ELT Message From FAA

[RST Engineering]

Termination of 121.5 MHz Beacons for Satellite Alerting is Coming Soon
Notice Number: NOTC0981

On 1 February 2009, the International Cospas-Sarsat [1] Organization
(U.S. included) will terminate processing of distress signals emitted by
121.5 MHz Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs). This means that pilots
flying aircraft equipped with 121.5 MHz ELTs after that date will have
to depend on pilots of over flying aircraft and or ground stations
monitoring 121.5 to hear and report distress alert signals, transmitted
from a possible crash site.



Why is this happening?



Although lives have been saved by 121.5 MHz ELTs, the downside has been
their propensity to generate false alerts (approximately 98 percent of
all 121.5 MHz alerts are false), and their failure to provide rescue
forces with timely and accurate crash location data. Both of which
actually delay rescue efforts and have a direct effect on an
individual's chance for survival. Rescue forces have to respond to all
121.5 MHz alerts to determine if they are real distress alerts or if
they are being generated by an interferer, an inadvertent activation (by
the owner) or equipment failure.



Is there an alternative?



Yes, the Cospas-Sarsat System (U.S. included) has been and will continue
processing emergency signals transmitted by 406 MHz ELTs. These 5 Watt
digital beacons transmit a much stronger signal, are more accurate,
verifiable and traceable to the registered beacon owner (406 MHz ELTs
must be registered by the owner in accordance with Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) regulation). Registration allows the
search and rescue authorities to contact the beacon owner, or his or her
designated alternate by telephone to determine if a real emergency
exists. Therefore, a simple telephone call often solves a 406 MHz alerts
without launching costly and limited search and rescue resources, which
would have to be done for a 121.5 MHz alert. For these reasons, the
search and rescue community is encouraging aircraft owners to consider
retrofit of 406 MHz ELTs or at a minimum, consider the purchase of a
handheld 406 MHz Personal Locator Beacon (PLB) which can be carried in
the cockpit while continuing to maintain a fixed 121.5 MHz ELT mounted
in the aircraft's tail.



Remember, after February 1, 2009, the world-wide Cospas-Sarsat satellite
system will no longer process 121.5 MHz alert signals. Pilots involved
in aircraft accidents in remote areas will have to depend on pilots of
over flying aircraft and or ground stations to hear emergency ELT
distress signals. For further information concerning the termination of
121.5 MHz data processing visit www.sarsat.noaa.gov


_____

[1] The Cospas-Sarsat Organization provides a satellite based world-wide
monitoring system that detects and locates distress signals transmitted
by Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs), Emergency Position Indicating
Radio Beacons (EPIRBs) and Personal Locator Beacons (PLBs). The system
includes space and ground segments which process the signals received
from the beacon source and forwards the distress alert data to the
appropriate RescueCoordinationCenter for action.



Address SARSAT inquiries to:

NOAA SARSAT
NSOF. E/SP3
4231 SuitlandRoad
Suitland, MD 20746
Phone: 301.817.4515
Toll free: 888.212.7283
Fax: 301.817.4565

You have received this notice from FAASafety.gov because you have
selected "General Information" in your preferences on your FAASafety.gov
account. Click here to log in and edit your preferences on
FAASafety.gov. <https://www.faasafety.gov/SPANS/preferences.aspx>

Safety is a learned behavior...Learn to be safer at the Learning Center
found on FAASafety.gov
<http://www.faasafety.gov/include/lookandfeel/images/email/spacer.gif>
FAASafety.gov <http://www.faasafety.gov/> | Email Preferences
<http://www.faasafety.gov/SPANS/preferences.aspx> | Opt Out
<http://www.faasafety.gov/SPANS/optout.aspx>
Do not reply to this email as it is an unmonitored alias. Contact us
<http://www.faasafety.gov/about/contact.aspx> for comments or
questions.



--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford

[NoneYa]

Typical FAA. The FAA probably needs more money for diversity
hiring and "Kissing the Black Ass" conferences at resort
spas in Las Vegas.

