X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 22:54:53 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from smtp-ext-02.mx.pitdc1.expedient.net ([206.210.69.142] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.8) with ESMTPS id 3195442 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:53:12 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.210.69.142; envelope-from=rpastusek@htii.com Received: from dlhtpax009 (static-71-178-198-10.washdc.fios.verizon.net [71.178.198.10]) by smtp-ext-02.mx.pitdc1.expedient.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E98977C788 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 19:52:37 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Robert Pastusek" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [LML] New ELT X-Original-Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 19:52:30 -0400 Organization: Holmes-Tucker International, Inc. X-Original-Message-ID: <012201c92420$c69385c0$53ba9140$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0123_01C923FF.3F81E5C0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AckkBApqgwwq3bHwRTSDTUxmY9+cBwAF2P+Q Content-Language: en-us This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0123_01C923FF.3F81E5C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jim Scales wrote in part: I have not seen any reference to the new ELT rules that go into effect next year. Evidently, our current equipment will no longer work ( or perhaps even be legal) as of Feb 1, 2009. Jim, The US and other participating countries will turn off COSPAS/SARSAT monitoring of frequencies 121.5 and 243.0 next February. That is the only "real change" that will occur; there are no "new ELT rules" associated with this change-at least for US-registered aircraft. It is being done to try to reduce the number of false emergency alerts they are responding to-at least if you believe the media spin that's been applied. As a practical matter, many ground and airborne systems will still monitor these frequencies, but this does not provide the same level coverage now provided by SARSAT. There are a number of good web sites that discuss this, starting with the NOAA site at www.sarsat.noaa.gov. If you have access, do a Google search on SARSAT and you'll find more information than you can digest. The FAA has not, at least yet, required any US-registered aircraft to change ELT's as a result of this loss of monitoring (while flying in US airspace), but has encouraged aircraft owners to upgrade to 406 MHz beacons through media and public presentations. There is a "common sense" issue here: A 406 MHz ELT will provide an increased likelihood that you'll be positively identified if you go down, a more accurate position location of where you are, and an increased likelihood that the ELT itself will work when needed-because of better design and reliability of the newer equipment. Bottom line: You don't have to do/change anything if you're only flying in the US, BUT you'd be prudent to upgrade if you can afford it. ARTEX sells some very nice 406 units. I've installed their Artex ME406 unit in my new IV-P. This unit does not have GPS position reporting, but they have (more costly) units that do. For me, the ME406 was the right cost/effectiveness trade off. Others will disagree-on both sides. Bob ------=_NextPart_000_0123_01C923FF.3F81E5C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Jim Scales wrote in part:  I have not seen = any reference to the new ELT rules that go into effect next = year.

 

Evidently, our current equipment will no longer work ( or = perhaps even be legal) as of Feb 1, 2009.

 

Jim,

 

The US and other participating countries will turn off = COSPAS/SARSAT monitoring of frequencies 121.5 and 243.0 next February. That is the = only “real change” that will occur; there are no “new ELT rules” associated with this change—at least for US-registered aircraft. = It is being done to try to reduce the number of false emergency alerts they = are responding to—at least if you believe the media spin that’s = been applied. As a practical matter, many ground and airborne systems will = still monitor these frequencies, but this does not provide the same level = coverage now provided by SARSAT. There are a number of good web sites that = discuss this, starting with the NOAA site at  www.sarsat.noaa.gov. If you have access, do a Google search on SARSAT and you’ll find = more information than you can digest.

 

The FAA has not, at least yet, required any US-registered aircraft to change ELT’s as a result of this loss of monitoring = (while flying in US airspace), but has encouraged aircraft owners to upgrade to = 406 MHz beacons through media and public presentations. There is a = “common sense” issue here: A 406 MHz ELT will provide an increased = likelihood that you’ll be positively identified if you go down, a more accurate = position location of where you are, and an increased likelihood that the ELT = itself will work when needed—because of better design and reliability of the = newer equipment.

 

Bottom line: You don’t have to do/change anything = if you’re only flying in the US, BUT you’d be prudent to upgrade if you can = afford it. ARTEX sells some very nice 406 units. I’ve installed their = Artex ME406 unit in my new IV-P. This unit does not have GPS position = reporting, but they have (more costly) units that do. For me, the ME406 was the right cost/effectiveness trade off. Others will disagree—on both = sides.

 

Bob

------=_NextPart_000_0123_01C923FF.3F81E5C0--