121.5 ELTs banned

[Brian Whatcott]

Since satellite cover has been withdrawn for 121.5
(High false alert rate, poor localization)
406.0 and 406.1 ELTs will be needed, following a recent FCC determination.

Brian W

[BT[_3_]]

I thought the FCC determination was that it should be "considered", not that
it was "final".


"brian whatcott" > wrote in message
...
> Since satellite cover has been withdrawn for 121.5
> (High false alert rate, poor localization)
> 406.0 and 406.1 ELTs will be needed, following a recent FCC determination.
>
> Brian W

[5Z]

Just saw this in my inbox:

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/FCCBans1215ELTs_202760-1.html


The Federal Communications Commission took the general aviation world
by surprise when it said in a recent report it will prohibit the sale
or use of 121.5 MHz emergency locator transmitters, effective in
August. The Aircraft Electronics Association said it just learned of
the new rule today, and has begun working with the FAA, FCC and others
to allow for timely compliance without grounding thousands of general
aviation aircraft. The 121.5 ELTs are allowed under FAA rules. The FCC
said its rules have been amended to "prohibit further certification,
manufacture, importation, sale or use of 121.5 MHz ELTs." The FCC says
that if the 121.5 units are no longer available, aircraft owners and
operators will "migrate" to the newer 406.0-406.1 MHz ELTs, which are
monitored by satellite, while the 121.5 frequency is not. "Were we to
permit continued marketing and use of 121.5 MHz ELTs ... it would
engender the risk that aircraft owners and operators would mistakenly
rely on those ELTs for the relay of distress alerts," the FCC says.
AOPA said today it is opposed to the rule change.

"The FCC is making a regulatory change that would impose an extra cost
on GA operators, without properly communicating with the industry or
understanding the implications of its action," said AOPA Vice
President of Regulatory Affairs Rob Hackman. "There is no FAA
requirement to replace 121.5 MHz units with 406 MHz technology. When
two government agencies don't coordinate, GA can suffer." The AEA said
dealers should refrain from selling any new 121.5 MHz ELTs "until
further understanding of this new prohibition can be understood and a
realistic timeline for transition can be established."

[JS]

Bugger! Just listed two 121.5 / 243MHz ELTs on E-bay.
Suppose it'll be prison soon.
Jim

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jun 21, 6:09*pm, 5Z > wrote:
> Just saw this in my inbox:
>
> http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/FCCBans1215ELTs_202760-1.html
>
> The Federal Communications Commission took the general aviation world
> by surprise when it said in a recent report it will prohibit the sale
> or use of 121.5 MHz emergency locator transmitters, effective in
> August. The Aircraft Electronics Association said it just learned of
> the new rule today, and has begun working with the FAA, FCC and others
> to allow for timely compliance without grounding thousands of general
> aviation aircraft. The 121.5 ELTs are allowed under FAA rules. The FCC
> said its rules have been amended to "prohibit further certification,
> manufacture, importation, sale or use of 121.5 MHz ELTs." The FCC says
> that if the 121.5 units are no longer available, aircraft owners and
> operators will "migrate" to the newer 406.0-406.1 MHz ELTs, which are
> monitored by satellite, while the 121.5 frequency is not. "Were we to
> permit continued marketing and use of 121.5 MHz ELTs ... it would
> engender the risk that aircraft owners and operators would mistakenly
> rely on those ELTs for the relay of distress alerts," the FCC says.
> AOPA said today it is opposed to the rule change.
>
> "The FCC is making a regulatory change that would impose an extra cost
> on GA operators, without properly communicating with the industry or
> understanding the implications of its action," said AOPA Vice
> President of Regulatory Affairs Rob Hackman. "There is no FAA
> requirement to replace 121.5 MHz units with 406 MHz technology. When
> two government agencies don't coordinate, GA can suffer." The AEA said
> dealers should refrain from selling any new 121.5 MHz ELTs "until
> further understanding of this new prohibition can be understood and a
> realistic timeline for transition can be established."

121.5 MHz ELTs *should* be removed from manufacturing, marketing and
sale. They are a bad joke compared to 406 MHz ELTs, especially with
the discontinuation or COSPAS-SARSAT monitoring of 121.5Mhz. And there
is still too much confusion out there about this.

It's less clear what the FCC prohibition of use really means and when
it will be effective (are they going to fine someboyd who trips a
121.5MHz ELT and gets rescued?). SAR organizations will still use
121.5 Mhz for homing on 406 MHZ ELTs and PLBs (that also have 121.5
MHz homing signals).

For gliders ELT seem very problematic, too hard to mount, antennas
often very poorly installed, too many false alarms and a question if
an ELT will alarm reliably enough at many glider crash energy levels.
I'd much rather have a manually activated PLB instead of an ELT -- and
personally I use a SPOT tacker in tracking mode to provide a rough
last-known position that does not rely in impact activation or being
physically able to active a PLB.

Darryl

[Peter Hermann[_3_]]

Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> For gliders ELT seem very problematic, too hard to mount, antennas

Moreover:
How to test proper functioning of 406 MHz with 118 - 136 MHz radios?

[Scott[_7_]]

brian whatcott wrote:
> Since satellite cover has been withdrawn for 121.5
> (High false alert rate, poor localization)
> 406.0 and 406.1 ELTs will be needed, following a recent FCC determination.
>
> Brian W

I can see the 406 units providing better localization, but how do they
lower the high false alert rate? I assume they still use a "G Switch"
to activate?

I would think that localization could be good on the 121.5 units if they
would be made to accept GPS data and transmit lat/long data when they go
off...

[Scott[_7_]]

5Z wrote:
> Just saw this in my inbox:
>
> http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/FCCBans1215ELTs_202760-1.html
>
>
> The Federal Communications Commission took the general aviation world
> by surprise when it said in a recent report ...... "Were we to
> permit continued marketing and use of 121.5 MHz ELTs ... it would
> engender the risk that aircraft owners and operators would mistakenly
> rely on those ELTs for the relay of distress alerts," the FCC says.
> AOPA said today it is opposed to the rule change.


OK, maybe the satellites don't monitor the 121.5 units anymore, but
haven't commercial airliners been required to monitor 121.5 at all
times? I would think there are enough flight routes in the USA that
almost all areas would be in range of an overflying jetliner to pick up
the signal...

[Scott[_7_]]

Darryl Ramm wrote:


> I'd much rather have a manually activated PLB instead of an ELT -- and
> personally I use a SPOT tacker in tracking mode to provide a rough
> last-known position that does not rely in impact activation or being
> physically able to active a PLB.
>
> Darryl

Are these 406 units ONLY activated manually? If so, what if a guy is
too busy flying the plane and forgets to activate the 406 unit? If
that's the only way to set one off, the rescue rate may be less than the
121.5 units...

