlon

Re:More hype than necessary.

[drinkypoo]

My intention when I get in my car is to drive where I'm going and get shit done, but I wear my seatbelt even though it sometimes chafes because there's a chance I'll get in an accident on the way. Kind of makes sense to have yourself a locator beacon if you sleep on a big bed of money.

Re:More hype than necessary.

[element-o.p.]

According to Wikipedia, Fossett was flying a Bellanca Super Decathlon. That's not a homebuilt, it's a certified airplane that was an enhancement of the venerable Citabria...much like the 7ECA Citabria that I instruct in at my "night" job (yes, I'm a fly-by-night instructor, lol).

It is possible that Fossett modified his Decathlon so that it met the requirements to become an experimental airplane, but that still wouldn't have excused him from the requirement for the ELT. The FARs require an ELT in any aircraft -- certified or experimental -- with more than one seat. For example, my airplane is a homebuilt, but because it has two seats, it also has an ELT.

So, if he did not have an ELT installed, "why???" is still a valid question.

Re:More hype than necessary.

[AnswerIs42]

I will tell that to the 200+ people rescued last year because they spent the money on the new beacons. They are not just for planes.. boats can have them and hikers can also get them for use if they get lost.

Yes, the old system still works.. but I would rather spend the extra and know that my signal will be picked up and responded too in minutes instead of hours. Actually.. it will be illegal to use the old system according to the SARSAT website (http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/).

From the SARSAT website:
Total Rescues in 2008: 283
- Rescues at sea: 203 people rescued in 65 incidents
- Aviation rescues: 12 people rescued in 7 incidents
- PLB rescues: 68 people rescued in 35 incidents

Re:More hype than necessary.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if the Fossett crash aircraft had an ELT or not - but it's not necessarily against the rules not to: FAR 91.207 gives several exemptions to the requirements that they be installed.

However, since there wasn't a lot of wreckage found intact, there isn't much chance that an ELT would have survived the crash either - they usually don't. The newer beacons are supposedly more crash-worthy, and are supposed to be installed better.

New 406 Installs starting this year

[GooberToo]

First, it is important to remember, only satellite monitoring for 121.5 ELT is stopping. Ground and air based monitoring is still ongoing. Secondly, CAP (Civil Air Patrol; Axillary Air Force) does not have equipment to track 406. Keep in mind, CAP performs the bulk of the required search and rescue operations in the US. All 406s I'm aware of have a dual mode of 121.5/406. This means it's more likely you'll actually be located by rescue crews using 121.5.

The problem is, because of the FAA, there is no competition. This means purchase plus install for a really nice 406 unit can cost in excess of $5000 for a $200-$400 ELT. Now that lower priced units, and units which are compatible with existing installs are finally starting to come onto the market you'll start to see increase in the number of installations. Yet the bulk of these installs will likely occur either during an aircraft's annual or when the existing ELT's battery requires replacement. The combination of the two means installs should start to increase sometime over the next 24-months.

In the meantime, many have elected to go with much cheaper solutions. Personal Locater Beacons (PLBs) and SPOT are very popular with pilots because they can be had at a fraction of the cost despite their reduced sized and increased capabilities.

The big advantage of the 406 ELT is the specification allows for a data component. Specifically, it allows an aircraft's GPS to continuously update the ELT with its current location. In the event of an emergency, the ELT can be manually armed or be set off from excessive G's (impact). Once set off, the ELT immediately transmits the last known location received from the GPS. This allows for very high accuracy position reporting. Of course the problem is, pilots want this capability and most existing manufacturers are attempting to rape owners.

Right now, Artex's ME406 is about the only reasonably priced unit available and it hasn't been on the market all that long.