Can't allow that 121.5 ELT safety stuff to interfere with that!!


RST Engineering wrote:
> Termination of 121.5 MHz Beacons for Satellite Alerting is Coming Soon
> Notice Number: NOTC0981
>
> On 1 February 2009, the International Cospas-Sarsat [1] Organization
> (U.S. included) will terminate processing of distress signals emitted by
> 121.5 MHz Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs). This means that pilots
> flying aircraft equipped with 121.5 MHz ELTs after that date will have
> to depend on pilots of over flying aircraft and or ground stations
> monitoring 121.5 to hear and report distress alert signals, transmitted
> from a possible crash site.
>
>
>
> Why is this happening?
>
>
>
> Although lives have been saved by 121.5 MHz ELTs, the downside has been
> their propensity to generate false alerts (approximately 98 percent of
> all 121.5 MHz alerts are false), and their failure to provide rescue
> forces with timely and accurate crash location data. Both of which
> actually delay rescue efforts and have a direct effect on an
> individual's chance for survival. Rescue forces have to respond to all
> 121.5 MHz alerts to determine if they are real distress alerts or if
> they are being generated by an interferer, an inadvertent activation (by
> the owner) or equipment failure.
>
>
>
> Is there an alternative?
>
>
>
> Yes, the Cospas-Sarsat System (U.S. included) has been and will continue
> processing emergency signals transmitted by 406 MHz ELTs. These 5 Watt
> digital beacons transmit a much stronger signal, are more accurate,
> verifiable and traceable to the registered beacon owner (406 MHz ELTs
> must be registered by the owner in accordance with Federal
> Communications Commission (FCC) regulation). Registration allows the
> search and rescue authorities to contact the beacon owner, or his or her
> designated alternate by telephone to determine if a real emergency
> exists. Therefore, a simple telephone call often solves a 406 MHz alerts
> without launching costly and limited search and rescue resources, which
> would have to be done for a 121.5 MHz alert. For these reasons, the
> search and rescue community is encouraging aircraft owners to consider
> retrofit of 406 MHz ELTs or at a minimum, consider the purchase of a
> handheld 406 MHz Personal Locator Beacon (PLB) which can be carried in
> the cockpit while continuing to maintain a fixed 121.5 MHz ELT mounted
> in the aircraft's tail.
>
>
>
> Remember, after February 1, 2009, the world-wide Cospas-Sarsat satellite
> system will no longer process 121.5 MHz alert signals. Pilots involved
> in aircraft accidents in remote areas will have to depend on pilots of
> over flying aircraft and or ground stations to hear emergency ELT
> distress signals. For further information concerning the termination of
> 121.5 MHz data processing visit www.sarsat.noaa.gov
>
>
> _____
>
> [1] The Cospas-Sarsat Organization provides a satellite based world-wide
> monitoring system that detects and locates distress signals transmitted
> by Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs), Emergency Position Indicating
> Radio Beacons (EPIRBs) and Personal Locator Beacons (PLBs). The system
> includes space and ground segments which process the signals received
> from the beacon source and forwards the distress alert data to the
> appropriate RescueCoordinationCenter for action.
>
>
>
> Address SARSAT inquiries to:
>
> NOAA SARSAT
> NSOF. E/SP3
> 4231 SuitlandRoad
> Suitland, MD 20746
> Phone: 301.817.4515
> Toll free: 888.212.7283
> Fax: 301.817.4565
>
> You have received this notice from FAASafety.gov because you have
> selected "General Information" in your preferences on your FAASafety.gov
> account. Click here to log in and edit your preferences on
> FAASafety.gov. <https://www.faasafety.gov/SPANS/preferences.aspx>
>
> Safety is a learned behavior...Learn to be safer at the Learning Center
> found on FAASafety.gov
> <http://www.faasafety.gov/include/lookandfeel/images/email/spacer.gif>
> FAASafety.gov <http://www.faasafety.gov/> | Email Preferences
> <http://www.faasafety.gov/SPANS/preferences.aspx> | Opt Out
> <http://www.faasafety.gov/SPANS/optout.aspx>
> Do not reply to this email as it is an unmonitored alias. Contact us
> <http://www.faasafety.gov/about/contact.aspx> for comments or
> questions.
>
>
>

[Dave S]

The FAA is the messenger here. The FAA is not the operator of the
satellite system.