[Scott[_7_]]

Peter Hermann wrote:
> Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>> For gliders ELT seem very problematic, too hard to mount, antennas
>
> Moreover:
> How to test proper functioning of 406 MHz with 118 - 136 MHz radios?
>
When the FCC bans VHF radio for aircraft use and requires us to move
to UHF, it will solve that problem. Until then, you'll either have to
believe a little LED transmit light or find a ham radio friend with a
UHF handheld radio to listen for you. I will do it for a small fee ;)

[T8]

On Jun 21, 7:01*pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
> Since satellite cover has been withdrawn for 121.5
> (High false alert rate, poor localization)
> 406.0 and 406.1 ELTs will be needed, following a recent FCC determination..
>
> Brian W

So does that mean that we'll all have to disable the 121.5 MHz output
on our 406(.1) ELTs?

Our tax dollars busily at work, again.

121.5 is still used (exclusively, unless there are recent developments
I'm unaware of) for DF equipment by CAP. Don't suppose they were
consulted.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Peter Hermann[_3_]]

Scott > wrote:
> to UHF, it will solve that problem. Until then, you'll either have to

interesting solution.
remains the question whether UHF has better
physical characteristics of range and quality.
....and what about affordability.

[5Z]

On Jun 22, 12:48*am, Peter Hermann > wrote:
> How to test proper functioning of 406 MHz with 118 - 136 MHz radios?

The 406 ELT's still transmit on 121.5 as well. So the FCC wants to
get rid of 121.5 ONLY units.

-Tom

[jb92563]

On Jun 21, 4:01*pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
> Since satellite cover has been withdrawn for 121.5
> (High false alert rate, poor localization)
> 406.0 and 406.1 ELTs will be needed, following a recent FCC determination..
>
> Brian W

Since the bereaucrats love so many rules, why not make another and let
Gliders and ballons use PLB's like SPOT since in our sport we often
have support crews that will monitor our progress in any case, making
SPOT a very convenient tool for us and our crews.

Ray.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jun 22, 7:32*am, jb92563 > wrote:
> On Jun 21, 4:01*pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
>
> > Since satellite cover has been withdrawn for 121.5
> > (High false alert rate, poor localization)
> > 406.0 and 406.1 ELTs will be needed, following a recent FCC determination.
>
> > Brian W
>
> Since the bereaucrats love so many rules, why not make another and let
> Gliders and ballons use PLB's like SPOT since in our sport we often
> have support crews that will monitor our progress in any case, making
> SPOT a very convenient tool for us and our crews.
>
> Ray.

First a SPOT is *not* a PLB. A PLB is a specific device regulated by
the FCC that transmits on 406 MHz to COAPAS-SARSAT (and also a 121.5
homing becon). It is essentially a lower power, smaller, manually
activated 406 MHz ELT.

SPOT is a private service run by Globalstar. The (multi-)government
service is COSPAS-SARSAT and that provides pretty impressive emergency
notification service for marine (EPIRB), Aviation (ELT) and private
(PLB) use. It makes no sense for he government to promote SPOT over
SARSAT-COSPAS.

There is no federal requirement for a glider to carry an ELT. There is
an apparently well intended but badly outdated SSA contest rule that
allows a CD to require gliders to carry an ELT. The issue I have with
that is a 406 MHz PLB is likely a much better SAR alerting device than
an old 121.5 MHz ELT even if you could properly mount one in the
glider. ELTs in light aircraft have an abysmal activation failure
record, and I suspect that will be much worse in gliders with many of
them improperly mounted and the lower impact energy of many glider
crashes. SPOT tracking is great, a 10 minute position report gives you
a simple area of uncertainty roughly about the same as an old SARSAT
121.5 MHz Doppler fix, but because you can usually use the glider path
to predict the flight direction it's actually better than that. At
least it's a good start for a search operation. If the pilot can
activate "911" on their SPOT and it gets a view of the Globalstar
satellites and a GPS fix then their final position is know as well. I
prefer the redundancy of havign both SPOT and a PLB and the technical
advantages of a PLB for that ultimate distress situation, but if I am
in distress can I'll be activating 911 on my SPOT and activating my
PLB. At a minimum the old SSA contest rule for ELTs could be modified
to allow a CD if they choose to require SPOT and/or "406 MHZ PLB or
ELT carriage".

Darryl

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jun 22, 3:41*am, Scott > wrote:
> brian whatcott wrote:
> > Since satellite cover has been withdrawn for 121.5
> > (High false alert rate, poor localization)
> > 406.0 and 406.1 ELTs will be needed, following a recent FCC determination.
>
> > Brian W
>
> I can see the 406 units providing better localization, but how do they
> lower the high false alert rate? *I assume they still use a "G Switch"
> to activate?
>
> I would think that localization could be good on the 121.5 units if they
> would be made to accept GPS data and transmit lat/long data when they go
> off...

The 406 MHZ ELT or PLB may not have a GPS or may not be ale to get a
GPS fix, the position of the device is then determined by doppler
triangulation from the orbiting (non-geostationary) COASPAS-SARSAT
satellites. The higher frequency and higher spectral purity specs of
the 406 MHz transmitters enable better Doppler triangulation. A
relatively accurate Doppler fix takes several passes of these
satellites. The reception of the alert and the unique ELT or PLB
digital ID is immediate (via geostationary satellites). You get all
this by throwing away the crappy old 121.5 Mhz ELTs and replacing them
with a modern device.

If a 406 MHz PLB or ELT has a GPS unit (many low-cost PLBs do now)
then it transmits its GPS position if it has a fix and that is
immediately received by the geostationary COSPAS-SARASAT satellites.

The old 121.5Mhz devices are analog, 406 Mhz has many advantages over
121.5 MHz. The solution is to throw out the old junk and move to 406
MHz. 121.5MHz PLBs belong in a landfill, and the FCC is on the right
path here.

Darryl

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jun 22, 6:37*am, 5Z > wrote:
> On Jun 22, 12:48*am, Peter Hermann > wrote:
>
> > How to test proper functioning of 406 MHz with 118 - 136 MHz radios?
>
> The 406 ELT's still transmit on 121.5 as well. *So the FCC wants to
> get rid of 121.5 ONLY units.
>
> -Tom

And the self-test on the modern digital 406 MHz PLBs is relatively
sophisticated compared to older analog 121.5 Mhz units. You can also
listen to the 121.5 Mhz homing beacon part as Tom mentioned to make
sure that is working. But since they have a unique ID and often
tranmsit a quick GPS fix expect a visit from CAP or others if you
screw up the allowed testing.


