In article ,
G.R. Patterson III wrote:


"R. Hubbell" wrote:

Interesting how ineffective ELTs are, the FAA should be reminded of this
often. It sounds really broken.

I disagree. They're relatively cheap, as aviation items go, and they work often
enough to be worth the trouble. Keep reminding the FAA, and soon we'll have
mandatory flight plans and flight following.

The thing is ELTs don't work often enough. They don't work period.

In 15 years of CAP SAR missions, I was never on a search were an
ELT signal led to an actual crash site.

I wasn't on all these searches, but trust the people that were.
The false alarm 121.5 signals led to:

- a plane on the ramp (many of these, including 3 on one search at SJC)
- a boat at the dock (EPIRBs use 121.5 as well)
- an ELT in a dumpster (Moffett)
- a life raft on a 747 (SFO)
- many UPS trucks (take the batteries out before shipment)
- an FAA transmitter at SFO
- the wreckage of a crashed aircraft that had been removed from the
crash site (ELT did not go off in the initial crash)
- an EPIRB with batteries that had expired 15 years previously
- a fax machine
- a pizza oven
- a helicopter on the back of a truck

EPIRBs work well for boats, since weight isn't an issue, and boats
don't contact cumulogranite at 100+ knots. Making an ELT that
would work better in planes would make it weight too much,
unfortunately. The current ELTs have very little value. They are
most likely to fail when you need them most, and work when you
don't want them too.

My last few years in CAP, I didn't even bother volunteering for
ELT only searches, since they are just a waste of time. Unless
there is an ALNOT (Alert Notice), it is pretty much guaranteed to
be a false alarm.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.panix.com/~jac