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

Have you checked yours?

[Thanshin]

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

Right between the emergency eggs and the emergency beer.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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: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.

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

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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

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.