Lastly, let's not forget satellite monitoring of 121.5 is really pretty crappy. Your typical detection window requires three satellites to pass overhead, ignoring the fact it can technically be done in two. The detection capabilities of the existing satellites are pretty crappy. And if one of the Russian satellites are in the mix, you may even require four satellite passes overhead before anyone is dispatched. This means you're looking at anywhere from 10-36 hours before someone picks up the phone to get people looking for you - unless you filed an optional flight plan. In the end, loss of satellite detection for 121.5, while certainly not good, is not really a nightmare scenario.

In the end, the best thing to do is to simply let someone know when you're flying, where you're going, the route you're taking, and the time you expect to arrive. Ideally, this is someone at your destination. And should you not show or be heard from, teach them to call the FAA or an official briefing station. At that time, they can immediately dispatch a search effort. Meaning, for many pilots, this is actually a better plan than filing a flight plan with the FAA. Routes which are not direct or too complicated to convey to laymen should be filed via flight plan.

And for those interested, here is a comparison of existing, alternative tracking solutions.

Re:New 406 Installs starting this year

[GooberToo]

In the end, the best thing to do is to simply let someone know when you're flying, where you're going, the route you're taking, and the time you expect to arrive.

Opps, that should read:
In the end, the best thing to do is to simply let someone know when you're flying, where you're going, the route you're taking, and the time you expect to arrive, and the tail number of your aircraft.

Re:New 406 Installs starting this year

[Anonymous Coward]

Secondly, CAP (Civil Air Patrol; Axillary Air Force) does not have equipment to track 406. Keep in mind, CAP performs the bulk of the required search and rescue operations in the US. All 406s I'm aware of have a dual mode of 121.5/406. This means it's more likely you'll actually be located by rescue crews using 121.5.

Speaking as a CAP member, "Workin on it..." ;-)
Several wings (states) have started getting the new equipment to support 406, but it won't be a "widespread" capability for a while longer.

If you want to get rescued, pay your taxes and ask your senator to ask the airforce to give us more funding for S&R gizmos.

Re:New 406 Installs starting this year

[Anonymous Coward]

Many (most?) CAP planes have equipment to find the 406 beacons. CAP ground crews are also getting the handheld units to find these beacons. Regardless, the 406 beacons have a 121.5 beacon built-in so they can be found with the older equipment.

Re:New 406 Installs starting this year

[tlhIngan]

The problem is, because of the FAA, there is no competition. This means purchase plus install for a really nice 406 unit can cost in excess of $5000 for a $200-$400 ELT. Now that lower priced units, and units which are compatible with existing installs are finally starting to come onto the market you'll start to see increase in the number of installations. Yet the bulk of these installs will likely occur either during an aircraft's annual or when the existing ELT's battery requires replacement. The combination of the two means installs should start to increase sometime over the next 24-months.

In the meantime, many have elected to go with much cheaper solutions. Personal Locater Beacons (PLBs) and SPOT are very popular with pilots because they can be had at a fraction of the cost despite their reduced sized and increased capabilities.

Consider yourselves lucky.

In Canada, Transport Canada has mandated (for General Aviation) the new 406 beacons. There is a short 2 year transition period to which all Canadian GA planes must be 406 equipped (except US visitors). Given the number of planes, and the number of qualified avionics shop required to do the work, it's a practically impossible. Nevermind the cost of the ELT itself and the installation. Oh yeah, there's a list of approved ELTs - the one you purchase must be on that list. And until very recently, that was a very short list of very expensive ELTs ($5k+, more if you wanted GPS interface (using aircraft GPS - additional installation fees to wire the GPS to your ELT too), and still more if you want onboard GPS).

The only concession is a long-standing ban on ELTs using LiSO3 batteries has been liften (thus letting more ELTs in the market), and that an AME rather than an avionics shop can do the swap (swap only - rewiring or adding GPS requires avionics shop). And no, a PLB or SPOT device isn't suitable.

At least the FAA isn't mandating the transition.

Links: http://www.copanational.org/non-members/body_files/Update406ELTDec12.htm
Background: http://www.copanational.org/non-members/body_files/406%20ELT%20Background%20Information.htm

Ugh.