Typical NoneYa. Spouting uninformed drivel at any opportunity without
regards to the facts at hand.

NoneYa wrote:
> Typical FAA. The FAA probably needs more money for diversity hiring and
> "Kissing the Black Ass" conferences at resort spas in Las Vegas.
>
> Can't allow that 121.5 ELT safety stuff to interfere with that!!
>
>
> RST Engineering wrote:
>
>> Termination of 121.5 MHz Beacons for Satellite Alerting is Coming Soon
>> Notice Number: NOTC0981
>>
>> On 1 February 2009, the International Cospas-Sarsat [1] Organization
>> (U.S. included) will terminate processing of distress signals emitted by
>> 121.5 MHz Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs). This means that pilots
>> flying aircraft equipped with 121.5 MHz ELTs after that date will have
>> to depend on pilots of over flying aircraft and or ground stations
>> monitoring 121.5 to hear and report distress alert signals, transmitted
>> from a possible crash site.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why is this happening?
>>
>>
>>
>> Although lives have been saved by 121.5 MHz ELTs, the downside has been
>> their propensity to generate false alerts (approximately 98 percent of
>> all 121.5 MHz alerts are false), and their failure to provide rescue
>> forces with timely and accurate crash location data. Both of which
>> actually delay rescue efforts and have a direct effect on an
>> individual's chance for survival. Rescue forces have to respond to all
>> 121.5 MHz alerts to determine if they are real distress alerts or if
>> they are being generated by an interferer, an inadvertent activation (by
>> the owner) or equipment failure.
>>
>>
>>
>> Is there an alternative?
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, the Cospas-Sarsat System (U.S. included) has been and will continue
>> processing emergency signals transmitted by 406 MHz ELTs. These 5 Watt
>> digital beacons transmit a much stronger signal, are more accurate,
>> verifiable and traceable to the registered beacon owner (406 MHz ELTs
>> must be registered by the owner in accordance with Federal
>> Communications Commission (FCC) regulation). Registration allows the
>> search and rescue authorities to contact the beacon owner, or his or her
>> designated alternate by telephone to determine if a real emergency
>> exists. Therefore, a simple telephone call often solves a 406 MHz alerts
>> without launching costly and limited search and rescue resources, which
>> would have to be done for a 121.5 MHz alert. For these reasons, the
>> search and rescue community is encouraging aircraft owners to consider
>> retrofit of 406 MHz ELTs or at a minimum, consider the purchase of a
>> handheld 406 MHz Personal Locator Beacon (PLB) which can be carried in
>> the cockpit while continuing to maintain a fixed 121.5 MHz ELT mounted
>> in the aircraft's tail.
>>
>>
>>
>> Remember, after February 1, 2009, the world-wide Cospas-Sarsat satellite
>> system will no longer process 121.5 MHz alert signals. Pilots involved
>> in aircraft accidents in remote areas will have to depend on pilots of
>> over flying aircraft and or ground stations to hear emergency ELT
>> distress signals. For further information concerning the termination of
>> 121.5 MHz data processing visit www.sarsat.noaa.gov
>>
>>
>> _____
>>
>> [1] The Cospas-Sarsat Organization provides a satellite based world-wide
>> monitoring system that detects and locates distress signals transmitted
>> by Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs), Emergency Position Indicating
>> Radio Beacons (EPIRBs) and Personal Locator Beacons (PLBs). The system
>> includes space and ground segments which process the signals received
>> from the beacon source and forwards the distress alert data to the
>> appropriate RescueCoordinationCenter for action.
>>
>>
>>
>> Address SARSAT inquiries to:
>>
>> NOAA SARSAT
>> NSOF. E/SP3
>> 4231 SuitlandRoad
>> Suitland, MD 20746
>> Phone: 301.817.4515
>> Toll free: 888.212.7283
>> Fax: 301.817.4565
>>
>> You have received this notice from FAASafety.gov because you have
>> selected "General Information" in your preferences on your FAASafety.gov
>> account. Click here to log in and edit your preferences on
>> FAASafety.gov. <https://www.faasafety.gov/SPANS/preferences.aspx>
>>
>> Safety is a learned behavior...Learn to be safer at the Learning Center
>> found on FAASafety.gov
>> <http://www.faasafety.gov/include/lookandfeel/images/email/spacer.gif>
>> FAASafety.gov <http://www.faasafety.gov/> | Email Preferences
>> <http://www.faasafety.gov/SPANS/preferences.aspx> | Opt Out
>> <http://www.faasafety.gov/SPANS/optout.aspx>
>> Do not reply to this email as it is an unmonitored alias. Contact us
>> <http://www.faasafety.gov/about/contact.aspx> for comments or
>> questions.
>>
>>
>>