Darryl

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jun 22, 3:47*am, Scott > wrote:
> 5Z wrote:
> > Just saw this in my inbox:
>
> >http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/FCCBans1215ELTs_202760-1.html
>
> > The Federal Communications Commission took the general aviation world
> > by surprise when it said in a recent report ...... "Were we to
> > permit continued marketing and use of 121.5 MHz ELTs ... it would
> > engender the risk that aircraft owners and operators would mistakenly
> > rely on those ELTs for the relay of distress alerts," the FCC says.
> > AOPA said today it is opposed to the rule change.
>
> OK, maybe the satellites don't monitor the 121.5 units anymore, but
> haven't commercial airliners been required to monitor 121.5 at all
> times? *I would think there are enough flight routes in the USA that
> almost all areas would be in range of an overflying jetliner to pick up
> the signal...

You can Google for past discussions on r.a.s. where 121.5 MHz
monitoring has been discussed ad nauseum. Basically many airlines,
corporate flight departments, military (where equipped) and other
aircraft do guard 121.5 Mhz.

An aircraft monitoring 121.5 MHz may hear an 121.5 Mhz ELT - but if
that ELT is 121.5 MHz only it has no way to work out where the ELT is
located. You then have to launch a SAR operation to try to triangulate
that signal. We need to stop putting that silly workload on SAR
organizations and replace 121.5MHz ELTs with 406 MHz ELTs and PLBs.

Probably worth to keep reminding people that since a 406 MHZ ELT and
406 MHZ PLBs also transmit a 121.5 MHZ homing beacon if you think a
fellow pilot may be in distress you can listen for that sweep tone
sound on 121.5 Mhz. In the USA the PLB will also have a morse code
"P" (dit dah dah dit) added to the signal -- the FCC wanted that
because they thought there would be lots of false PLB activations,
that seems to have turned out not to be the case. At least that will
let you know id somebody has activated an ELT or PLB (the morse code
"P" will let you know for sure it is a PLB). Assuming the pilot is
smart and has a 406 MHZ PLB or ELT then their position has already/is
being worked out by COSPAS-SARSAT and your job is to contact the
county sheriff or similar authorities and let them know a pilot is in
distress and has activated their ELT or PLB.


Darryl

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jun 22, 3:51*am, Scott > wrote:
> Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > I'd much rather have a manually activated PLB instead of an ELT -- and
> > personally I use a SPOT tacker in tracking mode to provide a rough
> > last-known position that does not rely in impact activation or being
> > physically able to active a PLB.
>
> > Darryl
>
> Are these 406 units ONLY activated manually? *If so, what if a guy is
> too busy flying the plane and forgets to activate the 406 unit? *If
> that's the only way to set one off, the rescue rate may be less than the
> 121.5 units...

A 406 MHz ELT is impact activated. This requires the unit to be
properly mounted, the crash to have sufficient energy to trigger the
ELT and you also need apparently a lot of luck since correct
activation rates are pretty low (~20%?) in GA aircraft. And false
alarms (especially on older 121.5 Mhz ELTs) are high. But stats are
hard to get, and we need to be careful about comparing different
generation ELTs. I expect worse in many glider installs.

With a PLB post crash and/or landing you need to manually activate a
PLB. Trying to activate on in the air with their fold out antennas is
going to be difficult. If you can move then putting the unit flat on
the ground away form obstructions will likely produce a better signal
than many of the very bad ELT antenna installs I've seen in gliders.
Modern 406 MHz ELTs are required to be activated from a panel switch.
Older ELTs (without that switch) if they did not automatically
activate on impact may require more effort to get to and activate than
manually activating a PLB. If you cannot manually activate the PLB you
may be dead. While finding a fatal crash victim, especially with least
danger exposure to SAR personal, is important. A SPOT messenger with
tracking is a great start for that case.

There are SAR experts like Doug Ritter who keep trying to emphasize
that since ELT activation is so unreliable that a PLB is actually
better than an ELT. Carry a PLB first and maybe have an ELT as backup
for that, not the other way around.

Darryl

[[email protected]]

On Jun 22, 11:43*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Jun 22, 7:32*am, jb92563 > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 21, 4:01*pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
>
> > > Since satellite cover has been withdrawn for 121.5
> > > (High false alert rate, poor localization)
> > > 406.0 and 406.1 ELTs will be needed, following a recent FCC determination.
>
> > > Brian W
>
> > Since the bereaucrats love so many rules, why not make another and let
> > Gliders and ballons use PLB's like SPOT since in our sport we often
> > have support crews that will monitor our progress in any case, making
> > SPOT a very convenient tool for us and our crews.
>
> > Ray.
>
> First a SPOT is *not* a PLB. A PLB is a specific device regulated by
> the FCC that transmits on 406 MHz to COAPAS-SARSAT (and also a 121.5
> homing becon). It is essentially a lower power, smaller, manually
> activated 406 MHz ELT.
>
> SPOT is a private service run by Globalstar. The (multi-)government
> service is COSPAS-SARSAT and that provides pretty impressive emergency
> notification service for marine (EPIRB), Aviation (ELT) and private
> (PLB) use. It makes no sense for he government to promote SPOT over
> SARSAT-COSPAS.
>
> There is no federal requirement for a glider to carry an ELT. There is
> an apparently well intended but badly outdated SSA contest rule that
> allows a CD to require gliders to carry an ELT. The issue I have with
> that is a 406 MHz PLB is likely a much better SAR alerting device than
> an old 121.5 MHz ELT even if you could properly mount one in the
> glider. ELTs in light aircraft have an abysmal activation failure
> record, and I suspect that will be much worse in gliders with many of
> them improperly mounted and the lower impact energy of many glider
> crashes. SPOT tracking is great, a 10 minute position report gives you
> a simple area of uncertainty roughly about the same as an old SARSAT
> 121.5 MHz Doppler fix, but because you can usually use the glider path
> to predict the flight direction it's actually better than that. At
> least it's a good start for a search operation. If the pilot can
> activate "911" on their SPOT and it gets a view of the Globalstar
> satellites and a GPS fix then their final position is know as well. I
> prefer the redundancy of havign both SPOT and a PLB and the technical
> advantages of a PLB for that ultimate distress situation, but if I am
> in distress can I'll be activating 911 on my SPOT and activating my
> PLB. At a minimum the old SSA contest rule for ELTs could be modified
> to allow a CD if they choose to require SPOT and/or "406 MHZ PLB or
> ELT carriage".
>
> Darryl

SSA competition rules provide the option for contest organizers to
require these types of devices. Currently, if a glider is impact ELT
equipped, it will satisfy this requirement. Organizers may also permit
SPOT as an alternative to impact activated ELT's , but currently can't
require SPOT instead of impact actiaved ELT's. The rules continue to
evolve as capabilities change.
The Contest Committee is on record as strongly suggesting use of some
kind of safety device by all participants.
I currently have a 121.5 impact activated ELT, 406 PL, and SPOT.
Something should work.
UH
SSA Competition Rules Committee Chair