Re:New 406 Installs starting this year

[Reziac]

Thanks for all the excellent info.

The example of GPS inaccuracy (on your final linked page) also casts doubt on personal GPS, such as for tracking devices affixed to various "undesirables" (parolees, sex offenders, whatever is this week's social boogeyman). The pictured inaccuracy is roughly the same as "every trailer in the park" or "every house on this side of the block". It's probably good enough for finding a downed airplane, but hardly definitive for tracking a person.

Re:New 406 Installs starting this year

[GooberToo]

Many (most?) CAP planes

From what I've been told, few units actually have 406 capabilities. The larger Wings (Texas, California, etc) are getting this capability first. I don't believe all planes will be so equipped until the end of this year and likely ground crews won't be fully equipped until the end of next year. They are afforded this timetable because of the 121.5/406 ELT dual requirement (at least I've been told it's a requirement) and because 121.5 isn't leaving us anytime soon.

Re:New 406 Installs starting this year

[GooberToo]

Ya, I read about that requirement. I also read US planes which pass into Canada or Mexico also require 406 ELTs. Last I heard, there may be some push back on the Mexico requirement. I'm not sure which direction it will take.

The only concession is a long-standing ban on ELTs using LiSO3 batteries has been liften

I hadn't heard about that. Any idea if that includes the US?

And no, a PLB or SPOT device isn't suitable.

In the US, the PLB and SPOT is an option strictly so long as you have a functioning 121.5 ELT as that's what the regs require. The PLB/SPOT option is strictly at a pilot's discretion.

Re:New 406 Installs starting this year

[GooberToo]

Given a good reception for something you may carry on your person, simple GPs can still provide ~12+m resolution which is more like, this house or that house, or even a specific house.

Re:New 406 Installs starting this year

[drinkypoo]

The longer you stay in one place the greater the accuracy of GPS. Even my antique Garmin GPS12 can handle that. Supersampling works when SA is active, too.

Re:New 406 Installs starting this year

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Civil Air Patrol ground team member who participates in ELT searches, I would recommend you get a 406 beacon. In addition, I would recommend keeping a second old-style beacon installed.

While it is true that we don't have gear to detect 406, we can sill pick up the 121.5 transmitter on the new units. However, they are weaker than the old ones and don't transmit as far. Which is why keeping the old one is a good idea.

And yes, it usually takes 12 hours for us to get deployed and on the road. You better hope your batteries are good because if it goes dead on the satellite after three passes, we call off the search unless someone was reported missing.

ELT's aren't necessarily meant to find you alive, just to find you. So if you want to be found quickly, you better get the new one that gives out your GPS coordinates.

But really...

[m.ducharme]

...after reading to the end of the fa I linked to above, I see that time zones were really invented by this guy, but he didn't tell enough people about it.

Re:But really...

[weetabeex]

Unless there is a movie relating such invention, I doubt that timezones even exist for real.

Not a priority

[HangingChad]

What is this? Making a big deal out not monitoring a frequency that would potentially save lives when grandma's TV could stop working in just a matter of days. Have you no sense of perspective? Saving lives or making sure the American public has an uninterrupted stream of Wheel of Fortune? Come on now, wake up and smell the stale beer.

Re:Not a priority

[Shotgun]

Not just Wheel of Fortune. High-Definition Wheel of Fortune.

Now that changes the equation a bit, doesn't it?

The new commuter car...

[rec9140]

For those with a long commute your problems have been solved...

http://www.wired.com/cars/futuretransport/magazine/17-01/mf_icon_air?currentPage=1

GA might make a comeback if this and similar catch on.

Cost of avionics

[Anonymous Coward]

A bit of an odd aside, but the first thing that struck me there was how much those GPS units cost. What makes them so different to normal consumer ones?