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning RST Engineering > wrote:
> Termination of 121.5 MHz Beacons for Satellite Alerting is Coming Soon
> Notice Number: NOTC0981

We all knew (or should have) this was coming.

Anyone know current prices on the 400 MHz replacements?

The annual is due this month, and assuming no surprises:

Option 1: Replace the ELT now.

Option 2: Upgrade something else and wait until next year and hope
the prices go down.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Peter R.]

On 9/6/2007 6:34:59 PM, wrote:

> Anyone know current prices on the 400 MHz replacements?

I had to replace my ELT about four months ago and at the time the only 400MHz
ELT that I could locate was Artex's model. The price back in May was around
US $1,100 for the unit.

After a phone conversation with an ACK representative and given that I carry
a McMurdo handheld PLB with GPS in the aircraft, I opted to purchase an ACK
E-01 121.5 MHz for US $210 and wait for their 400 MHz unit, which is supposed
to be significantly cheaper than Artex's unit and will drop right into the
same mounting bracket as the E-01.

--
Peter

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

"Peter R." > wrote:

>On 9/6/2007 6:34:59 PM, wrote:
>
>> Anyone know current prices on the 400 MHz replacements?
>
>I had to replace my ELT about four months ago and at the time the only 400MHz
>ELT that I could locate was Artex's model. The price back in May was around
>US $1,100 for the unit.
>
>After a phone conversation with an ACK representative and given that I carry
>a McMurdo handheld PLB with GPS in the aircraft, I opted to purchase an ACK
>E-01 121.5 MHz for US $210 and wait for their 400 MHz unit, which is supposed
>to be significantly cheaper than Artex's unit and will drop right into the
>same mounting bracket as the E-01.
>
>--
>Peter

I also have the McMurdo Fastfind Plus PLB.

Ron Lee

[Ron Natalie]

wrote:
> In rec.aviation.owning RST Engineering > wrote:
>> Termination of 121.5 MHz Beacons for Satellite Alerting is Coming Soon
>> Notice Number: NOTC0981
>
> We all knew (or should have) this was coming.
>
> Anyone know current prices on the 400 MHz replacements?
>
In typical Aviaton style, inordinately expensive. A top of the line
water activated, GPS enabled, marine EPIRB is $1000. The minimum
LEGAL replacement for the old TSOC C91 elts is $1600 or so (there
are some cheaper ones but they lack the G switch). If you want the
NAV reporting feature, it will cost you $3600 and you have to provide
the GPS elsewhere in the plane.

[Denny]

On Sep 7, 6:08 am, Ron Natalie > wrote:
> wrote:
> > In rec.aviation.owning RST Engineering > wrote:
> >> Termination of 121.5 MHz Beacons for Satellite Alerting is Coming Soon
> >> Notice Number: NOTC0981
>
> > We all knew (or should have) this was coming.
>
> > Anyone know current prices on the 400 MHz replacements?
>
> In typical Aviaton style, inordinately expensive. A top of the line
> water activated, GPS enabled, marine EPIRB is $1000. The minimum
> LEGAL replacement for the old TSOC C91 elts is $1600 or so (there
> are some cheaper ones but they lack the G switch). If you want the
> NAV reporting feature, it will cost you $3600 and you have to provide
> the GPS elsewhere in the plane.