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jun 22, 1:13Â*pm, wrote:
> On Jun 22, 11:43Â*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 7:32Â*am, jb92563 > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 21, 4:01Â*pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
>
> > > > Since satellite cover has been withdrawn for 121.5
> > > > (High false alert rate, poor localization)
> > > > 406.0 and 406.1 ELTs will be needed, following a recent FCC determination.
>
> > > > Brian W
>
> > > Since the bereaucrats love so many rules, why not make another and let
> > > Gliders and ballons use PLB's like SPOT since in our sport we often
> > > have support crews that will monitor our progress in any case, making
> > > SPOT a very convenient tool for us and our crews.
>
> > > Ray.
>
> > First a SPOT is *not* a PLB. A PLB is a specific device regulated by
> > the FCC that transmits on 406 MHz to COAPAS-SARSAT (and also a 121.5
> > homing becon). It is essentially a lower power, smaller, manually
> > activated 406 MHz ELT.
>
> > SPOT is a private service run by Globalstar. The (multi-)government
> > service is COSPAS-SARSAT and that provides pretty impressive emergency
> > notification service for marine (EPIRB), Aviation (ELT) and private
> > (PLB) use. It makes no sense for he government to promote SPOT over
> > SARSAT-COSPAS.
>
> > There is no federal requirement for a glider to carry an ELT. There is
> > an apparently well intended but badly outdated SSA contest rule that
> > allows a CD to require gliders to carry an ELT. The issue I have with
> > that is a 406 MHz PLB is likely a much better SAR alerting device than
> > an old 121.5 MHz ELT even if you could properly mount one in the
> > glider. ELTs in light aircraft have an abysmal activation failure
> > record, and I suspect that will be much worse in gliders with many of
> > them improperly mounted and the lower impact energy of many glider
> > crashes. SPOT tracking is great, a 10 minute position report gives you
> > a simple area of uncertainty roughly about the same as an old SARSAT
> > 121.5 MHz Doppler fix, but because you can usually use the glider path
> > to predict the flight direction it's actually better than that. At
> > least it's a good start for a search operation. If the pilot can
> > activate "911" on their SPOT and it gets a view of the Globalstar
> > satellites and a GPS fix then their final position is know as well. I
> > prefer the redundancy of havign both SPOT and a PLB and the technical
> > advantages of a PLB for that ultimate distress situation, but if I am
> > in distress can I'll be activating 911 on my SPOT and activating my
> > PLB. At a minimum the old SSA contest rule for ELTs could be modified
> > to allow a CD if they choose to require SPOT and/or "406 MHZ PLB or
> > ELT carriage".
>
> > Darryl
>
> SSA competition rules provide the option for contest organizers to
> require these types of devices. Currently, if a glider is impact ELT
> equipped, it will satisfy this requirement. Organizers may also permit
> SPOT as an alternative to impact activated ELT's , but currently can't
> require SPOT instead of impact actiaved ELT's. The rules continue to
> evolve as capabilities change.
> The Contest Committee is on record as strongly suggesting use of some
> kind of safety device by all participants.
> I currently have a 121.5 impact activated ELT, 406 PL, and SPOT.
> Something should work.
> UH
> SSA Competition Rules Committee Chair

Uh actually, while this has changed a bit for the better the rules
still have problems, especially with respect to not encouraging use of
406 MHZ PLB devices. Here is the corresponding part of the 2010 Sport
Class Regionals Rules...

>>>>

6.5.2 ‡ Emergency Location Devices
Emergency Location Devices are electronic devices that may be used to
assist in locating downed sailplanes. Each must be a standard
production model produced in quantity by a reputable manufacturer.
6.5.2.1 ‡ The following categories of Emergency Location Devices are
recognized:
6.5.2.1.1 ‡ Type 1: Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) - an impact-
activated beacon conforming to FAA TSO C91, C91a or
C126.
6.5.2.1.2 ‡ Type 2: Position tracker - a device that without pilot
action transmits regular reports of an aircraft's in-flight position
in
such a way that these reports are readily available to contest
officials in near real time.
6.5.2.2 ‡ When announced on the Application For Sanction form, a
device in one of these categories (as specified by contest
organizers) shall be required in every sailplane. When Type 2 devices
are specified, a Type 1 device shall be considered an
acceptable substitute.
6.5.2.3 ‡ Notwithstanding other provisions within these Rules,
Emergency Location Devices shall not be considered proscribed 2-
way communication devices Rule 6.6.3.

>>>


Here the SSA is calling out impact activated ELTs for possible
requirement for a contest. There is no allowance in these rules for a
406 MHz PLB. A PLB is certainly not impact activated (and whether an
ELT will anywhere near reliably impact activate is a big IF). An PLB
is also not manufactured to meet TSO requirements - they do meet
strict FCC and RTCM requirements (Radio Technical Commission for
Marine Services - yes I know they are not for Marine use, but that is
where the specs come from). Especially when considering the rules
allow crappy old 121.5 Mhz only ELTs -- jeez even TSO C91 devices that
are really antiquated and often problematic. There is no sane way to
argue that a modern 406 MHz PLB should not be allowed in this list.
I've tried to point out this silliness in the SSA rules in the past,
it now allows SPOT trackers, great, but it still does not allow a PLB
and continues to allow really old 121.5 MHz piece of crap ELTs.

So do you agree this is a problem? Anybody going to look at fixing
this?


Darryl

[Brian[_1_]]