The FAA will not permit "consumer" gps units to be installed into any certified aircraft. Not even into a Piper Cub. Only FAA certified GPS units are legal to install in a regular small aircraft, plus the FAA will only permit a "Certificated Repair Station" type of avionics shop to install the units too. So what this means is that in order to stay legal with my 45 year old antique Piper Cherokee (which is still a perfectly airworthy, and viable IFR-equipped aircraft that gets flown a couple hundred hours a year all over the central and southern USA), if I want a Garmin 430 installed, I can pick up a used unit for about $6500 (new ones cost $8995.00), pay a certified avionics shop to bench test it and "re-certify" it for operation to make it an FAA-legal piece of used equipment, for about $250, and then pay them an additional $2500-3500 labor to install it into my airplane, and then they have to "certify" the actual installation itself.

When you consider that my airplane only has a market value of about $30K, investing a third of its market value just to install a certified GPS unit does not make any financial sense at all. Therefore I use a portable handheld GPS, which is just as accurate as the $10K unit, but I cannot legally use it as primary navigation on an IFR flight plan, because it's not "certified" (or even certifiable) by the FAA.

I am not installing a 406MHz ELT beacon in my plane yet either. They should only cost maybe $300 tops and be legal for any licensed A&P to install, but because of artificially imposed bureaucratic bullshit the avionics makers and installers are forced to go thru, these new ELT's instead cost thousands of dollars to purchase and have installed.

Re:Cost of avionics

[GooberToo]

They should only cost maybe $300 tops and be legal for any licensed A&P to install, but because of artificially imposed bureaucratic bullshit the avionics makers and installers are forced to go thru, these new ELT's instead cost thousands of dollars to purchase and have installed.

Most people simply don't understand. The only thing preventing the light piston GA from becoming safer is the FAA! If the FAA's certification process were slimmed such that it actually made sense, allowing for competition to boot, owners would be more than happy to have the latest and greatest safety equipment in their planes. Many of the certification requirements date back to the late 50s and 60s, which predate computers and many technological advances. Until such time, the FAA and Congress is squarely responsible for maintaining the status quo for piston aviation safety.

If you must blame someone for many categories of aviation accidents and fatalities, look no further than the FAA! The sooner the public at large realizes the FAA is in fact the problem, the sooner they can be revamped allowing for increased safety.

It is an understatement to say, piston aviation safety has increased over the years in spite of the FAA. The FAA will tell you otherwise. The economics of aviation and owners will tell you the truth.

Re:Cost of avionics

[SillySnake]

I'm curious to know what requirements you think are outdated.

Rich man? NOT!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have $15000 to spend on a toy, you are a rich man.

Maybe considered a rich man by someone living in a 3rd world country, but not by US standards.

Billybob Bubba Jr., who lives down the street and works for the city parks department and digs holes for a living is not a rich man, yet he can manage to afford a $15K bass boat.

Tyrone Washington, who lives in the projects and collects a welfare check (paid for by us taxpayers) is not a rich man, yet he can afford to spend $15K per year on bling, new name-brand designer clothes, and 30" chrome spinning rims for his $40K used Escalade.

Biff Gaylord, who lives in a small townhome with his buddy, and works as a hairdresser is not a rich man, but can afford a $15K Honda motorcycle.

Need glasses and am hungry...

[Anonymous Coward]

I misread that as 'February deadline for Emergency BACON Approaches'. My first thought was that it'd be useful in the event of a water landing my seat cushion could be used as a floatation device and is also filled with bacon.

Gonna pick some up on the way home from work now for tomorrow..

Re:New Beacons cost too much

[icebrain]

Or, you can go the homebuilt route. Costs vary between 15k for a real basic one, to 100k or more for a big one with all sorts of fancy interiors, glass panels, etc. Something like a Sonex will run $25k or so; an RV-7 or -8 maybe $40k over a few years, plus build time. You do have to put in the effort to build it. It's not particularly hard, you just have to be willing to put in the time and have the necessary attention to detail.