The regs do not require replacement of the ELT 121.5 units... Save
your money, install new batteries at the annual, and keep on
trucking...

denny

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Denny wrote:

> The regs do not require replacement of the ELT 121.5 units... Save
> your money, install new batteries at the annual, and keep on
> trucking...
>
> denny

Yet. The NTSB is telling the FAA they should change the regs.

[cjcampbell]

On Sep 7, 5:39 am, Denny > wrote:
> On Sep 7, 6:08 am, Ron Natalie > wrote:

>
> The regs do not require replacement of the ELT 121.5 units... Save
> your money, install new batteries at the annual, and keep on
> trucking...

Why bother with new batteries if the thing won't work and is no longer
required? Just yank it out.

Personally, I am looking forward to a system that actually works.
Whether this one is it or not, time will tell.

[Peter R.]

On 9/7/2007 9:37:43 AM, cjcampbell wrote:

> Why bother with new batteries if the thing won't work and is no longer
> required? Just yank it out.

The 121.5 MHz ELT will still broadcast the emergency tone on that frequency
after the cutoff date and there will still be overflying aircraft monitoring
121.5, no? Granted that odds of being located by ELT after an off-airport
landing just lowered in this case, but removing the unit altogether reduces
those odds to zero.

--
Peter

[Mike Noel]

I got a McMurdo Fastfind Plus PLB about 2 years ago because I was going to
be flying over the same Nevada countryside where SF disappeared. I'll
upgrade to a 406 MHz ELT as suggested by FAA. No need to die while waiting
for someone to hear a 121.5 beacon.

--
Best Regards,
Mike

http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel

A frog in a well does not know the great sea.
"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter R." > wrote:
>
>>On 9/6/2007 6:34:59 PM, wrote:
>>
>>> Anyone know current prices on the 400 MHz replacements?
>>
>>I had to replace my ELT about four months ago and at the time the only
>>400MHz
>>ELT that I could locate was Artex's model. The price back in May was
>>around
>>US $1,100 for the unit.
>>
>>After a phone conversation with an ACK representative and given that I
>>carry
>>a McMurdo handheld PLB with GPS in the aircraft, I opted to purchase an
>>ACK
>>E-01 121.5 MHz for US $210 and wait for their 400 MHz unit, which is
>>supposed
>>to be significantly cheaper than Artex's unit and will drop right into the
>>same mounting bracket as the E-01.
>>
>>--
>>Peter
>
> I also have the McMurdo Fastfind Plus PLB.
>
> Ron Lee

[Stuart & Kathryn Fields]

Not too long ago, a friend of mine had an off airport landing in his
helicopter, better make that a crash. His helicopter was destroyed on a
hill with a direct line of sight to the local airport. He suffered only a
sprain but had to walk out several miles to get cell phone coverage. All
this time the ELT was pinging away. When we got to the crash site several
hours later, we turned the ELT off. No one responded to the ELT signal. It
seems that he had been carrying around a device that is normally ignored due
to its false alarm rate. Since the ELTs are not required on aircraft, just
airplanes, I've removed mine and depend on the cell phone and my legs. I
think that my friends ELT provided just a false sense of security and in his
particular case, nothing else.