On Jun 22, 3:35Â*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Jun 22, 1:13Â*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 11:43Â*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 22, 7:32Â*am, jb92563 > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 21, 4:01Â*pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
>
> > > > > Since satellite cover has been withdrawn for 121.5
> > > > > (High false alert rate, poor localization)
> > > > > 406.0 and 406.1 ELTs will be needed, following a recent FCC determination.
>
> > > > > Brian W
>
> > > > Since the bereaucrats love so many rules, why not make another and let
> > > > Gliders and ballons use PLB's like SPOT since in our sport we often
> > > > have support crews that will monitor our progress in any case, making
> > > > SPOT a very convenient tool for us and our crews.
>
> > > > Ray.
>
> > > First a SPOT is *not* a PLB. A PLB is a specific device regulated by
> > > the FCC that transmits on 406 MHz to COAPAS-SARSAT (and also a 121.5
> > > homing becon). It is essentially a lower power, smaller, manually
> > > activated 406 MHz ELT.
>
> > > SPOT is a private service run by Globalstar. The (multi-)government
> > > service is COSPAS-SARSAT and that provides pretty impressive emergency
> > > notification service for marine (EPIRB), Aviation (ELT) and private
> > > (PLB) use. It makes no sense for he government to promote SPOT over
> > > SARSAT-COSPAS.
>
> > > There is no federal requirement for a glider to carry an ELT. There is
> > > an apparently well intended but badly outdated SSA contest rule that
> > > allows a CD to require gliders to carry an ELT. The issue I have with
> > > that is a 406 MHz PLB is likely a much better SAR alerting device than
> > > an old 121.5 MHz ELT even if you could properly mount one in the
> > > glider. ELTs in light aircraft have an abysmal activation failure
> > > record, and I suspect that will be much worse in gliders with many of
> > > them improperly mounted and the lower impact energy of many glider
> > > crashes. SPOT tracking is great, a 10 minute position report gives you
> > > a simple area of uncertainty roughly about the same as an old SARSAT
> > > 121.5 MHz Doppler fix, but because you can usually use the glider path
> > > to predict the flight direction it's actually better than that. At
> > > least it's a good start for a search operation. If the pilot can
> > > activate "911" on their SPOT and it gets a view of the Globalstar
> > > satellites and a GPS fix then their final position is know as well. I
> > > prefer the redundancy of havign both SPOT and a PLB and the technical
> > > advantages of a PLB for that ultimate distress situation, but if I am
> > > in distress can I'll be activating 911 on my SPOT and activating my
> > > PLB. At a minimum the old SSA contest rule for ELTs could be modified
> > > to allow a CD if they choose to require SPOT and/or "406 MHZ PLB or
> > > ELT carriage".
>
> > > Darryl
>
> > SSA competition rules provide the option for contest organizers to
> > require these types of devices. Currently, if a glider is impact ELT
> > equipped, it will satisfy this requirement. Organizers may also permit
> > SPOT as an alternative to impact activated ELT's , but currently can't
> > require SPOT instead of impact actiaved ELT's. The rules continue to
> > evolve as capabilities change.
> > The Contest Committee is on record as strongly suggesting use of some
> > kind of safety device by all participants.
> > I currently have a 121.5 impact activated ELT, 406 PL, and SPOT.
> > Something should work.
> > UH
> > SSA Competition Rules Committee Chair
>
> Uh actually, while this has changed a bit for the better the rules
> still have problems, especially with respect to not encouraging use of
> 406 MHZ PLB devices. Here is the corresponding part of the 2010 Sport
> Class Regionals Rules...
>
>
>
> 6.5.2 ‡ Emergency Location Devices
> Emergency Location Devices are electronic devices that may be used to
> assist in locating downed sailplanes. Each must be a standard
> production model produced in quantity by a reputable manufacturer.
> 6.5.2.1 ‡ The following categories of Emergency Location Devices are
> recognized:
> 6.5.2.1.1 ‡ Type 1: Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) - an impact-
> activated beacon conforming to FAA TSO C91, C91a or
> C126.
> 6.5.2.1.2 ‡ Type 2: Position tracker - a device that without pilot
> action transmits regular reports of an aircraft's in-flight position
> in
> such a way that these reports are readily available to contest
> officials in near real time.
> 6.5.2.2 ‡ When announced on the Application For Sanction form, a
> device in one of these categories (as specified by contest
> organizers) shall be required in every sailplane. When Type 2 devices
> are specified, a Type 1 device shall be considered an
> acceptable substitute.
> 6.5.2.3 ‡ Notwithstanding other provisions within these Rules,
> Emergency Location Devices shall not be considered proscribed 2-
> way communication devices Rule 6.6.3.
>
>
>
> Here the SSA is calling out impact activated ELTs for possible
> requirement for a contest. There is no allowance in these rules for a
> 406 MHz PLB. Â*A PLB is certainly not impact activated (and whether an
> ELT will anywhere near reliably impact activate is a big IF). An PLB
> is also not manufactured to meet TSO requirements - they do meet
> strict FCC and RTCM requirements (Radio Technical Commission for
> Marine Services - yes I know they are not for Marine use, but that is
> where the specs come from). Especially when considering the rules
> allow crappy old 121.5 Mhz only ELTs -- jeez even TSO C91 devices that
> are really antiquated and often problematic. There is no sane way to
> argue that a modern 406 MHz PLB should not be allowed in this list.
> I've tried to point out this silliness in the SSA rules in the past,
> it now allows SPOT trackers, great, but it still does not allow a PLB
> and continues to allow really old 121.5 MHz piece of crap ELTs.
>
> So do you agree this is a problem? Anybody going to look at fixing
> this?
>
> Darryl- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I think not including PLB's was intentional. The problem with a PLB is
that in the accident that initiated this rule the PLB would not have
helped since it does not actively transmit its position nor does it
automatically activate upon impact.
The accident that initated this rule was an instantanously fatal
accident in a remote area where the glider would like have not been
found for perhaps years. However since the glider had a functioning
ELT it was found relatively quickly saving much time and effort of the
contest organizers and S&R Teams.

The point being this rule isn't for the pilots it is for the Contest
organizers and ground crews.

Brian

[Tim Mara]

Typical government bureaucracy I don't believe the FCC has thought this
through very thoroughly...in "banning" the use of 121.5 they have also
rendered almost all 406 Mhz ELT's currently on the market as "illegal"
should this pass...almost every new 406MhZ ELT is Dual band, or triple band
and transmits on 121.5/243.0 and 406.0 MHz).
Unless they change the wording this issue is already dead in the water.
tim
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com

> wrote in message
...
On Jun 22, 11:43 am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Jun 22, 7:32 am, jb92563 > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 21, 4:01 pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
>
> > > Since satellite cover has been withdrawn for 121.5
> > > (High false alert rate, poor localization)
> > > 406.0 and 406.1 ELTs will be needed, following a recent FCC
> > > determination.
>
> > > Brian W
>
> > Since the bereaucrats love so many rules, why not make another and let
> > Gliders and ballons use PLB's like SPOT since in our sport we often
> > have support crews that will monitor our progress in any case, making
> > SPOT a very convenient tool for us and our crews.
>
> > Ray.
>
> First a SPOT is *not* a PLB. A PLB is a specific device regulated by
> the FCC that transmits on 406 MHz to COAPAS-SARSAT (and also a 121.5
> homing becon). It is essentially a lower power, smaller, manually
> activated 406 MHz ELT.
>
> SPOT is a private service run by Globalstar. The (multi-)government
> service is COSPAS-SARSAT and that provides pretty impressive emergency
> notification service for marine (EPIRB), Aviation (ELT) and private
> (PLB) use. It makes no sense for he government to promote SPOT over
> SARSAT-COSPAS.
>
> There is no federal requirement for a glider to carry an ELT. There is
> an apparently well intended but badly outdated SSA contest rule that
> allows a CD to require gliders to carry an ELT. The issue I have with
> that is a 406 MHz PLB is likely a much better SAR alerting device than
> an old 121.5 MHz ELT even if you could properly mount one in the
> glider. ELTs in light aircraft have an abysmal activation failure
> record, and I suspect that will be much worse in gliders with many of
> them improperly mounted and the lower impact energy of many glider
> crashes. SPOT tracking is great, a 10 minute position report gives you
> a simple area of uncertainty roughly about the same as an old SARSAT
> 121.5 MHz Doppler fix, but because you can usually use the glider path
> to predict the flight direction it's actually better than that. At
> least it's a good start for a search operation. If the pilot can
> activate "911" on their SPOT and it gets a view of the Globalstar
> satellites and a GPS fix then their final position is know as well. I
> prefer the redundancy of havign both SPOT and a PLB and the technical
> advantages of a PLB for that ultimate distress situation, but if I am
> in distress can I'll be activating 911 on my SPOT and activating my
> PLB. At a minimum the old SSA contest rule for ELTs could be modified
> to allow a CD if they choose to require SPOT and/or "406 MHZ PLB or
> ELT carriage".
>
> Darryl