The biggest advantages of homebuilts are that you can get better performance (speed, maneuverability, and/or efficiency) from a given size/cost of airplane, and you can do your own maintenance/annual inspections. You can make your own parts in many cases, and you don't have to pay a mechanic's labor fee. After all, you built it, and therefore know that airplane better than anyone else.

Owning and flying an airplane of any kind might take a few sacrifices, but it's nothing terribly hard. It just means you keep driving your old car instead of buying a new one every three years, or you stick with your old TV instead of buying the newest big flat-panel one.

Delta?

[smellsofbikes]

You have a Delta?
How are its flying characteristics?
I've been fascinated by them for years but haven't ever seen one or gotten to talk to someone who actually had one.
If you don't mind:
Did you make it?
What engine?
What's *your* approach speed? (I know what the specs say but there are plenty of planes that fly like crap at the stated approach/Vso speeds so everyone flies them faster.)
Likewise, what's *your* range?
How many people do you think it can carry comfortably?

Re:Delta?

[Shotgun]

Mine should fly for the first time sometime this spring, so I can't answer all your questions.

I'm using a rotary engine, and all indications from those flying are that it will be equivalent to a normally aspirated 360. My tank is slightly smaller than the plans, as I chose to weld up an aluminum tank so that I would have to worry about alcohol being in mogas.

Range and exact approach speeds?...TBD.

It will carry 3 adults comfortably. The pilot will be VERY comfortable compared to most light planes.

Re:Delta?

[Shotgun]

If you're truly interested, take the time to look up my last journal entry.

Re:Delta?

[smellsofbikes]

Oh, I am truly interested.
By 'rotary' do you mean something like Tracy Cook's RX-7 conversion? Are you doing the conversion stuff yourself? (Boggle at the idea of doing that.)

Thanks very much for the reply. I've spent a lot of time looking at the Dyke, but it's its rarity that has kept me only wondering.

Re:Delta?

[Shotgun]

Yes. Except I'm using a Megasquirt for engine control, and Ford EDIS modules for ignition. I got Ed Anderson to help me rebuild the engine last spring, and I should be ready to fire it up for the first time just as soon as the oil lines I ordered from Summit Racing get here.

Larry LaBeau has been flying his rotary powered Delta for several years now. Jim Maher had his flying for a year, before alcohol ladened fuel ate the epoxy in his fuel tank. He has since rebuilt the tank with aluminum, and should be flying again this spring.

Re:Delta?

[smellsofbikes]

Hence your aluminum tanks. Good plan.

So where *is* your journal? Since they've rebuilt /. I can't find anything anymore. The FAQ just says 'search for it' which yields a lotta nothing.

You're building your plane, doing an auto conversion engine, *and* a megasquirt DIY fuel-injection system? My hat's off to you. That's an amazing project. My boss put a megasquirt system on his Jeep and it's been fantastic once he got the wiggles worked out, but his Bearhawk homebuilt is getting a Conti until he has the airframe shaken out, and then he'll be trying some other engine choice. Doing the whole works is an *amazing* accomplishment.

seems like a rotary, or any liquid-cooled, would be a better/more natural choice for that platform, and nothing beats their specific power. You'll have a fabulous airplane. I'm desperately envious.

Re:Delta?

[Shotgun]

Hmmh? It tells me that I don't have any journal entries. Though I made one specifically to point you to my website.

Oh, well. This story is sufficiently burried that I'm not likely to get slashdotted.

http://ernest.isa-geek.org

It falls over sometimes, and I don't care enough to chase down the root cause. I just restart it when I find it not running. It is running right now, though.

Also, some of the information is way out of date.

Re:Delta?

[smellsofbikes]

(as it so happens, I found that a couple days ago and figured it had to be you.)

Of course I wish there were more pictures... but hey, it sounds like you're kind of busy. However, it gives me plenty to look at, motivationally.

Thanks for your time in replying to my questions, and I'll be watching that page.

All Toys

[camperdave]

Plenty of people spend A LOT more on second vacation homes, a boat, or even a sports car.