--
Stuart & Kathryn Fields, Publishers
Experimental Helo magazine
P. O. Box 1585
Inyokern, CA 93527
(760) 377-4478 ph
(760) 408-9747 publication cell
(760) 608-1299 technical cell
www.experimentalhelo.com
www.vkss.com


"Mike Noel" > wrote in message
...
>I got a McMurdo Fastfind Plus PLB about 2 years ago because I was going to
>be flying over the same Nevada countryside where SF disappeared. I'll
>upgrade to a 406 MHz ELT as suggested by FAA. No need to die while waiting
>for someone to hear a 121.5 beacon.
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Mike
>
> http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel
>
> A frog in a well does not know the great sea.
> "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Peter R." > wrote:
>>
>>>On 9/6/2007 6:34:59 PM, wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anyone know current prices on the 400 MHz replacements?
>>>
>>>I had to replace my ELT about four months ago and at the time the only
>>>400MHz
>>>ELT that I could locate was Artex's model. The price back in May was
>>>around
>>>US $1,100 for the unit.
>>>
>>>After a phone conversation with an ACK representative and given that I
>>>carry
>>>a McMurdo handheld PLB with GPS in the aircraft, I opted to purchase an
>>>ACK
>>>E-01 121.5 MHz for US $210 and wait for their 400 MHz unit, which is
>>>supposed
>>>to be significantly cheaper than Artex's unit and will drop right into
>>>the
>>>same mounting bracket as the E-01.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Peter
>>
>> I also have the McMurdo Fastfind Plus PLB.
>>
>> Ron Lee
>
>

[NoneYa]

Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:
> Not too long ago, a friend of mine had an off airport landing in his
> helicopter, better make that a crash. His helicopter was destroyed on a
> hill with a direct line of sight to the local airport. He suffered only a
> sprain but had to walk out several miles to get cell phone coverage. All
> this time the ELT was pinging away. When we got to the crash site several
> hours later, we turned the ELT off. No one responded to the ELT signal. It
> seems that he had been carrying around a device that is normally ignored due
> to its false alarm rate. Since the ELTs are not required on aircraft, just
> airplanes, I've removed mine and depend on the cell phone and my legs. I
> think that my friends ELT provided just a false sense of security and in his
> particular case, nothing else.
>


FAA Technicians and/or the FCC did respond all the time to
ELT signals. FAA staffing is no longer available because all
of the FAA technicians have been replaced by the new FAA
with big bubble butt black women on civil rights staffs
hanging out on the phone or at the local KFC ****ing off on
your IRS tax dime

That is why FAA ELT response has stopped. FAA priorities
have changed from aviation safety to "Kissing the Black
Ass". The false alarm scenario is bull**** to cover for
their ****ed up priorities and reduced staffing.

[Dan[_2_]]

NoneYa wrote:
> Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:
>> Not too long ago, a friend of mine had an off airport landing in his
>> helicopter, better make that a crash. His helicopter was destroyed on
>> a hill with a direct line of sight to the local airport. He suffered
>> only a sprain but had to walk out several miles to get cell phone
>> coverage. All this time the ELT was pinging away. When we got to the
>> crash site several hours later, we turned the ELT off. No one
>> responded to the ELT signal. It seems that he had been carrying
>> around a device that is normally ignored due to its false alarm rate.
>> Since the ELTs are not required on aircraft, just airplanes, I've
>> removed mine and depend on the cell phone and my legs. I think that
>> my friends ELT provided just a false sense of security and in his
>> particular case, nothing else.
>>
>
>
> FAA Technicians and/or the FCC did respond all the time to ELT signals.
> FAA staffing is no longer available because all of the FAA technicians
> have been replaced by the new FAA with big bubble butt black women on
> civil rights staffs hanging out on the phone or at the local KFC ****ing
> off on your IRS tax dime
>
> That is why FAA ELT response has stopped. FAA priorities have changed
> from aviation safety to "Kissing the Black Ass". The false alarm
> scenario is bull**** to cover for their ****ed up priorities and reduced
> staffing.

How long have you been lusting after large black girls?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

The "old" style, 121.5 units are not necessarily just "a glorified boat
anchor". All of our SAR aircraft still have the VHF trackers installed that
still work very well. The satellites are being switched over to UHF because
the system was completely saturated before. The friend with the helicopter
only needed to wait for enough of the bogus signals to fade or be turned off
before his call could be handled. Sort of like being put on hold when you
call the fire department.