SSA competition rules provide the option for contest organizers to
require these types of devices. Currently, if a glider is impact ELT
equipped, it will satisfy this requirement. Organizers may also permit
SPOT as an alternative to impact activated ELT's , but currently can't
require SPOT instead of impact actiaved ELT's. The rules continue to
evolve as capabilities change.
The Contest Committee is on record as strongly suggesting use of some
kind of safety device by all participants.
I currently have a 121.5 impact activated ELT, 406 PL, and SPOT.
Something should work.
UH
SSA Competition Rules Committee Chair

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 5219 (20100622) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com





__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5219 (20100622) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

[Scott[_7_]]

Peter Hermann wrote:
> Scott > wrote:
>> to UHF, it will solve that problem. Until then, you'll either have to
>
> interesting solution.
> remains the question whether UHF has better
> physical characteristics of range and quality.
> ...and what about affordability.

As a ham radio operator, I have noticed that the 902 MHz band seems to
have vast improvement in conversing via radio over an obstructed path
(trees. leaves, etc.) than at 430 MHz. Unfortunately, the 902 MHz band
is loaded with unlicensed stuff that might interfere...of course, with
satellite detection, obstructions are generally overcome since the
satellite are "overhead" instead of through miles of forest...

[Scott[_7_]]

5Z wrote:
> On Jun 22, 12:48 am, Peter Hermann > wrote:
>> How to test proper functioning of 406 MHz with 118 - 136 MHz radios?
>
> The 406 ELT's still transmit on 121.5 as well. So the FCC wants to
> get rid of 121.5 ONLY units.
>
> -Tom

Phew! I dodged a bullet! My ELT transmits on 121.5 and 243, so I'm good ;)

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jun 22, 3:45Â*pm, Brian > wrote:
> On Jun 22, 3:35Â*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 1:13Â*pm, wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 22, 11:43Â*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 22, 7:32Â*am, jb92563 > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 21, 4:01Â*pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Since satellite cover has been withdrawn for 121.5
> > > > > > (High false alert rate, poor localization)
> > > > > > 406.0 and 406.1 ELTs will be needed, following a recent FCC determination.
>
> > > > > > Brian W
>
> > > > > Since the bereaucrats love so many rules, why not make another and let
> > > > > Gliders and ballons use PLB's like SPOT since in our sport we often
> > > > > have support crews that will monitor our progress in any case, making
> > > > > SPOT a very convenient tool for us and our crews.
>
> > > > > Ray.
>
> > > > First a SPOT is *not* a PLB. A PLB is a specific device regulated by
> > > > the FCC that transmits on 406 MHz to COAPAS-SARSAT (and also a 121.5
> > > > homing becon). It is essentially a lower power, smaller, manually
> > > > activated 406 MHz ELT.
>
> > > > SPOT is a private service run by Globalstar. The (multi-)government
> > > > service is COSPAS-SARSAT and that provides pretty impressive emergency
> > > > notification service for marine (EPIRB), Aviation (ELT) and private
> > > > (PLB) use. It makes no sense for he government to promote SPOT over
> > > > SARSAT-COSPAS.
>
> > > > There is no federal requirement for a glider to carry an ELT. There is
> > > > an apparently well intended but badly outdated SSA contest rule that
> > > > allows a CD to require gliders to carry an ELT. The issue I have with
> > > > that is a 406 MHz PLB is likely a much better SAR alerting device than
> > > > an old 121.5 MHz ELT even if you could properly mount one in the
> > > > glider. ELTs in light aircraft have an abysmal activation failure
> > > > record, and I suspect that will be much worse in gliders with many of
> > > > them improperly mounted and the lower impact energy of many glider
> > > > crashes. SPOT tracking is great, a 10 minute position report gives you
> > > > a simple area of uncertainty roughly about the same as an old SARSAT
> > > > 121.5 MHz Doppler fix, but because you can usually use the glider path
> > > > to predict the flight direction it's actually better than that. At
> > > > least it's a good start for a search operation. If the pilot can
> > > > activate "911" on their SPOT and it gets a view of the Globalstar
> > > > satellites and a GPS fix then their final position is know as well. I
> > > > prefer the redundancy of havign both SPOT and a PLB and the technical
> > > > advantages of a PLB for that ultimate distress situation, but if I am
> > > > in distress can I'll be activating 911 on my SPOT and activating my
> > > > PLB. At a minimum the old SSA contest rule for ELTs could be modified
> > > > to allow a CD if they choose to require SPOT and/or "406 MHZ PLB or
> > > > ELT carriage".
>
> > > > Darryl
>
> > > SSA competition rules provide the option for contest organizers to
> > > require these types of devices. Currently, if a glider is impact ELT
> > > equipped, it will satisfy this requirement. Organizers may also permit
> > > SPOT as an alternative to impact activated ELT's , but currently can't
> > > require SPOT instead of impact actiaved ELT's. The rules continue to
> > > evolve as capabilities change.
> > > The Contest Committee is on record as strongly suggesting use of some
> > > kind of safety device by all participants.
> > > I currently have a 121.5 impact activated ELT, 406 PL, and SPOT.
> > > Something should work.
> > > UH
> > > SSA Competition Rules Committee Chair
>
> > Uh actually, while this has changed a bit for the better the rules
> > still have problems, especially with respect to not encouraging use of
> > 406 MHZ PLB devices. Here is the corresponding part of the 2010 Sport
> > Class Regionals Rules...
>
> > 6.5.2 ‡ Emergency Location Devices
> > Emergency Location Devices are electronic devices that may be used to
> > assist in locating downed sailplanes. Each must be a standard
> > production model produced in quantity by a reputable manufacturer.
> > 6.5.2.1 ‡ The following categories of Emergency Location Devices are
> > recognized:
> > 6.5.2.1.1 ‡ Type 1: Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) - an impact-
> > activated beacon conforming to FAA TSO C91, C91a or
> > C126.
> > 6.5.2.1.2 ‡ Type 2: Position tracker - a device that without pilot
> > action transmits regular reports of an aircraft's in-flight position
> > in
> > such a way that these reports are readily available to contest
> > officials in near real time.
> > 6.5.2.2 ‡ When announced on the Application For Sanction form, a
> > device in one of these categories (as specified by contest
> > organizers) shall be required in every sailplane. When Type 2 devices
> > are specified, a Type 1 device shall be considered an
> > acceptable substitute.
> > 6.5.2.3 ‡ Notwithstanding other provisions within these Rules,
> > Emergency Location Devices shall not be considered proscribed 2-
> > way communication devices Rule 6.6.3.
>
> > Here the SSA is calling out impact activated ELTs for possible
> > requirement for a contest. There is no allowance in these rules for a
> > 406 MHz PLB. Â*A PLB is certainly not impact activated (and whether an
> > ELT will anywhere near reliably impact activate is a big IF). An PLB
> > is also not manufactured to meet TSO requirements - they do meet
> > strict FCC and RTCM requirements (Radio Technical Commission for
> > Marine Services - yes I know they are not for Marine use, but that is
> > where the specs come from). Especially when considering the rules
> > allow crappy old 121.5 Mhz only ELTs -- jeez even TSO C91 devices that
> > are really antiquated and often problematic. There is no sane way to
> > argue that a modern 406 MHz PLB should not be allowed in this list.
> > I've tried to point out this silliness in the SSA rules in the past,
> > it now allows SPOT trackers, great, but it still does not allow a PLB
> > and continues to allow really old 121.5 MHz piece of crap ELTs.
>
> > So do you agree this is a problem? Anybody going to look at fixing
> > this?
>
> > Darryl- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I think not including PLB's was intentional. The problem with a PLB is
> that in the accident that initiated this rule the PLB would not have
> helped since it does not actively transmit its position nor does it
> automatically activate upon impact.
> The accident that initated this rule was an instantanously fatal
> accident in a remote area where the glider would like have not been
> found for perhaps years. However since the glider had a functioning
> ELT it was found relatively quickly saving much time and effort of the
> contest organizers and S&R Teams.
>
> The point being this rule isn't for the pilots it is for the Contest
> organizers and ground crews.
>
> Brian