Those are all toys. The parent's point remains valid. (Mind you, I'll declassify the boat if it is your home (eg. Quincey).)

Fossett's plane did have an ELT.

[Anonymous Coward]

The ELT was destroyed by the crash. Additionally, the ELT's antenna was broken off the top of the fuselage, coax cable that connected the ELT to the antenna was severed. Even if the ELT would've survived the crash, its effective range without an antenna connected, would've been less than a mile.

More shocking

[wsanders]

I'm not sure what's more shocking, the number of outdated beacons or that 25 page views per second crashed TwitPic.

airplane "landing" in the Hudson crashed TwitPic?

[qeloi]

And this should not be relevant to the airplane which landed in the Hudson River today, as that was a commercial plane and its location was known by a number of bystanders, one of whom helped crash TwitPic.

Does that mean that TwitPic was crashdotted?

SPOT messenger

[ksheff]

In the meantime, many have elected to go with much cheaper solutions. Personal Locater Beacons (PLBs) and SPOT [findmespot.com] are very popular with pilots because they can be had at a fraction of the cost despite their reduced sized and increased capabilities.

The SPOT messenger is advertised in many hunting and other outdoors magazines. I've thought about getting one for when I go out in areas where cell phone coverage is very unreliable or non-existent. It looks like a slick device. I wonder if there are any ways that it can be expanded. A problem that I can see with it is that requires that the user be able to push a button, so it would be useless if they were knocked unconscious. It would be nice to be able to interface it with some sort of biometric monitor that would trigger the SPOT if the person had a medical emergency.

As an aircraft mechanic I am conflicted.

[maric]

Many private pilots are upset about this requirements for new equipment on their aircraft. I can understand their side of the issue. In many cases their existing equipment has been working fine for many years and now has to be replaced. In addition many equipment manufacturers take advantage of this to price gouge a bit. Plus there is something that is not addressed by many here - install. Aircraft are regulated much more than automobiles. To simply install a part can have a lot of requirements. For an ELT to be replaced it must be done by a Certificated Mechanic with at least an Airframe rating or an authorized repairman working under his/her shops certificate. The ELT can't be some j-random unit, it must be one that is certified for use on that specific model and type of aircraft (like saying that this part is only for Ford F-150s made in 1980 - 82 with the serial number range of such and such) there is a host of paperwork and testing to be carried out to get one certified if it is not already. Assuming that this is a drop in replacement of a unit with identical form factor and weight and power draw etc... there will be STC paper work, weight and balance etc applied. It is not as simple to get a plane with the new ELTs to be legal. Even with the requirement, the actual install is faster and easier then the rest of the regulatory stuff. This all translates to a hidden cost that is added to the purchase price. The customer can end up with a huge bill after buying a $200-$300 part. Not fun.

The flip side is this. Yes, the old 121.5 ELTs work. Yes, the new ones can also broadcast in 121.5 too. My job and the FAA's job is not to fix planes. Our job is our customer's safety. That is the whole point to this and many other things we do. The bottom line is the 406 ELTs will help Search and Rescue assets quickly and accurately respond to aviation emergencies. Even with a good fix on a 121 ELT the search area yeilded can still be as large as 100 square miles. 406's can reduce that same search area to 1 square mile. This will save lives. So, while I can feel empathy for my customers that do not want to get this new ELT and can in some cases ill afford it, I want them to be safe too. BTW- The money thing does not impact me as I do not profit from the install directly - I'm on an hourly rate. I would suggest to aircraft owners that they contact their local Avionics shops. Look to the smaller ones as they can usually take time to work with a customer as an individual rather than as a overall policy. Talk with several and make sure that they answer all of your questions. Get several quotes first. Then schedule your appointment. At this point in the game I would say that if you are an infrequent flier consider storing your plane for a while and wait the higher prices out. If you truly need your aircraft to be functional after the drop dead date get cracking as slots in your local shops will fill rapidly once the deadline is close.