We will still get a call-out based on an overflight (or two or three)
reporting a VHF signal. Just because the Satellites don't hear the signal
doesn't mean that everyone gave up. In parallel with the FAA announcement we
received an admonishment to constantly monitor Guard.


--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas

[David G. Nagel]

Sorry to disapoint you but the FAA does not and never did respond to ELT
signals. The flight service station people do check airports for lost
and missing or overdue aircraft but the search is left to the US Coast
Guard if the elt is wet and the US Air Force/Civil Air Patrol if dry.

Both organizations continue to respond to any and all ELT/EPIRB signals.
This mission will not change with the closure of COSPAS/SARSAT. The 406
mhz signals will provice quicker, more precise position reports that
will result in more rescues and fewer errors.

Dave N

NoneYa wrote:
> Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:
>
>> Not too long ago, a friend of mine had an off airport landing in his
>> helicopter, better make that a crash. His helicopter was destroyed on
>> a hill with a direct line of sight to the local airport. He suffered
>> only a sprain but had to walk out several miles to get cell phone
>> coverage. All this time the ELT was pinging away. When we got to the
>> crash site several hours later, we turned the ELT off. No one
>> responded to the ELT signal. It seems that he had been carrying
>> around a device that is normally ignored due to its false alarm rate.
>> Since the ELTs are not required on aircraft, just airplanes, I've
>> removed mine and depend on the cell phone and my legs. I think that
>> my friends ELT provided just a false sense of security and in his
>> particular case, nothing else.
>>
>
>
> FAA Technicians and/or the FCC did respond all the time to ELT signals.
> FAA staffing is no longer available because all of the FAA technicians
> have been replaced by the new FAA with big bubble butt black women on
> civil rights staffs hanging out on the phone or at the local KFC ****ing
> off on your IRS tax dime
>
> That is why FAA ELT response has stopped. FAA priorities have changed
> from aviation safety to "Kissing the Black Ass". The false alarm
> scenario is bull**** to cover for their ****ed up priorities and reduced
> staffing.

[NoneYa]

Yes they did with mobile DF's if they were pinging around an
airport. I used to see them all the time running around
after AT bitched about them going off. Yes a real crash was
the CAP or Coast Guard but the false alarms were mostly FAA
techs looking for them.


David G. Nagel wrote:
> Sorry to disapoint you but the FAA does not and never did respond to ELT
> signals. The flight service station people do check airports for lost
> and missing or overdue aircraft but the search is left to the US Coast
> Guard if the elt is wet and the US Air Force/Civil Air Patrol if dry.
>
> Both organizations continue to respond to any and all ELT/EPIRB signals.
> This mission will not change with the closure of COSPAS/SARSAT. The 406
> mhz signals will provice quicker, more precise position reports that
> will result in more rescues and fewer errors.
>
> Dave N
>
> NoneYa wrote:
>> Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:
>>
>>> Not too long ago, a friend of mine had an off airport landing in his
>>> helicopter, better make that a crash. His helicopter was destroyed
>>> on a hill with a direct line of sight to the local airport. He
>>> suffered only a sprain but had to walk out several miles to get cell
>>> phone coverage. All this time the ELT was pinging away. When we got
>>> to the crash site several hours later, we turned the ELT off. No one
>>> responded to the ELT signal. It seems that he had been carrying
>>> around a device that is normally ignored due to its false alarm
>>> rate. Since the ELTs are not required on aircraft, just airplanes,
>>> I've removed mine and depend on the cell phone and my legs. I think
>>> that my friends ELT provided just a false sense of security and in
>>> his particular case, nothing else.
>>>
>>
>>
>> FAA Technicians and/or the FCC did respond all the time to ELT
>> signals. FAA staffing is no longer available because all of the FAA
>> technicians have been replaced by the new FAA with big bubble butt
>> black women on civil rights staffs hanging out on the phone or at the
>> local KFC ****ing off on your IRS tax dime
>>
>> That is why FAA ELT response has stopped. FAA priorities have changed
>> from aviation safety to "Kissing the Black Ass". The false alarm
>> scenario is bull**** to cover for their ****ed up priorities and
>> reduced staffing.
>

[Newps]

David G. Nagel wrote:
> Sorry to disapoint you but the FAA does not and never did respond to ELT
> signals.