If so I think this is a misguided reason for getting where thing are.
The goal should be to provide the best SAR alert/location tools
possible at reasonable cost.

Again, the activation of ELTs is problematic. The installation of many
ELTs in gliders is problematic (both antenna placement and physical
mounting). The effect of both of those is ELT provides much less
effective SAR alerting capability than people think--that it worked
once should not drive this strategy.

With the termination of COSPAS-SARSAT monitoring the old 121.5MHz only
ELTs provide awful SAR location capabilities, you need DF equipped
aircraft on site or SAR personnel on the ground. What an awful waste
of time and resources and you may not get them on station in time to
find and save the pilot. Encouraging use of 121.5 MHz ELTs is not
good, including exposing SAR personnel to increased search time and
danger as a result of this. The termination of COSPAS-SARSAT 121.5MHz
monitoring and the availability of low-code 406 MHz PLBs is not
something that happened yesterday, the ELT/PLB part of these rules
seem quite out of date.


Darryl

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jun 22, 4:03*pm, Scott > wrote:
> 5Z wrote:
> > On Jun 22, 12:48 am, Peter Hermann > wrote:
> >> How to test proper functioning of 406 MHz with 118 - 136 MHz radios?
>
> > The 406 ELT's still transmit on 121.5 as well. *So the FCC wants to
> > get rid of 121.5 ONLY units.
>
> > -Tom
>
> Phew! *I dodged a bullet! *My ELT transmits on 121.5 and 243, so I'm good ;)

Probably not actually. They want you on 406 MHz.

Darryl

[Brian Whatcott]

Peter Hermann wrote:
> Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>> For gliders ELT seem very problematic, too hard to mount, antennas
>
> Moreover:
> How to test proper functioning of 406 MHz with 118 - 136 MHz radios?
>

I could be wrong - after just one read through of the regs. But I think
the answer is: "In the usual way" (usual in the US anyway).
Take the ELT out, and strike it on a tire, after noting the allowable
time window. The 406 ELT gives an audio alert, and squawks on 121.5 too.

Brian W

[Brian Whatcott]

Scott wrote:
> brian whatcott wrote:
>> Since satellite cover has been withdrawn for 121.5
>> (High false alert rate, poor localization)
>> 406.0 and 406.1 ELTs will be needed, following a recent FCC
>> determination.
>>
>> Brian W
>
> I can see the 406 units providing better localization, but how do they
> lower the high false alert rate? I assume they still use a "G Switch"
> to activate?
>
> I would think that localization could be good on the 121.5 units if they
> would be made to accept GPS data and transmit lat/long data when they go
> off...

The rationale seems to go like this: the 406 spec is for 4 watts min on
the UHF (Oh, alright >= 17dBm) pulsed for nearly 1/2 second per 50 secs
or so for the following 48 to 50 hours... It emits a traceable
signature, which can quickly be associated with a particular aircraft,
so that tracing a likely route is enabled.
The 121.5 continuous signal can help with close in location.
There are apparently as many as nine G-switches built in.
They say the rescue rates on 406 alerts have been MUCH better than 121.5
alerts.

Brian W

[Brian Whatcott]

T8 wrote:
> On Jun 21, 7:01 pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
>> Since satellite cover has been withdrawn for 121.5
>> (High false alert rate, poor localization)
>> 406.0 and 406.1 ELTs will be needed, following a recent FCC determination.
>>
>> Brian W
>
> So does that mean that we'll all have to disable the 121.5 MHz output
> on our 406(.1) ELTs?
>
> Our tax dollars busily at work, again.
>
> 121.5 is still used (exclusively, unless there are recent developments
> I'm unaware of) for DF equipment by CAP. Don't suppose they were
> consulted.
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8

It appears that the frequency mix is to be 121.5 + 406.~, but not
121.5 + 243. 121.5 df should remain useful. And CAP will get the
opportunity to rescue pilots in distress, not chase false alarms.
Just ask them about false alerts...