Either way, stay safe.
Maric

Re:As an aircraft mechanic I am conflicted.

[cheros]

I guess a couple of people could also team up and group-buy the kit and have a local shop do a batch install. Win-win for everyone.

I'm not a pilot but intend to be a bit later (PPL in a couple of years - don't have the time right now). How are these beacons used for location, and what makes the new ones so more accurate?

Re:As an aircraft mechanic I am conflicted.

[maric]

the big deal about the 406 ELT boils down to three things: they have a data channel in the signal which allows them to broadcast the GPS coordinates of the ELT location the 406 frequency will be monitored by satellite - they are planning on dropping this for 121 signals and the 406 ELTs identify themselves allowing them to be registered. this will allow CAP to call the phone number registered and verify that it really is a crash and not a spurious activation. This will free up SAR elements (including CAP) as a side effect.

the GPS broadcast is the thing that dramatically reduces the search area. I have been told of units that can be removed and hand activated as well. I wonder if there is one that also allows voice on 121/406 to radio to SAR elements. as for the batch install I would say that would have to be worked out with the shop in question upfront.
HTH,
Maric.

Not just for pilots

[Jon_Hanson]

If you are out in the wilderness a lot or driving lonely stretches of road without cellular signals you can also get a hand-held beacon that can be handy.

I have this one: http://acrelectronics.com/product2.aspx?sku=2898

Here in Arizona (as I'm sure many other places with extensive wilderness) people get lost and in distress a lot. With no cell phone service and no one knowing of their plans (so that they can be reported as "missing" by someone) their first instinct is to set a "signal fire." In somewhere as dry as Arizona that's a very bad idea. A couple years ago someone set a signal fire that ended up destroying 250,000 acres. I realize that when someone's lost they panic but if people just used a little forethought when they go out to the wilderness (like taking a PLB) then things would turn out better for everyone.

Re:Votes per dollar

[conureman]

$40 vouchers vs: $1200(?) voucher. It is of utmost importance that the voters be kept abreast of new products and other vital issues.

Not just America!

[Anonymous Coward]

These beacons are also fitted to all boats as well, the entire COSPAS-SARSAT system is global, not just limited to america!

The digital beacons can also provide GPS data (if available), or the search area can narrowed using doppler measurements from non-geostationary satellites.

These beacons still broadcast on the 121.5/243 MHz to help localised searches.

If you are whinging about $500 worth of emergency equipment, then you put a low value on your life and the life off your passengers

Re:Votes per dollar

[TooMuchToDo]

How many people with analog-only TVs are out there? How many ELTs that need to be replaced out there. Even though the new ELTs are more expensive, there are far fewer of those that need to be replaced than the DTV converter boxes that are needed.

More Tracking? More Control.

[rea1l1]

Welcome to the future. Do you remember what you ate for breakfast three weeks ago Monday? We do.

It's worse than that

[BattyMan]

There's really only a single outfit (Jeppsen) compiling and keeping all of that "airplane-specific data": airport location/status, runway orientation and -more important- _length_, facilities (haz ILS? fuel? FSS/mechanic?), RADIO COMM FREQUENCIES (a biggie), etc, etc. It's historically been common to see pilots dragging around huge briefcases full of this database (updated about every 60-90(?) days via a binder of replacement pages mailed to subscribers), but this has all probably been supplanted by electronic data in laptops (yes, M$ _only_ *shudder*) and Internet download of updates.

My point is that Jeppsen is a single outfit without competition. They keep the airport database, and license it to all comers. Garmin ( Magellen, Trimble, other avionics GPS mfgrs) license it and package it for download to their gear. For this the customer pays ongoing subscription fees. Without current (90-day?) data, the FAA will NOT let you do IFR navigation or landing approaches.

While they try to make it affordable to all, Jeppsen has to keep a lot of data, their audience is relatively small (compared to, say, Street Atlas), AND they must answer to the FAA (can you say "buearacracy**2"?) for its accuracy.