You don't know what you're talking about. We always have and always
will. If we hear a signal or are told about a signal we start the search.


the search is left to the US Air Force/Civil Air Patrol if dry.


Maybe. In Montana and a few other states we do the search with our own
resources and the Air force is merely a back up.

[Ron Natalie]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Denny wrote:
>
>> The regs do not require replacement of the ELT 121.5 units... Save
>> your money, install new batteries at the annual, and keep on
>> trucking...
>>
>> denny
>
> Yet. The NTSB is telling the FAA they should change the regs.
>
>
The NTSB wants a lot of things. Few of them get implemented.
'

[Denny]

>
> Who said anything about not being required? Just because it's now a
> glorified boat anchor, doesn't mean it's not required.

ohhh yeah, it will now be a criminal offense to remove the ELT now
that is is no longer monitored...
Once US satellits no longer monitor the frequency it will become a
capital punishment offense if your ELT is not working...
They are from the FAA and they are here to serve you.. (reference is
to a long ago TV program, "To Serve Man"
Remember, people always get the government they deserve...

denny

[Vaughn Simon]

"Denny" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>>
>> Who said anything about not being required? Just because it's now a
>> glorified boat anchor, doesn't mean it's not required.
>
> ohhh yeah, it will now be a criminal offense to remove the ELT now
> that is is no longer monitored...

...no longer monitored by satellite, that it.

Actually, ELTs were required (and monitored) for several years before the
satellite network was added. (Started by the Russians if I recall correctly).
Now this just takes some of us back to square one. Even without the satellite
tracking, your ELT is far from useless.

Would you rather that the FAA require you to trash your old ELT and buy a
new one before your next annual?

Vaughn

[Newps]

Vaughn Simon wrote:

>
> Would you rather that the FAA require you to trash your old ELT and buy a
> new one before your next annual?


Before the next annual? No. But there should already be a mandate to
replace 121.5 ELT's with the 406 version. Something like no new 121.5
can be installed, all new ones must be 406's and a date, say 2012 that
all aircraft must have the 406.

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

Newps > wrote:

>Vaughn Simon wrote:
>
>> Would you rather that the FAA require you to trash your old ELT and buy a
>> new one before your next annual?
>
>
>Before the next annual? No. But there should already be a mandate to
>replace 121.5 ELT's with the 406 version. Something like no new 121.5
>can be installed, all new ones must be 406's and a date, say 2012 that
>all aircraft must have the 406.

I can see new aircraft must have them (once there are choices on the
market). Old ones that no longer work would have to be converted to
406 MHz.

I carry a 406 MHz PLB so I have no desire to convert to a 406 MHz PLB
any time in the forseeable future.

Ron Lee

[Blueskies]

"Newps" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>
>>
>> Would you rather that the FAA require you to trash your old ELT and buy a new one before your next annual?
>
>
> Before the next annual? No. But there should already be a mandate to replace 121.5 ELT's with the 406 version.
> Something like no new 121.5 can be installed, all new ones must be 406's and a date, say 2012 that all aircraft must
> have the 406.

So...are you going to buy it for me?

Much more useful would be ADS-B equipment...

[Newps]

Ernest Christley wrote:

>
> And that is the gist of the problem. When the FAA decides and mandates
> that everyone must have product XYZ, the price doubles. Then the rest
> of the world moves on to cheaper technology that performs better, the
> FAA doesn't update the regs and the price doubles again..and
> again....and again.



You're nuts. Transponders, which are essentially required are 15-20% of
the cost of the first ones, which had about 64 possible codes. ELT's
cost less too. $150 gets you one today. Right now only garmin makes
the main part of the ADS-B system and it costs about $6000. In five
years you'll see these easily below $1500.