Brian W

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jun 22, 3:53*pm, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
> Typical government bureaucracy I don't believe the FCC has thought this
> through very thoroughly...in "banning" the use of 121.5 they have also
> rendered almost all 406 Mhz ELT's currently on the market as "illegal"
> should this pass...almost every new 406MhZ ELT is Dual band, or triple band
> and transmits on 121.5/243.0 and 406.0 MHz).
> Unless they change the wording this issue is already dead in the water.
> tim
> Please visit the Wings & Wheels website atwww.wingsandwheels.com
>
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Jun 22, 11:43 am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 7:32 am, jb92563 > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 21, 4:01 pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
>
> > > > Since satellite cover has been withdrawn for 121.5
> > > > (High false alert rate, poor localization)
> > > > 406.0 and 406.1 ELTs will be needed, following a recent FCC
> > > > determination.
>
> > > > Brian W
>
> > > Since the bereaucrats love so many rules, why not make another and let
> > > Gliders and ballons use PLB's like SPOT since in our sport we often
> > > have support crews that will monitor our progress in any case, making
> > > SPOT a very convenient tool for us and our crews.
>
> > > Ray.
>
> > First a SPOT is *not* a PLB. A PLB is a specific device regulated by
> > the FCC that transmits on 406 MHz to COAPAS-SARSAT (and also a 121.5
> > homing becon). It is essentially a lower power, smaller, manually
> > activated 406 MHz ELT.
>
> > SPOT is a private service run by Globalstar. The (multi-)government
> > service is COSPAS-SARSAT and that provides pretty impressive emergency
> > notification service for marine (EPIRB), Aviation (ELT) and private
> > (PLB) use. It makes no sense for he government to promote SPOT over
> > SARSAT-COSPAS.
>
> > There is no federal requirement for a glider to carry an ELT. There is
> > an apparently well intended but badly outdated SSA contest rule that
> > allows a CD to require gliders to carry an ELT. The issue I have with
> > that is a 406 MHz PLB is likely a much better SAR alerting device than
> > an old 121.5 MHz ELT even if you could properly mount one in the
> > glider. ELTs in light aircraft have an abysmal activation failure
> > record, and I suspect that will be much worse in gliders with many of
> > them improperly mounted and the lower impact energy of many glider
> > crashes. SPOT tracking is great, a 10 minute position report gives you
> > a simple area of uncertainty roughly about the same as an old SARSAT
> > 121.5 MHz Doppler fix, but because you can usually use the glider path
> > to predict the flight direction it's actually better than that. At
> > least it's a good start for a search operation. If the pilot can
> > activate "911" on their SPOT and it gets a view of the Globalstar
> > satellites and a GPS fix then their final position is know as well. I
> > prefer the redundancy of havign both SPOT and a PLB and the technical
> > advantages of a PLB for that ultimate distress situation, but if I am
> > in distress can I'll be activating 911 on my SPOT and activating my
> > PLB. At a minimum the old SSA contest rule for ELTs could be modified
> > to allow a CD if they choose to require SPOT and/or "406 MHZ PLB or
> > ELT carriage".
>
> > Darryl
>
> SSA competition rules provide the option for contest organizers to
> require these types of devices. Currently, if a glider is impact ELT
> equipped, it will satisfy this requirement. Organizers may also permit
> SPOT as an alternative to impact activated ELT's , but currently can't
> require SPOT instead of impact actiaved ELT's. The rules continue to
> evolve as capabilities change.
> The Contest Committee is on record as strongly suggesting use of some
> kind of safety device by all participants.
> I currently have a 121.5 impact activated ELT, 406 PL, and SPOT.
> Something should work.
> UH
> SSA Competition Rules Committee Chair
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
> database 5219 (20100622) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5219 (20100622) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com

We'll have to see the final 47 CFR part 87 wording is but the FCC is
well aware of ELT technology. People are reading too much into casual
language used by the FCC in a notice of rule changes. They are
essentially doing the same thing to 121.5 Mhz ELTs as they did to
121.5MHz marine EPIRBS. As much as it is easy to beleive at times that
the Feds are incomepetent, the FCC clearly understand that a 406 MHz
ELTs, PLBs and EPIRBs also transmit on 121.5 Mhz.

Darryl

[Brian Whatcott]

Peter Hermann wrote:
> Scott > wrote:
>> to UHF, it will solve that problem. Until then, you'll either have to
>
> interesting solution.
> remains the question whether UHF has better
> physical characteristics of range and quality.
> ...and what about affordability.

Ouch! That's the hot button: $600 but mostly $1200 on up....

Brian W

[Brian Whatcott]

jb92563 wrote:
> On Jun 21, 4:01 pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
>> Since satellite cover has been withdrawn for 121.5
>> (High false alert rate, poor localization)
>> 406.0 and 406.1 ELTs will be needed, following a recent FCC determination.
>>
>> Brian W
>
> Since the bereaucrats love so many rules, why not make another and let
> Gliders and ballons use PLB's like SPOT since in our sport we often
> have support crews that will monitor our progress in any case, making
> SPOT a very convenient tool for us and our crews.
>
> Ray.

Apparently glider pilots are not obliged to carry ELTs.
A cell phone, spot, EPIRB, ADS-B, FLARM are some other options
I have heard about...

Brian W

[Brian Whatcott]

Scott wrote:
> 5Z wrote:
>> On Jun 22, 12:48 am, Peter Hermann > wrote:
>>> How to test proper functioning of 406 MHz with 118 - 136 MHz radios?
>>
>> The 406 ELT's still transmit on 121.5 as well. So the FCC wants to
>> get rid of 121.5 ONLY units.
>>
>> -Tom
>
> Phew! I dodged a bullet! My ELT transmits on 121.5 and 243, so I'm
> good ;)
>


Yours and all the other old 121.5 ELTs, I fancy.... :-)

Brian W

[BT[_3_]]

they are not, but many do


"brian whatcott" > wrote in message
...
> jb92563 wrote:
>> On Jun 21, 4:01 pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
>>> Since satellite cover has been withdrawn for 121.5
>>> (High false alert rate, poor localization)
>>> 406.0 and 406.1 ELTs will be needed, following a recent FCC
>>> determination.
>>>
>>> Brian W
>>
>> Since the bereaucrats love so many rules, why not make another and let
>> Gliders and ballons use PLB's like SPOT since in our sport we often
>> have support crews that will monitor our progress in any case, making
>> SPOT a very convenient tool for us and our crews.
>>
>> Ray.
>
> Apparently glider pilots are not obliged to carry ELTs.
> A cell phone, spot, EPIRB, ADS-B, FLARM are some other options
> I have heard about...
>
> Brian W

[Scott[_7_]]

brian whatcott wrote:

> The rationale seems to go like this: the 406 spec is for 4 watts min on
> the UHF (Oh, alright >= 17dBm) pulsed for nearly 1/2 second per 50 secs
> or so for the following 48 to 50 hours...
>
> Brian W

Huh? +17 dBm is only 50 milliwatts???

[Brian Whatcott]

Scott wrote:
> brian whatcott wrote:
>
>> The rationale seems to go like this: the 406 spec is for 4 watts min
>> on the UHF (Oh, alright >= 17dBm) pulsed for nearly 1/2 second per 50
>> secs or so for the following 48 to 50 hours...
>> Brian W
>
> Huh? +17 dBm is only 50 milliwatts???

Nice catch - 17dBm is apparently the 121.5 required component.
Try 35dBm for the 406 component.

Brian W